New SATs test on times tables

[BatmanLovesBaubles]

TES link

First three paragraphs:

All children will be tested on their times tables as part of their KS2 Sats, under new plans unveiled by education secretary Nicky Morgan this morning.

The tests will examine multiplication skills in every 11-year-old as part of ministers' "war on innumeracy and illiteracy", the Department for Education said.

Pupils will expected to know all tables up to 12x12, with the skill measured using an "on-screen check" examination to be piloted by 3,000 students in 80 schools this summer before being rolled out across English primaries in 2017.

I am so cross about this.

1. Why remove the Mental Maths test (which did test times tables)
2. More timed tests are NOT what we should be doing at primary where many children already feel under pressure
3. Maths is an area where children often panic and their minds become blank - this is really not going to help
4. What happened to Nicky Morgan's promise that nothing new would be introduced?

I am so, so angry right now

(It's the old confusion between 'does not reach the expected level' (which btw used to be an 'average' level, so would have been met by only 50% by definition) and 'cannot do something at all'. Say a piano student passes Grade 6 but does not pass Grade 7. Are they 'unable to play the piano'? No, they just didn't pass Grade 7, but instead play at a Grade 6 standard.

It is the same with end of primary school tests. 'Did not reach Level 4' does not mean 'innumerate'. Statistically, it usually means 'works within level 3'... which was the expected level for Year 4. Is a Year 4 child working at the expected level really 'innumerate'? They can add,. divide, multiply, subtract, are expected to know all their tables, tell the time etc etc)

I'm not sure what your agenda is Bolognese but you seem to making it up as you go along.
Children are expected to know times tables by Year 4 so it makes sense to test then rather than add an extra test in Year 6.
There are plenty of MN posts from parents asking if they can withdraw their child from the tests or saying they plan to keep their child off school for the tests! Even parents who talk about homeschooling for the final year to avoid tests. So I'm not sure they will welcome yet another test.

Ha ha, that Jonny from ReallyTired's example is my DS! He is really good at times tables (knows them already up to 12 since he was in Y1), but the teacher has found he was struggling with telling the time. She mentioned it to me so that I could help him at home with some extra practice/games.

But in response to Greenleave's comment, I think it depends on the school and their interpretation on how to implement the curriculum. With DS he has access to higher content in Maths on the areas where he is far ahead compared to his peers, but the other areas where he is not ahead, he works together with his peer group in Y2 learning and practising the same content.

Elle: your school is better than ours in that aspect(the only one I am crying for-now decided to do it myself and yes, I can teach my child which shouldnt be the case as I was hoping learning time is school time and home is having fun stead

Sorry, late to this thread, but this just isn't correct
"At a national level, 6% of children achieved Level 3 or below in reading, writing or maths. It's not broken down into how many of those got less than Level 3, or by subject, but will be much less than 6%."

For many years the precentage of children not achieving L4 in Reading/English at the end of KS2 hovered around 20%.

I worked with children in KS3 who had L3 English, or below, and I'm afraid that not one of them could have read a tabloid newspaper.

Which isn't very relevant to the topic, I know, but I somehow couldn't let it go.

Maizie, do you want to look at

this.

First column: % Children attaining Level 3 or below (reading, writing and maths): All schools, 6%. This is stable from the year below.

I agree that it looks very odd compared with Level 4 or above being 80%, as surely you can either be level 3 or below, or Level 4 or above.... but I read it directly from the table.

Bear in mind this is for ALL subjects, not just Maths - I read it as '% achieving all 3' but again, it might simply be that the data presentation is unclear. Apologies if I misread it.

"Late one night, Kofi and Yaw were returning home from a walk
in the great Ashanti Forest. All of a sudden Yaw stopped. The light
from his lantern had fallen on an amazing sight, glowing like
moonbeams against the midnight sky.
“Come look, my friend,” Yaw whispered to Kofi. “I see a small
miracle.”
The small miracle was actually a web. But never before had
either of them seen such a wondrous design! Yet it had been
woven with a single unbroken thread _ a thread that was even
finer than a strand of human hair."

is a sample from a level 3 paper, slightly above The Daily Sport in terms of content!
There is no disputing that level 3 is a low level of attainment in year 6 but it is not illiterate.

Nawww - I love that story!

Literacy in year 6 is not the ablity to read text, but actually comprehend it. Skills like inference are tested. A child might be able to read text, but if they cannot answer questions on the text then are they really reading?

Words like illeraterate are very emotive. It gives the image of someone signing their name with a cross or not being able to read the gas bill. For the purposes of passing SATs literacy means having the necesary skills to cope with secondary eduation. If a child cannot infer the meaning of new words from text then they cannot read to learn.

Giving samples of text without the questions is a bit irreverant. My six year old could easily read that text and answer simple questions. However she might struggle if she was asked a complex question on simple text.

The 6% refers to children who didn't get level 4 in any subject doesn't it? If you were level 3 in maths but 4 in reading and writing you wouldn't be counted in the 6%.

The 20% sounds about right for the figure that was being quoted last year around the time the arithmetic test was being announced. Nicky Morgan/the headlines had it as the % of children leaving school illiterate and innumerate, but I think it's actually the number that achieved level 4 in all 3 subjects. It would include DN1 who at level 6 in maths was a long way off being innumerate and has known her tables since reception and probably a number of children working at level 5 in at least 1 subject.

Literacy in year 6 is not the ablity to read text, but actually comprehend it. Skills like inference are tested. A child might be able to read text, but if they cannot answer questions on the text then are they really reading?

The level 3 paper quoted had plenty of questions, including inference. It was fairly complex.

Nicky Morgan has got herself into a lot of hot water by misquoting these statistics:

www.statslife.org.uk/news/1992-nicky-morgan-reprimanded-by-uksa-after-repeating-incorrect-statistic-in-parliament

If a child reaches an ability of level three at school, this means they can ‘read a range of texts fluently and accurately’, write in a way which is ‘often organised, imaginative and clear’, and they can ‘add and subtract numbers with two digits mentally and numbers with three digits using written methods.’ Dilnot’s letter then continues to counter Morgan’s ‘one in three’ claim by stating:

‘National statistics on school performance show that, in tests taken in May 2010, 91% of pupils were assessed as reaching level three or above at key stage 2 in reading, 93% in writing, and 93% in mathematics.’

National Curriculum reading tests (SATs) for both key stages re essentially comprehension tests.

Also remember national data includes special schools where many children are unable to access the tests.

She tried to say that one in three children under Labour left school illiterate and innumerate - this wasn't the case and she was reprimanded and the record changed, afair.

None of my Y7s would have been able to read that story with enough a degree of accuracy to be able to comprehend it. In fact, with their advanced guessing skills it would probably have completely deviated from the original by the time they'd finished!

Thanks for the explanation of the 6%,tw2k. I think it is just plain weaselly! Gives a false impression of children's attainment

"We will introduce compulsory resit tests in December 2017 in English reading and maths for year 7 pupils who do not reach the required standard at the end of key stage 2. Sample tests will be available in December 2016 to help schools prepare. Schools may use these sample tests with their pupils if they wish."