Head teacher bans SATs

[Feenie]

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/news/education/headteacher-bans-ridiculous-sats-tests-1-8550659

Good for her. They'll sack her, of course, but she's retiring anyway,I believe. What a way to go - at least she's protected one cohort of Y6s.

Unfortunately governments don't listen to teachers. Sometimes the only way to make a point is to take a stand. What detrimental effects will it have on those pupils not sitting their SATS? None. Lots of secondary schools don't even trust the SATS as good indicators of progress or ability, knowing the kids are just drilled to the inaccessible tests, so they immediately set their own tests in yr 7.

It doesn't really matter whether secondary schools trust the SATs or not. The DfE does and uses them to set GCSE targets for secondary schools.

It's a good school, according to Ofsted, with a very complex intake. According to the 2014 report, children's results were above national. She seems adamant that these assessments aren't right for her children. And with a national 53% pass rate, many would agree.

Originally it was said that the kids wouldn't really know they were doing a special test, wasn't it? It has just dawned on me that if the tests are for assessing the school then there is no need for the pupils to ever know their individual marks. That would take the pressure off a bit.

Although people keep saying the tests are for assessing the school that's only a byproduct. The tests are used by the DfE to set individual pupil targets for GCSEs .

I think people saying that there was no stress around the actual tests are missing the point a bit. The problem is that schools are measured on the results so the whole learning all the time is geared around the SATS. If you feel they are testing the right things this is great, but if you feel they minimise things your find important (art, drama, music etc) then they are a bit of a disaster. English and Maths are very important but other things are important too. When budgets are squeezed etc it's these add ons that vanish. I think it's really sad education is all about data and the SATS even if the school manages the test in a low key way.

"The problem is that schools are measured on the results so the whole learning all the time is geared around the SATS" actually I'm saying that isn't the case in many schools. Yes some schools are exam factories but you shouldn't judge all schools as the same.

I think it does matter that secondary schools don't trust the tests and primary schools hate them and don't think they are fit for purpose. Fwiw my dc are not at all stressed by SATs (ds yr 4 is jealous that yr6 get to do them ) and the school is very low-key with the kids about them. That doesn't mean they are good tests. Many people would also say that setting GCSE targets based on tests taken in yr6 is not actually a good thing to do. I'd agree.

All this boycotting crap. What are we teaching our children?

To stand up for what we believe is right?

Does it matter that secondary schools trust primary teacher assessment less? Does it matter that Junior schools mistrust infant school teacher assessment? Does it matter that parents demand teacher accountability and measures?

The "pressure" seems to be from the teachers themselves who are the one stressing out the kids.

We ALL sat the 11+ when I was at school - I remember no pressure despite them being far more important that today's SATs - i.e. your secondary school was determined by your 11+. The teachers taught the stuff you needed to know as part of normal lessons, typical questions were worked through in the classroom beforehand, etc. I don't actually think we knew what it was when we sat it - I certainly don't have any strong memories of the day one way or another, I don't recall any stress or anxiety any more than any other test we did. Just a normal day at school.

I see the contrast in different teaching styles today with my son at secondary school. "Some" teachers really stress him out when tests approach - they hand out loads of homework, worksheets, revision papers, etc in some kind of emergency last minute scenario to cover what they didn't teach in lessons - a lot of his "revision" for these teachers is learning stuff that's not actually been taught - I don't call that "revision" at all!!! Other teachers barely mention it, but those are the ones who've been consistent over the term in giving regular homeworks, regular short progress tests, etc., so their "revision" is a lot quicker and simpler and is what I'd call "proper" revision, i.e. recap the work you've done and what you've already learned.

It's a shit system. My dcs primary school is a good one without them taking SATs and I think it would be a better one - certainly for my children's education - if they didn't have to divert a proportion of the year to taking a meaningless test - that's both in year 2 and year 6 where my dcs are this year.

