Optional SATS - what?!!

[debs40]

I was very surprised to see, when browsing the school's website, a new document about optional SATS.

The website says these are shorter exams, taken in Yr 3,4 and5 which aim to replicate exam conditions for students, giving them practice for Yr 6 SATS. It apparently costs the school £1000 to have them externally marked.

What is going on?

I thought informal testing in Yr 2 was pointless enough but I understand schools have to do this. I can't believe anyone thinks it's appropriate to formally test children every year like this when they don't have to.

Anyone else have experience of this? I blame local parental panic about grammar school entrance at 11. All the schools here are preoccupied with constantly 'weighing the pig'.

DS1 has been tested in Yr 4 & 5, but as far as I know it was marked internally.

Lots of schools have used them for years and years - less so as they have become more proficient at teacher assessment.

What's more unusual is having them externally marked - what a waste of money. Especially if they are as accurately marked as the KS2 English results, which went up 20% this time after I sent them for re-marking for God knows how many years running.

You'll find that most junior schools do these. They've been going on for years. The idea is a) to give the children some experience so that when the Y6 ones come around they are used to them. They also give a good indication of how the child will perform in Y6 as some children perform VERY differently under exam conditions than in normal work.

Not every school pays for external marking - the school I was in didn't, which means the teachers get good feedback about what the children are good at and what they need support with.

Also, you'll find that if a school does no formal testing, they'll find it hard to get a good OFSTED report, as they have no data to back up their statements.

I'm not saying it's good, I'm just explaining more about them and why they are done.

Feenie, seriously how depressing. Why would they do this? Can't teachers tell for themselves whether a child is doing ok?

My concern about this year has been that there has been little monitoring of progress until SATs appraoches and everyone starts testing the kids - cue lots of disgruntled parents at parents' evening. Is it going to be like this every year?

We are a year off this and anything can happen (DS is in Yr 2) but really would he have to take them?

DD had them in yr5, marked internally.
They also did CAT tests. There is some value in this at year 5 if there are grammar schools (or children likely to do private entrance exams) as it gives some guidance as to whether it makes sense for a child to try for them or not.

We use them at secondary too, in years 7 & 8.

Originally, following the demise of the KS3 SATs (& when everyone's champagne hangovers had subsided...) we thought to ditch them, but, well, they're a useful if crude snapshot & good training in formal exam technique.

IF, that is, you don't over-egg them, stress the kids out about them, or spend weeks prepping for them to the detriment of actually teaching.

I'd not be concerned if my ds's primary was using them in this way, but must admit I'd be about the external marking. Sounds a bit like they're taking them way too seriously - also, as Feenie says, external marking's often of lousy quality.

Galena thanks for the explanation. It has come as a shock to me as I thought the prevailing sentiment amongst teachers/teachers' unions etc was against the constant testing of young children. I thought that is why they wanted SATs abolished. Or is that just because they are held accountable for those exams and not optional ones?

I can't see that children get any benefit from this. Testing 7/8/9 year olds in formal conditions on the premise that they will become accustomed to exam conditions at 11 seems a nonsense. Do a few practice papers in yr 6 (or maybe yr5) if how children perform in tests is such a worry.

Or does testing in this way mean less work in terms of continual teacher assessments?

"Also, you'll find that if a school does no formal testing, they'll find it hard to get a good OFSTED report, as they have no data to back up their statements."

We just got a good Ofsted, with many outstanding elements, and we don't do any formal tests. Our teacher assessment is robust, so Ofsted were very happy.

Debs40, Y2 teachers have been using teacher assessment for years, and everybody else is beginning to rely less heavily on one off testing and more on continuous assessment. The tide is turning, but it is slower in some schools than in others.

ravenAK - secondary school children are different. These are very young children who could really do without exposure to formal testing for a bit longer

Feenie - is it the lazy way out? I mean robust teacher assessment sounds like hard work. You might have to pick up as you go along that children have problems with certain things and address them.

