Corbyn pledges to abolish KS1 and 2 SATs

[noblegiraffe]

If Labour get elected, Corbyn says that he will abolish primary school SATs.

“Instead, Labour would introduce alternative assessments which would be based on "the clear principle of understanding the learning needs of every child."”

I’m sure some on here would think that this is a great idea, but to me it sounds like a poorly thought-out headline grabber that will cause more problems than it solves. What then for school accountability at primary and secondary? What on earth does he mean by ‘alternative assessments’ (sounds like a ‘we’ll fill in the details of that later’ policy that will be a total bodge job).

Wales went down this route and their educational standards have gone in totally the wrong direction.

I’m sure that they should be less high stakes and not allowed to distort the Y6 curriculum the way they do (tales of breakfast and Easter revision sessions for 11 year olds are horrifying) but am unconvinced that ditching them is a positive move for education.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-47950985

Like Norestformrz, I don't quite get the 'do less planning - spend more time teaching struggling children'.

I teach from 8.45 - 3.10 pm 4 days a week, and 8.45 - 12.20 on the remaining day. I have, in school time while students are in the building, exactly 1 hour 50 minutes of planning, assessment and preparation time. i do the rest outwith school hours - preparation generally before 8.45, assessment / marking generally in breaks and lunchtimes (when the children also have their break, though of course i am on duty fior some of that time in the playground), and in the time immediately after school if I have no club / other meeting, and planning generally at home / at the weekend. The 1 hour 50 minutes in school is generally taken up in collaborative work with other staff - year group, SENCo, SMT etc

So if I do less planning, I might have slightly less time working at home, but I certainly don't gain any time in school hours to work with children. And if your proposal is that I lose any non-contact time in school and spend that time working with struggling students once a week, then where does all the working with other staff go?

Of course, I work with students of all abilities during lessons - but that isn't changed by having 'standardised planning' or 'a textbook' - the lesson still needs to be taught and the students engaged and supported. I also work with children needing additional support in all kinds of little packets of time - assembly, start of lunch, while someone else takes the register once a week, even break time (though that's awful for the children so i try to avoid it). I fail to see how having very slightly less planning magically creates more in-school contact time?

One of the inconsistencies made very visible in e.g. the 'Shanghai maths' initiative is around teacher's workload and the role of the school. One of the 'elephants in the room' in its implementation is that we are being asked to replicate the RESULTS of a system where the PROCESS is entirely different: where Maths teachers teach in the morning, have no timetabled lessons in the afternoon so prepare and work with students who didn't quite get the lesson, and the vast majority of students then go to a coach / tutor after school hours so they are ready for the lesson the following morning.....

I was at the NEU conference in Liverpool. I took part in the debate over boycotting the SATs next year and heard Jeremy Corbyn's speech. I feel like I have been protesting against Primary Assessment for years and know how this does lead to emotive feelings.

I found it difficult listening to some of the rhetoric especially when year 2 and 6 teachers are being called child abusers, and I don't believe we should be getting rid of all testing. The tests in year 2 are used as evidence to support my teacher judgements in reading and maths and writing is completely teacher assessment.

There is much that is wrong but could be changed and improved rather than thrown away. I agree with a lot of the statements for writing just not that a child should have to have regular evidence of all of them consistently to get working within. Sometimes they forget punctuation or their spelling goes to pot and this shouldn't downgrade a child.

Anyway it will be interesting to see what happens but I hope for positive long term change not a short term protest.

The whole of the spring term is dedicated to SATs revision
Isn't this called learning? So if you scrap SATs what will the pupils be doing during spring term, colouring in? Maybe I mix with the wrong parents but rigorous end of primary school tests are desirable to check what your DC has learnt over the past 7 years.

On the plus side, if we scrapped them, we could pretend all our children have learnt loads and are very clever.

What I dont understand is, if SATs have so much content to learn why do schools leave it to the last minute and then cram for them. Why not teach them everything earlier at a more leisurely pace, maybe even start in Y5 and then there isn't the last minute panic?

I know a lot of parents will be unhappy if Corbyn just scraps exams and thus league tables. We want to know how well schools are doing, does he think we will just believe him if he inevitably declares all schools are now high achieving?

"Isn't this called learning?" No it's called wasting time
"So if you scrap SATs what will the pupils be doing during spring term, " Learning
"Maybe I mix with the wrong parents but rigorous end of primary school tests are desirable to check what your DC has learnt over the past 7 years. " Don't you think that's a bit late to find that they haven't what they should or perhaps they should have tests at the end of each year. Teachers are assessing continually (including using tests) so Y6 shouldn't be any different to any other.
Personally I think we should keep the tests and use them to help the child's learning instead of creating league tables and nonsensical data.
"What I dont understand is, if SATs have so much content to learn why do schools leave it to the last minute and then cram for them." That's the point they've covered the content over the previous 6 years so shouldn't need to spend time cramming instead they should be continuing to learn new content. A small amount of time becoming familiar with structure of the tests is sensible but some schools spend from September until May just sitting previous test after previous test (I've even heard f schools that start this in Y5)

Hmmm teaching union a fan of dropping external tests - I assume accountants would be in favour of dropping accounting regulations and lawyers, doctors etc would also like external checks removed.