They are not assessed in the same way ever again - they're taught to a test so their KS2 data is artificially high and they spend the next few years at secondary catching up to that taught-to-test level and bizarrely their GSCE government given targets are based on it!

I wish more Heads would say screw the league tables and not live in fear of Ofsted.

mrz

Does it matter that secondary schools trust primary teacher assessment less?

It's not a case of trust. GCSEs measure different skills. Secondary teachers look for different more analytical skills.

I really get confused that so many people(assume not teachers) say sats doesn't matter to secondary, yet you see threads about problems with sats related setting in secondary board.

I asked in one of the secondary thread and non of secondary teachers said sats doesn't matter.

So what is the truth?

AFAIK the truth is that some secondaries prefer to use their own tests for setting and some rely on SATs.

I am not planning to 'do' anything extra when DD does SATS next year. She can just do whatever homework she has, and if she has tests at school so be it.

In any case, surely there will be exams every year at secondary school?

How many parents chose their child's school based on league tables and Ofsted yet hate SATs?

Children's GCSE targets and Progress 8 (how a school is adjudged) are measured off KS2 results. Schools might set their own tests for setting purpose and because they don't trust the SATs but ultimately this is how the school is judged and the minimum standard your child is expected to attain.

The problem is obviously primary schools want to do well - their own league table standing/Ofsted rating depends on SATs as they have to show progress over time too. So students are drilled to the test - at KS1 they have to be because the material/what's demanded in skill is more challenging than where most students are developmentally for their age.

So for instance my dc1 got top 5s in English and the grammar test and 6 in Maths at KS2 which primary were pleased with and reflects their good teaching and drilling but as a result his targets in every single subject at GCSE are whackingky high whether he has a natural affinity with that subject or not. In fact his minimum to attain is an 8./A. So he never has, nor never will, for instance get a grade 8/A in Art, Dance, D&T, English etcetera but he will be off target all his school career despite working hard which is pretty dispiriting for him. It would have served him and his secondary school better if he'd bombed at KS2.

I chose my dcs nearest primary school based on visiting the school. My criteria was happy children, interesting looking lessons, good resources & lots of open space to play. The school across town has a better Ofsted rating but didn't offer all of those things.

Lots of people choose their child's school based on Ofsted and league tables because that is the only information readily available and because lots of parents haven't necessarily considered whether the infurmation is reliable or whether Ofsted ratings are actually based on things they consider important. Most teachers I know would take that information with a pinch of salt when choosing schools for their own dc (and probably when choosing where to work too). Some teachers will deliberately avoid an 'outstanding' school because of what that implies about the school's priorities.

I chose my dc's primary school because it was in the village we moved to and I liked it when I looked around. I chose dd's secondary school because it is by far our nearest and because dh works there! I'd always look at the Ofsted rating too, but wouldn't really trust it. One of the schools I worked at had recently been rated outstanding and it was an awful place. Appalling staff morale, very high staff turnover, unpleasant atmosphere, stressed-out, uninspired kids.

In my experience of working in a couple of primary schools (though not in KS2) there was always a huge problem in recruiting and retaining year 6 teachers because its such a miserable year. No one enjoys spending September-May stressing children out cramming for a test. Then there's no point teaching anything in the last term so the kids forget half of it by the following September, yet their target grades for French and Drama GCSEs are based on the unrealistic English and maths scores you managed to push them to in their SATs.

The whole thing is a mess, and year 6 is a totally wasted year IMO.

I'm fairly neutral about SATs but I am concerned about this recent belief that tests and examinations - a normal part of childhood and adolescence - are driving children to the edge.

I would put that down to the fact that we actually give a shot about children's mental health now.

This particular set of tests has only been in existence for two years - that's not a normal part of childhood.

There's quite a lot of snake oil about, though, which is making money out of our supposedly traumatised children.

"there was always a huge problem in recruiting and retaining year 6 teachers because its such a miserable year" we must be odd because there's always a competition over who will teach Y6 among the KS2 staff.