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

Of course standardised testing doesn’t make sense for all children, but a move to a system with no external validation at key points can’t be the answer. I don’t understand as why we would trust teachers as a professional group more than any other professional group.

I don’t care about league tables but it’s very hard for parents to have an idea how their children are doing and to support without specific feedback.

Rafa it was when my D.C. had a Statement of SEN, not so long ago. I think SEN can considered separate from disability (which equally can cause additional needs in terms of education). SEN, in the strictest sense, can be for any reason it just refers to an educational need which is different and additional to the norm.

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.

I can appreciate this but it is a tough call deciding that. If educational professionals get it wrong or use such a decision in an attempt to 'game the system' the impact on that child's education doesn't bear thinking about..

bird8

Honestly? It may sometimes be a tough call, but sometimes it is absolutely, blindingly, not-worth-a-moment's-consideration obvious.

If a child cannot read or write the numbers up to 100, does not know the full set of phonic sounds, cannot read any but the very, very earliest phonic reading scheme books, cannot recall or retell a story or series of events, and cannot come up with a caption for a picture, or even correctly label certain well-known objects within a picture due to lack of language, despite full-time support ever since starting school and input that all the professionals involved (medical and educational) agree is exemplary, then it's obvious. Not a tough call at all.

Not all cases are so straightforward, though, can't. And it has not been unknown for professionals to 'game the system' with regards to this issue. For this reason and regarding the serious impact this could have, it I think no matter how straightforward the decision seems it is a decision that must be very carefully considered.

How do you mean 'game the system'? My understanding is that a child who doesn't take the tests and is assessed against pre-KS2 statements is recorded as below KS2 standards. A child who takes the tests and scores exceptionally poorly is recorded as below the KS2 standards. A child who is absent but on the register is counted in the stats as below the KS2 standards.

Where is the scope for 'gaming the system'?

I actually think where much MORE gaming the system happens is with children being inappropriately entered, and inappropriately coached, in the hope that they might just have a blindingly good day and help the school's stats. That's where the mental health issue - endless before and after and during school coaching - comes in. Administering the tests to pupils who are not working at the appropriate standard is in fact a case for maladministration, but ime it is more common than the reverse.

Where is the scope for 'gaming the system'?

To hold onto additional individual funding secured in years previous which is no longer being spent on the child it was secured for. Hard to prove but very definitely occurs. I've experienced this first hand and have known others who have experienced this too.

About time, it spoils primary school for a lot of kids.
They don't have to stop testing altogether, I'm 52 and we had end of primary test before we went to senior, and one before joining the juniors, from infant.
We had just as many tests but they were administered with no fuss, and stress for children, parents, teachers or schools.

@cantkeepaway - would the kids who can’t write numbers up to 100 cope with the secondary school curriculum?

Isn’t the child the funding is secured for leaving though? What would be the point in gaming the system?

Hang on, just realised what you meant. You’re suggesting that a child has improved over time, hasn’t needed the funding for a while and isn’t being entered for the test to cover the school’s back.

I’ve a feeling that the negative progress score that would happen in that scenario is probably enough to put the school off.

Isn’t the child the funding is secured for leaving though? What would be the point in gaming the system?

Justifying the past. Suddenly improving is not very believable. Also not the case with KS1 SATs.

I’ve a feeling that the negative progress score that would happen in that scenario is probably enough to put the school off.

Not if it is just a few isolated individuals who have been awarded significant funding.

Can I just point out that gove has been gone for several years and we are still two years away from sorting out the mess that he left us with.

For some subjects this is the first year that they will take his new style tests, and the fall out from the first tests and how they are marked has still never really settled.

The 1 - 9 grading system is still in flux and the damage from KS2 is only just being sorted at KS4 and the changes at KS4 are just coming through at KS5 , remembering that this year still has legacy students in the cohort.

What education needs is 10 years of people not fucking around with it and getting funding in to the schools so that the inclusion narrative actually stands a chance of working.

What education needs is 10 years of people not fucking around with it and getting funding in to the schools so that the inclusion narrative actually stands a chance of working.

I'm inclined to agree. However the systems change (partly at least) to prevent gaming of the system. It's harder to game a new unfamiliar system. But saying that, gaming the system occurs more within a context of a perception of there not being enough. Vicious circle. Somethings got to break it. It's why I voted for an end to austerity last time around.

@Namenic,

The thing is, whether a child can 'cope with the secondary school curriculum' is not always the point.

Where there are far too few special school places - and where parental choice can keep children in mainstream even when it is not the best setting for the child - then the secondary school has to deliver the appropriate curriculum to the child (so in this case, a EYFS / KS1 curriculum within a secondary school) in the same way as the primary school has had to.

