Forward Back

Russell (A KS 2 teacher from London) writes:

I don't think anyone here has suggested that presenting levelled tests, tasks,
etc. is inherently wrong. It is necessary to check on children's progress.
However, the SATs are probably the worst possible indicator of progress and
achievement. They are an indicator of how much effort the school puts into
teaching children how to pass tests.

Here's a rough guide to how to get high SATs results in an average school.

1. Teach only what is necessary to get a Level 4. For example, learn off by
heart 10 adaptable words ("nevertheless", "an azure sky") which can be thrust
into any piece of writing. Insist that they are thrust into every piece of
writing. Do this instead of developing the children's vocabulary. Similarly,
forget teaching ratio/percentages/symmetry (required by NC) etc. to lower
achievers in Maths, since there will only be one question on each.

2. Lower the standards of teaching in all subjects other than English, Maths and
Science. Our Y6 have not done any History, Geography, Art, D.T., PSHE yet this
year. They have not met national requirements in ICT or PE.

3. Remove an entire year from the children's education and spend it teaching
them how to pass a test.

4. Forget improving their reading, rather, teach them stock answers to questions
(e.g. "Why did the author use a simile?" requires the same answer every time,
regardless of whether the child can read the text).

5. Talk about SATs all year to the ten year olds, even though they are
completely irrelevant to the child, until they suffer from stress, lack of
sleep, etc. Talk to the parents until they get a private tutor to do your job
for you.

6. If a child gets 50% (let's say), then their parents are left to believe that
they are completely abnormal, failing, and in need of remedial help. If a child
gets 51%, they are told that they have achieved the expected standard. How less
accurate can the information be? An alternative scenario - lets say a village
school with ten kids gets a class with remarkably similar results - all children
scoring 40-50%. The next school up the road gets one 70%, one 50% and the rest
score 5-10%. Which is the better school? Which will come higher in the league
tables? Which of the two would you send your child to?

6. If a child is working at Level 3, then do everything possible to get that
child a Level 4 - teaching stock answers to questions, etc. This child then goes
to high school with a perfect record and the high school aren't informed that
the child may need support.


Yes, there needs to be an alternative. It needs to be one based on the "alleged"
premise on which SATs were introduced - to provide individual families with an
accurate (ie not just a "Level 4") picture of what their child has achieved by
the end of a key stage. Getting a reputable organisation such as the NFER to
suggest alternatives would be a useful way forward. I would suggest that a some
kind of portfolio (e.g. samples of writing, internal test papers) should be
submitted for moderation for every child at the end of Y6 to confirm teacher
judgement.

If the government wants to judge and compare schools, then they need some other
measure, and to use OFSTED to enforce the idea that specifically preparing
children for these tests is totally unacceptable.