SATs Boycott

[squeezedatbothends]

Seen another member being pretty much savaged tonight for suggesting she wants to boycott the SATs for her child. Thing is, so do I and I'm a teacher. So at the risk of being savaged -are there any other parents out there who want to do the same?

On another note, middle child didn't do SATs - was in the year of the teacher boycott. Made no difference to him at all.

...that you could tell. It definitely made a difference to that year group, their FFT targets were all over the place. People would look at their targets and go 'wtf?!' and someone would say 'oh yeah, that's the year that boycotted the SATs'. I had kids in my top set who were targeted a C who got As and A*s. The randomness of those targets (too low for the bright, and too high for the weak IME) will have affected those kids. I'm not saying that SATs produce totally accurate targets, they don't, but they are usually slightly more reasonable.

I wouldn't boycott simply because my (admittedly limited) experience of 10-11 year olds tells me the last thing they want to be is an outsider. Every child has things that make them different of course, but fitting in with peers looms large at that age. Not taking part in a major experience all or most of their peers do that year would have been a massive issue I think.

Taking a test is an important skill to master. Resilience to pressure is important, too. A lot of the hysteria I witnessed was parent-generated. The endless practising for the tests is terrible of course, but I have no idea what could be done about that short of home- educating in year 6.

Teacherwith2kids - yes I know, but in Scotland it's quite different. That said, lots of secondaries cross reference the two and use that in their conversations with inspectors - we've had some discrepancies and the second set of data has helped us with setting out our context. I've worked across primary and secondary and currently in an all through so it's interesting to see both sides. I think a national boycott would definitely be the way - I'm talking with both main teachers unions about this at the moment.

Invineoneohone - I've discussed this with the youngest. He's fairly ambivalent - he doesn't mind doing the tests, but also sees the problem with them. We have lots of discussions about politics and the world in our household so he's pretty well versed, like his brothers, in government policy. His last word on the matter was "I suppose sometimes you have to make a stand." But like I say, we have two years to properly investigate it. I know he's already been given SATs practice papers in Year 4 and that they've come at the expense of PE, Music and Art, so already he's aggrieved that some of his favourite subjects at school are being undermined.

Noblegiraffe - I think that's more a reflection on the problem with point to point target setting rather than formative, ongoing target setting based on current progress which is much more helpful. FFT data is hopelessly flawed anyway. It's exactly this dependence on linear data tracking that makes me want to boycott the SATs. Middle child, having no SATs data was assessed on each subject based on his capability in that subjects and that's how his targets were set. It meant they were constantly adjusted and accurate and he pretty much got what he wanted at GCSE. Not doing SATs had no impact on his achievements - it may well have disrupted a flawed data tracking system though.

I don't understand if parents think the curriculum is narrow, why not just push for the govement to make sure certain hours education have to be meet in the school for PE, music and Arts and whatever they think is important. It parents think the test restrict children's creative, then try to push for the test to be more adapt to this.

I think SATs is an important tool for monitoring school's acedemic achivement, it is important for majority children to get the basic education foundation they needed. To be honest, I think in this country, some parents are able to get involved in their children's education, they find it is easy to make sure their children to get decent education. Then they don't think about the massive less able parents. What do they do if there isn't a tool to measure what their children have learned at the school?

Just think about my DS1's primary school, without the SATs test, who would know it is failing, everyone was having a happy time. Some children did very well as they did extra after school under parent's help. But for lots of his classmates whose parent hasn't done this, they didn't even achive the required standard for basic math and English which is vital for them. Without SATs, the school would be like this for years. But luckily, there is a monitor , it is caught, and only a few year's children sufferred.

Autumnsky - I don't think anyone would dispute the need for end point data at each stage of education. The principle is fine. The method is flawed because it has become something that serves the needs of a system and not the needs of children and because it's too much attached to accountability and not educational aims. In particular the new tests are flawed both in purpose and content. When your pay and contracts depend on children getting through tests, you'll do anything to get them through a test regardless of what else falls by the wayside. This is why we're starting to see some Academies refusing to admit some SEN children in case they skew the data. I would very much support an end point system based on portfolio work (across the whole curriculum, not just literacy and numeracy) and some short multiple choice based knowledge checks which could be administered and marked on line. There's a lot of evidence to suggest that MC questions can be intelligently designed to check the understanding of key concepts. This would be a more reliable way of seeing what a child has achieved at primary level and would reduce the culture of teaching to the test. But we don't have this system currently. We have a narrow testing culture, linked to high stakes accountability which means that teaching to the test happens. Research from cognitive science shows that children who learn knowledge for a summative test, tend not to be able to apply that knowledge to proximal contexts - i.e. contexts outside of the test, so that begs the question "what is the point of the test"?

That's my point, if people think the test is not well designed , then try to help to improve the test. The trouble with simply boycott the test may end in no test at all.

Autumny - there are lots of people doing that and hopefully one day someone will listen. But it won't be in time for my child. I think each parent has the individual right to make up their own minds - I certainly wouldn't want to be pushing others to follow my lead any more than I think others have the right to try to change my decision. It's a personal choice. But I agree that concerted pressure to change the system is necessary too. I've had a couple of private messages from parents who already did this who didn't want to be outed. It seems it was quite straightforward. They asked the school not to test their children and agreed to keep them off on the test days so that no-one would be having to supervise them, and it was fine. Hopefully my child's school will be as reasonable.

Squeezed,

You will need to check the dates when parents who have previously done this did it - if that makes sense. The arrangements for children absent on the day of the test are different from what they were even a couple of years ago.

Basically, the tests can (and must) be administered up to 5 days late, on a pupil's return to school, after an application for timetable variation that can be approved within an hour. So you would need to remove your child from school for the whole of the testing week + the following week.

Teacherwith2kids. It was this year, but I think the school, though not happy, accepted the parent's decision and decided that it would be both wrong and detrimental to the children to force them to sit a test that they knew their parents had expressly requested they didn't sit. Personally, I'd probably cover all bases and take them out for a couple of weeks, but it would be a very inhumane head who forced tests on children to place them in opposition with their own parents.