I love teachers, value teaching, not a fan of tests BUT I do think there are broader questions of how teacher performance is objectively checked that would need a better replacement than 'yaaaay let's remove SATS', it feels like it's yet more pandering from Corbyn to win votes and that it's not been thought out at all about how we can check teacher's professional performance otherwise, or get a clear picture of how our children are doing at various stages on key measures as parents.

Personally I think we should keep the tests and use them to help the child's learning instead of creating league tables

Absolutely this. It is NOT the tests themselves, but the uses that the aggregated data is put to, that cause the issue.

Yes I agree as I find the maths reasoning paper gives me information about areas we need to review and also the reading comp has given me types of questions they find difficult eg find and copy the word which means the same as. There are other examples as well which is why I know testing is important, assessment is what we do all day every day but it is used to inform teaching and learning not just provide data.

As a parent would you prefer a standardised score or detailed information about what your child enjoys, is good at or needs more support with? Tests can provide both but the one that provides data is valued more by those on high.

I would like tests and assessments that give me as much information about the child so I know where they need to go next.

It will be interesting to see what happens next.

@cantkeepaway - could there be an after school club for students who need more help? They might not need to attend every session, but maybe if there was a timetable of topics, they could attend the relevant ones? I guess sometimes the kids who need it most are perhaps less likely to attend an after school club... but at least they would have an option.

Trans ideology is being taught to our children at school.

That is, IMO, is much more of a pressing issue that SATs.

Namenic,

I don't, as it happens, have a particular problem with the amount of time I have to assist struggling children - especially since at the moment I have the freedom to plan and deliver lessons that address what they might be struggling with in the first place - and can, for example, flex the timetable if one day the maths is really tricky and ion another day it is straightforward for all.

I would also say that it is the struggling children who work hardest in school every day - when every piece of work is a real challenge and requires absolute maximum effort to access and complete, a day at school is hard. lengthening that day is not necessarily useful.

it was the proposal from another poster that centrally-mandated timetable and curricula, and standardised, recycled planning would magically give me MORE time to spend with those struggling children that I was challenging....

@cantkeepaway - Do you think the kids who don’t meet the expected standard would benefit from lessons in summer or repeating a year at school?

I know socially it can be hard and I can understand why kids might not want to leave their current year group. But won’t they just fall further behind at secondary school?

A blog from Wales (who scrapped SATs and replaced them with teacher assessment) about how this has turned out to be a terrible idea. Pressure on teachers to get better results has inevitably resulted in better results - because its the same teachers doing the assessment.

“Now there are secondary schools who have achieved 90% Level 5 in Year 9 and, with the same pupils, only 60% at GCSE.”

mylitcoblog.wordpress.com/2016/02/09/welsh-lessons/

What I don’t quite understand is that Corbyn announced this policy to cheers at the NEU conference, the newspapers are all going with ‘SATs policy hated by teachers to be abolished by Labour’ and yet there doesn’t seem to be much support on this thread for it. Where are all the jubilant teachers delighted at the prospect of getting rid?

The NEU are apparently balloting for a boycott as well.

I wonder how many of the teachers in favour of abolishing SATs are primary teachers and how many of those who are not are secondary teachers.

Namenic,

What your post suggests is that all children can reach a designated 'expected standard' at some point, if they repeat the same work enough or work just that bit harder. I think you are ignoring the HUGE range of ability present in children in mainstream schooling today.

You have also ignored the fact that SATs do not have a fixed 'expected standard'. Instead they effectively have a percentage who are allowed to 'pass', and an expected standard - in terms of marks - that is set in order to achieve this percentage. That means that there is a - percentage wise large - group of children who CANNOT reach the expected standard, because the 'pass' mark will always be set above their mark, just to achieve the way the Government has mandated that the tests must work.

That aside, your premise ignores the fact that there are children who CAN'T meet the pass mark, however hard they work, however many summer holiday clubs they attend. My pupil working on the Early Years curriculum in upper key stage 2 - should they still be in pre-school (ie should they repeat the year they did age 3-4 five or six times - in fact should they repeat that year for the remainder of their schooling, becoming the 16 year old in pre-school)? Should those children assessed against the pre-KS2 standards at the end of KS2 have been retained in KS1 - currently for children up to 7 - until the age of 11? 12? 13?

Do those countries with a system of 'passing the year to move up' have 16 year olds in reception? Does every child 'achieve the level required to pass each year' eventually? Or do they eventually move up with a roughly age-related cohort without reaching the expected level?