Testing shirks this responsibility. I can't see any other explanation for voluntarily wanting to do this.

Exam practice at 8 doesn't cut it.

Just disappointed that's all. Thought testing at KS1 was silly enough.

AFAIK at DDs school they didn't do any preparation for the yr5 SATs or CATs. First I knew of it was when DD told me what they'd been doing that day. In fact the SATs took the place of the internal maths and english tests they do at the end of each year anyway (they did a non-SAT science too) so it wasn't any extra work for anyone.

FWIW I'm glad they're still doing SATs because DD positively enjoys the tests.

It is harder for some teachers to trust - some teachers believe that testing gives an unblinkered view of where children are at, and some know exactly where their children are anyway, and don't need a test to tell them! I think it's a belief/culture thing in teaching rather than laziness, actually.

Well Grimma, that is fortunate, and in Yr 5 there may be more point.

But formal, externally marked exams in Yr 3? Ridiculous.

I can see what you mean Feenie. It's something you would do if you had not confidence that your own judgment was reliable. It would explain the externally marked aspect too.

This is an 'outstanding' school but it has always seemed to me, at least this year, that teachers have very little idea of pupil progress and alot of reliance is placed on KS1 tests.

I'd imagine that ongoing assessment is in place, though, debs40. Doing the odd test as well is something a lot of children (cf. Grimma's dd & my ds) do find stimulating, challenging & even enjoyable - both at primary & at secondary.

It all depends on the culture of the test IMO - mildly useful benchmark, OK; big fat landmark event with weeks of increasingly hysterical prep by teachers & students alike - aaargh .

ravenAK -" mildly useful benchmark, OK; big fat landmark event with weeks of increasingly hysterical prep" the latter would be the worry!! The 'exam conditions' and 'externally marked' bit doesn't bode well does it?

Agree that its pretty pointless before year 5. internal assessments/tests are fine up to then. DDs school didn't do KS1 sats, which I was also glad of - that's way too early.

feenie, I didn't say it was impossible, but hard - your school is obviously forward-thinking and well organised for teacher assessment. Most aren't.

We never coached the younger children for the tests, simply told them that they were tests to show us what we had taught well and what we hadn't taught well so that we could be better teachers next year.

However, I don't know many schools which have them externally marked (although I knew it was an option), and it does, automatically, make them seem much more 'heavy'

Indeed debs40.

Exam conditions is probably no biggie - will just mean 'sit at your desk & don't talk' I'd've thought, & I'm all for kids learning how to do that on occasion from an early age .

But 'externally marked' - oh come on. Colossal waste of money, unless the teaching staff are either incompetent, or likely to fiddle the results in order to score better than Mrs Smith's class in the room next door.

I'd be tempted to ask questions about how this fits into their overall 'Assessment for Learning' policy, & what formative feedback the pupils will be receiving, I must admit.

Again, that sounds ok'ish Emmmmmmmaa (too many mmmms) but externally marked and exam conditions doesn't quite sound the same.

Why all the fuss about KS SATS when schools are volunteering to do tests when they don't have to? I really don't understand that or the willingness with which we embrace the constant and rather pointless testing of small children with little evidence on benefit......weighing the pig more often does not fatten it!

raven....£1000 they say it costs them... yet try and get extra support for a child with SEN and there's no money

If the end of KS2 SATS go, then I would expect these to follow swiftly. They are a useful snapshot of where a child is at, and allows teachers to compare year to year, knowing what conditions the previous year's results were obtained under.

I think they are unnecessary and agree that children are over-tested. However, since we live in a society in which the measure of a school's success is the progress of children measured by progress from KS1 results to KS2 results, schools will do what they can to improve those results.

To add one other thing into the mix, they can also be useful to ensure that the whole school is quiet during the Y6 SATs. Not that there are as many papers for the younger ones, but it means that the children are aware of what the older ones are doing.

That is mentioned on the website too