SATs Good or Bad

[Paulclem]

What do you think about SATs tests for kids - particularlyin Primary Schools?

It's just come up in the news again, as the NUT and the other union are debating whether to boycott them.

I'm interested in this as I joined the NUT in 1994 because they didn't support the SATs. They subsequently negotiated some pay and conditions deal with the Government - John Major's - and dropped the issue.

I have delivered Key Stage 1 and Key stage 2 SATs, but I never believed in them. I don't know any teachers who did, though clearly there must have been some support.

What do you think?

[Lote-Tree]

What do you think about SATs tests for kids - particularlyin Primary Schools?

It's just come up in the news again, as the NUT and the other union are debating whether to boycott them.

I'm interested in this as I joined the NUT in 1994 because they didn't support the SATs. They subsequently negotiated some pay and conditions deal with the Government - John Major's - and dropped the issue.

I have delivered Key Stage 1 and Key stage 2 SATs, but I never believed in them. I don't know any teachers who did, though clearly there must have been some support.

What do you think?


It's always good idea to have some goals.

[magzarelli]

Lote-tree i agree with you!

[Virgil]

There may be a difference in terminology between England and the US. SATs in the US are college entrance exams. Is that what you are referring to Paul?

[Lote-Tree]

SAT in UK are not entrance exams. They are mainly measure of goals achieved for a pupil.

Government use this to gage how well a school is performing.

[Lokasenna]

I personally think they're dreadful. It forces teachers to make pupils jump through hoops, rather than allow them to guide and nurture them in a flexible curriculum.

[TheFifthElement]

I think they're an utter waste of time, resource and effort. It still galls me that at 7 years old my son was repeating, repeating, repeating what he'd already learned in the interest of passing a test when he was crying out to do something new. And next year he'll repeat that again. What's the point? To make him hate school? Well done, mission accomplished.

I think primary school should focus on developing in children a love of learning, letting them try different skills, subjects and the like and discover where their talents and interests lie. And I'm quite happy to trust my own judgement and the judgement of a teaching professional as to whether my kids are learning and achieving in school.

[Paulclem]

There may be a difference in terminology between England and the US. SATs in the US are college entrance exams. Is that what you are referring to Paul?

Hi Virgil,

They are exams designed to measure pupil progress at 7, 11 and into secondary - 12-16 year olds.

After these SATs the kids take the real exams - GCSEs - which are the standard qualifications at 16.

One of their uses is in compilng league tables, ostensibly so that parents can compare schools and send their children there.

[Paulclem]

I agree with you Lokasenna and Fifth precisely for the reasons you have given. I don't know why teaching professionals are not trusted to give their opinions on pupil attainment. Most of the teachers I have worked with were conscientious and hard working, and it is very easy to see whether a pupil has been awarded an erroneous grade.

The SAT assessment training I had was superb - particularly for the reading element, and then I wasn't trusted to use it properly.

[Lote-Tree]

And I'm quite happy to trust my own judgement and the judgement of a teaching professional as to whether my kids are learning and achieving in school.

You still need to know whether goals have been achieved or not.

Goals are important.

Whether it's set by individuals or government. It's debateable.

Everyone should set goals and try to achieve them.

[Lote-Tree]

I agree with you Lokasenna and Fifth precisely for the reasons you have given. I don't know why teaching professionals are not trusted to give their opinions on pupil attainment.


Because they have made a very poor job of it.

Not teacher should be scared of goals.

If they are then they should not be in teaching profession.

Edit: I speak from experience. Our local schools were so bad. Teachers were there so they could have regular income. It attracted all the layabouts.

With the introduction of the SATs standard...the dead wood have been removed and the school has become in top of the offsted assesment.

I demand high standards from teachers. I am happy to pay the high salaries for their briliance in teaching.

We should all demand high standards just like we demand high standards in other professions.

[Virgil]

Hi Virgil,

They are exams designed to measure pupil progress at 7, 11 and into secondary - 12-16 year olds.

After these SATs the kids take the real exams - GCSEs - which are the standard qualifications at 16.

One of their uses is in compilng league tables, ostensibly so that parents can compare schools and send their children there.

Ah, SATs between our coutries are different things.