I am, by the way, a primary teacher. I think SATs should be retained as tests for children, and their results reported to parents and to their future schools, and available internally to suitable agencies (Ofsted, the DfE) as one way of reviewing school and cohort performance, but it should be illegal to collate school-wide data to create league tables. I also think they should be criteria-referenced so that what they show is performance against a specific standard - ie whether a child can or cannot do specific things and has met a fixed 'expected standard' - rather than norm-referenced with a specific percentage who must fail, which therefore is only meaningful as showing the child's performance against others, not showing what they can and connot do.

only meaningful as showing the child's performance against others,

But this data (child's performance compared to others) is crucial in terms of flagging up whether a child has SEN or not. So it follows, parents of children with SEN, need to have this type information in order to inform them of how well their particular child's additional needs are being met. Without this data SEN becomes meaningless, variable from class to class, school to school and postcode to postcode.

Because the government's 'expected standard' might not be realistic in terms of what children are achieving in a real life context.

@cantkeepaway - thanks. Did not know it was norm referenced. Why would they do this? I can understand a levels being norm referenced - for competitive entry into job/uni. But isn’t primary about getting certain criteria of knowledge and skills to build on at secondary?

I guess if kids don’t make the ‘expected standard’ after 2 years, maybe they should not be pushed into gcses? Maybe they should go to a school for people who need more time to cover basic literacy and numeracy? If they go to secondary school won’t the gap just get wider (maybe secondary teachers don’t find this a problem)? Perhaps they can have a more tailored curriculum - eg someone who struggles with arithmetic may find trig hard but might be able to engage with elementary decision maths eg simple logic or sorting?

bird

Criteria-referenced tests are surely more useful for that - ie child A can do X, Y and Z but cannot do A, B, C and D?

The pre-KS2 standards are a series of statements / criteria for assessment, and tbh they are MUCH more useful for assessing a child with SEN than a norm-referenced test.

cant, you need both. The norm referencing informs on how a particular child performs in relation to their peers. The whole definition of SEN hinges on a comparison with peers. If criteria references are not applied across the board and compared determining the severity of SEN is impossible. Which becomes important for determining progress once interventions are made,

The pre-KS2 standards are a series of statements / criteria for assessment,

These (or at least the old style of Early Years Foundation Assessments did), depend on making a huge amount of formal observations to be at all useful. If teachers are not making enough observations a child's actual attainment can be severely under reported.

Bird, I mean these:

www.gov.uk/government/publications/pre-key-stage-2-standards

They essentially replace P scales 5-8, and contain things like 'Can read and write numbers in numerals from e.g. 0-9 (Standard 4) or up to 100 (Standard 5)'.

IME at least, upper KS2 children who are working at these levels do tend to follow a fairly structured programme of 'lessons' in line with those of their age peers, rather than the 'learning through play' context of the EYFS, and therefore assessment is more possible, though as many such children will be highly supported, truly independent attainment can be harder to judge.

truly independent attainment can be harder to judge

Thus I still think it is important for many to take part in standardised testing. Many children in mainstream with SENs can still achieve well and well in comparison to their peers. It is important to keep some form of standardised testing to reinforce this to people. Many get very bogged down in managing additional need without ever stepping back and looking at what has and can be achieved. Keeping standardised testing can help to break down some of these prejudices.

The norm referencing informs on how a particular child performs in relation to their peers. The whole definition of SEN hinges on a comparison with peers.

That can’t be the definition of SEN. If that’s the case you’re going to miss a whole load of children who are attaining well against their peers but having to work harder than average and you’re going to end up labelling a number of children with SEN who are underattaining for other reasons.

It might involve comparison against peers on some very specific criteria, but norm referenced testing on a large part of the curriculum isn’t going to be that helpful as a tool for deciding which children have SEN and which don’t.

Bird, I absolutely agree that for children with SEN who can access the tests, taking standardised tests alongside their age peers, and having their marks reported to their parents and to their future schools is important.

I believe that those tests should be criterion-referenced, so that the performance can be sensible referenced in terms of 'what a child can do' and an absolute standard.

A child working in the lower levels of the pre-KS2 standards (remember that the TOP of those scales is 'the expected level for the end of KS1') may very well not be able to access the KS2 SATs at all, even with a reader. For example, a child working even at the relatively high level of level 4 within the 6 point scale can read and write numbers to 9, but not to 100. It is those children that i am thinking about.

I have - as pretty much all primary teachers will have, and as Ii have every year - a group of children within my class who are on the SEN list. This year, only 1 of them is in the group I am describing - who will not access the end of KS2 tests, even with specific access arrangements, and thus will be assessed purely against pre-KS2 standards. Forcing this child to sit through the hours and hours of tests and months of test preparation would be both unproductive in terms of academic progress, and pointlessly cruel in terms of mental health.