A well-behaved child with very high levels of SEN affecting their learning, where there is no parental push for special school and absolutely no spaces in an appropriate special school cannot be excluded - what for? - and can therefore remain in mainstream schooling for a long period.The school has to provide the appropriate education for them, even when it is not the curriculum that they would normally provide - they can't say 'this child can't access the curriculum so we won't teach them'. Instead, they have to say 'what are the child's learning needs, and how can we meet them as best we can?' It is only at points like the end of GCSEs and start of sixth form where the child's lack of qualifications can bar them from the next stage of education within that setting.

birdflyinghigh

If the government gave a crap about gaming they wouldn't allow primary schools to spend year 6 to focus entirely on SATS.

a system by which schools can artificially show progress.

There are plenty of standardised assessments out there that can give a genuine measure of ability without the pass/fail element and the teaching to the test.

Agreed Boney.

What is the purpose of the SATs? Funnily enough, to find out what the child can and can’t do isn’t really one of them.

They’re taken in Y6, and once done, the rest of the year is spent doing wind-down stuff and prep for secondary.

Once they get to Y7 it’s a new school and a fresh start. We do get provided with a spreadsheet of every mark for every kid on the SATs so technically we could look at that and design a curriculum to address weak areas, but by the time we get this spreadsheet it’s too late for planning, and besides, what a kid can do in May 2019 is usually very different to what they can remember in September 2019. So we assess them ourselves.

If SATs were meant to be to find out what a kid can and can’t do in a useful way, we’d do them at the start of Y7.

Funnily enough, when I transferred to secondary years ago they spent a whole year assessing us. We were put into mixed ability for the first year for this. After this there was setting. It was considered a good school. Plenty went to good universities. We did no formal tests prior to secondary. Fully Comprehensive education area.

So we assess them ourselves.

It's really interesting to read this, because at the moment we're working with a local secondary who have found that their Y7s aren't 'making progress' in their first year.

Looking in their books, much of the work they are producing in Y7 is in line with what they were producing 2 years' previously, in Y5.

In consultation with the local primaries, the secondary is adjusting the 'pitch' of their teaching in Y7 and are finding that - though there is a dip immediately after the summer as children find their feet in secondary - most are actually capable of progressing faster and accessing harder work than the secondary thought.

So yes, in some cases children GENUINELY aren't capable of what they could do in May of Y6 in Y7. However, locally the secondary had simply not really appreciated what they had been doing for the last 2 years of primary (especially in the post 2014 curriculum), were pitching too low and the children were responding with a similar lack of ambition.

I suspect we may well end up e.g. sending work samples to the secondary with our pupils so that there is a good comparison - when we started doing the same across years in primary the 'post summer dip' was much shorter lived and progress was faster.

We do the same within school and have found the same. One local high school already asks for two pieces of English (chosen by the children) to be sent with them on transition day.

Every time I start teaching fractions to Y7 I ask them what 1/3 + 1/3 is. And every time a good proportion of them think it’s 2/6.

We have to repeat stuff they’ve already done because they forget. They’ll have forgotten stuff from Y7 by Y8 too. That’s why maths is a spiral curriculum.

Every time I start teaching fractions to Y7 I ask them what 1/3 + 1/3 is. And every time a good proportion of them think it’s 2/6.

Well, yes, exactly as happens in the first 5 minutes of an upper primary lesson on fractions.

Then you show the picture, and the material they used the previous year they go 'Oh yes, I remember now, we did that with Mrs X'. Then they all do an exercise on it - maybe 10 mins or so - it's all fine, and over the next few weeks you do some starters or morning work or whatever to reinforce the concept, while meanwhile moving their Maths learning on to the next objective.

I agree that REMINDING is needed. I don't agree that the fact that in the first 5 minutes of the first lesson in a topic some children show they have forgotten and need reminding indicates that it needs lots of RETEACHING of the whole concept..

Obviously there will be a few children who genuinely 'didn't get it' in primary and need full on reteaching - but that number is small. i know that in secondary it's tricky because you don't have the 'little bits of time' to work with those children intensively, so they DO have to be taught within the Maths lesson, but it isn't a reason to delay the large majority who either remembered or needed no more than a 10 minute reminder. You also don't have the continuity which allows you to pinch the previous teacher's Powerpoint to show the material they used the previous year, negating the 'no, we've NEVER done this, miss' moment!

IME, and we are now doing a LOT of work with the secondary, secondary teachers are always gobsmacked by the work done in primary and how much it differs from their expectation. Noble, when did you last spend a day observing primary Maths?