So is anyone taking their kids out of school in protest at year 2 SATS?

Mine isnr old enough yet, not sure how I feel about it tbh

Part of the tests is identifying tenses, highly useful when you’re six. :/

Never heard of it until now.

I can remember exactly two days from when I was in year 2 – the first being when one of the teachers died and the second from when I accidentally set fire to my desk by clipping two 9V batteries together. So I doubt the children will particularly care about a day of tests.

Could be things have changed since I was at school but even the year 6 SATs had no preparation; we were just marched across to the hall and told to fill in the papers.

Personally I think that three tests over 9 years in school is not particularly onerous for tracking performance, and if schools want to teach solely to pass the tests because of the league tables, well, that’s their problem.

It’s a Facebook storm in a teacup for people who don’t have enough to do.

The kids don’t care; my daughter is getting ready for hers and she just sees it as an opportunity to show off.

just sees it as an opportunity to show off

and a lot of kids who struggle at school may be seeing it as an opportunity to be shown up?

Saw this doing the rounds and liked it:

We’re Going on a Ministry Approved Bear Hunt

may be seeing it as an opportunity to be shown up?

Yeah, good point.

The plan should be to never test them again and they’ll be fine when they go into the real world. Everyone will be a winner.

I don’t see the problem at all, my daughter didn’t know she was being tested at that age and only the parents were told of their kid’s performance – if kids are getting stressed it is down to the school.

Six is too young, the natural and environmentally caused variation in abilities and maturity at that age are enormous. Slotting kids in to populations on the basis of a one off test at that stage is just bolleaux, I’d rather rely on the judgement of a professional that’s known and worked with the child for an extended period.

The plan should be to never test them again

or maybe, we should, you know find a middle ground that doesn’t mean that 10 year olds need to be able to understand and use subjunctive clauses to be seen as meeting ‘the expected standard’?

every time this comes up we go from someone saying ‘perhaps the way the current tests are constructed and delivered means that schools are teaching to tests rather than educating and some children are thus self labelling as failures at a very young age when they can’t achieve what the system expects of them’ to ‘LETS TEST NO ONE EVER AND CONTINUE THE LONG SLIDE INTO MEDIOCRITY THAT BEGAN WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF COMPREHENSIVE EDUCATION”.

It’s a bit more nuanced than that.

Slotting kids in to populations on the basis of a one off test

It isn’t. It’s to provide ‘evidence’ for progress through the school. So Yr2 tests are compared to Yr 6 tests to prove progress.

If teachers thought tactically, they couold plough the early tests and show how they have turned a bunch of dunderheads who eat plasticene into reasonable students in only 4 years

The plan should be to never test them again and they’ll be fine when they go into the real world. Everyone will be a winner.

the Tories would love it to be so binary. Test them is the ONLY to get a education, not testing and they’ll be thicker than Greek yoghurt 🙄

I’m pretty sure we can come up with a solution that both serves the need to measure progress and at the same time not put undue stresses on kids so young. How about we ask the professionals that are in the classroom every day and see how the kids are actually progressing make an assessment?

Just part of the ongoing tickboxification of every aspect of our society, innit?

The truly vile, and breathtakingly arrogant government education minister they had on 5 live this morning, basically saying “I know best. So the rest of you just shut up and do as you’re told’ really sold it to me though. I can’t see why on earth she’s encountered any resistance to her enforced ideas

If teachers thought tactically, they couold plough the early tests and show how they have turned a bunch of dunderheads who eat plasticene into reasonable students in only 4 years

And those teachers would have got away with their tactical thinking if it wasn’t for those pesky external moderators.

It’s a bit more nuanced than that.

It is. That’s why the assertion that all kids are stressed due to excessive testing is cobblers. They aren’t.

we should, you know find a middle ground that doesn’t mean that 10 year olds need to be able to understand and use subjunctive clauses to be seen as meeting ‘the expected standard’?

Why not? Why does the common denominator need to be low? Why not set it high?

If the expected standard is being able to hold a pencil at the right end you might as well keep kids off.

You don’t fatten the pig by weighing it.

Why does the common denominator need to be low?

It doesn’t but it also doesn’t have to be so narrow and proscriptive. Children want to learn, most enjoy it. Defining ever smaller areas on which they and their schools will be judged achieves nothing beyond having children who can operate within very narrow parameters.

Who the hell needs to know what a subjunctive clause is? I bet 99% of the people on this thread would need to Google it to find out what it was and yet stwers mostly seem to operate succesfully within the real world, have jobs etc.

understand and use subjunctive clause

I’d have to look up what a subjunctive clause was and I’m 45……

Poor 10 year olds is all I can say.

This article probably sums up most of my vioews on the subject so I’ll post this link and bow out.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/rebecca-ann-smith/new-sats-tests_b_9759900.html

The new SATs don’t just test a child’s subject knowledge, but also his or her ability to take the test.