As to required tests to measure student progress, I absolutely support them. I can't believe we didn't have it in the US (nationwide, each state may have had their own) until five or six years ago. Where I grew up, New York State, has (I suppose they still do, but I'm not sure) what were called Regents Exams for high school students. But that was it. It is absolutely foolish to wait until high school to assess the educational progress of a child. Standard tests are a must.

[Paulclem]

I agree with continuous assessment - absolutely no doubt about it. But the SATs are administered like GCSE exams and given so much weight that the school has to devote a lot of time teaching to the test. These are 7 and 11 year olds. For the 11 year olds, from christmas right up to the end of the Spring term, they do nothing but SAT revision - no teaching, no new stuff. It is really boring for them and demoralising. I know my son was completely turned off English by this process.

What I would advocate is more teacher assessment of the kids. I take your point Lote, but now we have a 3-day Ofsted inspection system - (OFSTED - the Govt's inspection body) - that can come into a school at any time. Also the Head teacher should be on to any lazy teachers these days. They are allowed to observe them and check results. There should be no opportunity for slack teaching, else that is the Head's fault for not keeping a tight ship. .

[Virgil]

Yeah I see the issue with boredom if they are constantly repeating the same material. A teacher will have to do something about that. A good teacher will engage the students. So is the problem the testing or the teacher skills? As to teaching to the test, then if the test is structured correctly, the children will have learned the material. I've never understood that complaint. The test should be comprehensive so that teaching to it means teaching the material. Teacher assessment is arbitrary. Around New York City, students were being passed along without learning for years if not for generations.

[Paulclem]

The SATs are designed to be increasingly difficult as you get through the paper in order to rank the abilities of the children. This is usual exam practice, but the children do need coaching in order to apply their mathematical skills for example to the problems they come up against. This is where the teaching to the test comes in. The other reason is that there is pressure on the schools to improve their ranking, which sounds ok, but in actuality means that an inordinate amount of time is spent rehearsing for these tests.

The other complaint is that the basing league tables upon such performance does not take into account the socio-economic situation of the kids, though I think there has been some accounting for those on free school meals. It's a no brainer that well suported kids from affluent areas will do better than the kids from the other end of the scale. It also does not take into account the numbers of kids with special needs either.

[Paulclem]

You still need to know whether goals have been achieved or not.

Goals are important.

Whether it's set by individuals or government. It's debateable.

Everyone should set goals and try to achieve them.

I agree that goals are important, but what are the goals of SATs for a 7 year old? There's no certificates or recognition. It's purely about data measurement and the standing of the school.

The SATs go on through secondary school as well, but there no point a kid going to an employer and saying I got L6 in my SATs as they are not recognised. There should definately be goals, but some thing tangible for the kids, not this abstract number that has actually nothing to do with the kids, but is to gain a global picture of the school.

[Aravona]

I've read through this thread and found it very interesting.

I personally, when taking SATs, never saw the point of them. The SATs I took in primary school I simply don't remember much about them, nor did I care what I got on them. They were rediculous, I took them and forgot them. Then I sat an 11+ which was much more important to me at the time.

The SATs I did I think in year 9 were again, something I didn't care for. I took them, I was put into the right english, maths and science groups for my GCSEs and that was that. I did my GCSEs and SATs became a thing of the past. I don't see them as anything overly important for very young children. I whole-heartedly agree that children need goals and guidence but at the age of I think 7, all I cared about was going and playing outside and getting home and playing with my friends. From a childs perspective they are really only something that you do because you are told to, they're not overly worrying or taxing for an average child. But I do think that perhaps leaving them until children are a bit older maybe wiser.

Since only 2 counties now use the 11+ I think it would be more beneficial for SATs to be a year 6 item so that it may help secondary schools place children into the right classes earlier on (I mean foundation, intermediate and higher like for GCSEs) I do remember that many children, including myself, were moved around after the second set of SATs anyway. I was put in an intermediate maths group based on SATs and promptly earnt my way into a foundation group. Proving children can sit a test isnt the same as saying they're good at something. My old school was reputedly called 'An Exam Factory' I got taught how to pass an exam as much as I was taught the subject.