To me, that’s a badly designed test. It doesn’t feel fair. And more importantly, if kids have to be taught how to take this test, there’s less time to learn other stuff.

It’s when father christmas has an eye infection

Flaperon – Member

if schools want to teach solely to pass the tests because of the league tables, well, that’s their problem.

Sounds like it’s the kids’ problem too. And messes with the league tables’ usefulness.

but also his or her ability to take the test.

It gets them used to failing at a young age, so they won’t be disappointed when they enter the world of low skill, low wage work in a post NHS, post home ownership society.

You don’t fatten the pig by weighing it.

No, however, you’ve no idea if you wasted money trying to fatten it without weighing it.

Nowt wrong with KPI’s if set correctly and also they don’t preclude teaching outside of the tests. Only poor teachers and parents should fear testing IMO.

Only poor teachers and parents should fear testing IMO.

And the sooner we can identify the poorer parents, the sooner we can blame and vilify them?

Good point!

And its another stick to beat teachers with, then offer Acadamisation as the solution

Result!!!

but also his or her ability to take the test.

You could say the same thing about driving lessons to pass the driving test.

But if that is the test you have to pass, why not prepare for it?

As dragon states, it’s the framework for testing. Not the first and last thing that schools should do, to the exclusion of everything else.

No, however, you’ve no idea if you wasted money trying to fatten it without weighing it.

Unless you’ve self evidently got a fat pig, in which case you’ve won or a skinny pig in which case you’ve lost, no scales required.

No, however, you’ve no idea if you wasted money trying to fatten it without weighing it.

No, however weighing it when it’s only a piglet doesn’t tell you much about how fat it will be when full-grown.

So the tests are there to clobber parents of less able kids? Wow what a great scheme. FWIW my youngest is about to do them and doesn’t seem overly bothered neither was my eldest. I don’t really see the point myself but i don’t think they are harmful either. Both of mine are happy and keen to learn which above all else is what I want. They are not at the top of their classes but so what, they are well adjusted, have lots of friends and like school, job done at this stage i’d say.

It gets them used to failing at a young age, so they won’t be disappointed when they enter the world of low skill, low wage work in a post NHS, post home ownership society.

Well, the easy answer to that is to not give the results to the children and their parents.

The kids don’t care;

My kids don’t care if they get dressed, have sweets for breakfast or ever go to school again…probably why someone has tp have parental responsibility for them

Jesus there are some simplistic and trolly comments on this two points

1. ot distorts the actual learning as kids will be taught specifically to do well on the test
2. the whole point of the test is then rendered somewhat useless

Clearly we have to test kids but do we need to test kids twice in primary school to this degree

Do we really not trust teachers to see what pupils are struggling and where and offer appropriate support

Not sure I would strike over it but its more top down interference form the small govt tories.

Why not set it high?

A hard test for young kids that most will fail- I have no idea why we don’t do that sort of shit to kids anymore

Its amusing watching non experts discuss your area

Apologise when I also do this on STW

Probably worth pointing out that some countries don’t even require children to be in full-time education at 6.

Hitting them with tests to establish KPIs at an age where some of them will still be struggling with toilet training seems a bit bizarre.

Or is that next in the list, government mattress inspectors?

It isn’t. It’s to provide ‘evidence’ for progress through the school.

That’s what good teachers do without tests. The tests are just a nice way to condense a statistic into graph for the hard of understanding in the ministry, so they can present a one slide executive summary of how much better the children are than last year.

Probably worth pointing out that some countries don’t even require children to be in full-time education at 6.

This is the nub of it. I’ve worked with a fair few Nordics and not one has struck me as suffering for not going to school earlier.

It isn’t. It’s to provide ‘evidence’ for progress through the school.

I’m sure it’d never even cross most teachers minds to do something like that.

Thank god we’ve got the government to ride to the rescue of us parents eh?

Its amusing watching non experts discuss your area

Apologise when I also do this on STW

accepted.

Academies can take control of their intake although some leave it in the hands of the local authority. Some will use test results as a backdoor reintroduction of the 11+. If anyone thinks that endless testing as a means of judging kids, teachers and schools doesn’t adversely affect the curriculum then they can’t have much idea about what’s going on.
In my last job the head used the argument for academisation that it was the only defense against having to take poor kids from families being made to exit London because of benefits changes. When the school became an academy she gave herself a 50% pay rise. A great deal of money is going into academy chains that doesn’t seem very well accounted for and the people in the classroom are just being told to concentrate on the tests.

Just popped back for this;

Government minister gets one of the insane new SATS grammar questions wrong live on Radio4.

*sniggers*

No, however weighing it when it’s only a piglet doesn’t tell you much about how fat it will be when full-grown.

You do weigh and you react to the data once it’s brought together with other relevant information you have; evidence based decision making.

You do weigh and you react to the data once it’s brought together with other relevant information you have; evidence based decision making.

What decisions can you make about educational requirements based on a spelling and grammar test for six-year-olds?

If they can’t they need more teaching?