-
Share
Share with others...
- Bookmark and share this item
-
Digg
-
del.icio.us -
Facebook -
reddit -
StumbleUpon
- Print article
- Save to favourites
5 average rating | Writing exclusively in The TES, PM says primary testing is vital to accountability - but unions’ boycott campaign gathers pace
Original papaer headline: Brown weighs into Sats row
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has launched a staunch defence of national tests just days before teaching unions step up their campaign to end key stage 2 assessments.
Writing exclusively in today’s TES, Mr Brown says primary school Sats are as important as GCSEs or A-levels in holding schools to account.
Mr Brown writes that the Government is now in a position to devolve more power to heads and give teachers more flexibility - but only if schools can be held properly accountable.
“I’m not willing to accept excuses for underperformance,” he said. “Every school should be doing the best by every one of its pupils.
“But progress also relies on the need to retain clear accountability through testing. This means at the end of primary school just as much as at the end of secondary.”
Mr Brown’s comments come as the NUT and NAHT prepare to launch the next phase in their campaign against key stage 2 Sats.
The unions are calling for next year’s tests to be boycotted unless the Government delivers fundamental changes to the testing regime.
They want tests to be scrapped and replaced by teacher assessment, arguing that the existing system forces schools to teach to the test and focus on a narrow curriculum.
On Monday, the unions will announce the results of a petition against the tests, which is believed to have generated more than 20,000 signatures. Authors, including Philip Pullman and former children’s laureate Michael Rosen, are among supporters.
In what will be make or break for the unions, they will also begin research to gauge the strength of feeling against Sats among their members.
The NUT will hold an indicative ballot on the boycott during November before deciding on whether to go ahead with a full-scale ballot next year. The NAHT will hold a consultation of its members run by an external company.
Christine Blower, general secretary of the NUT, said: “It is important that we continue to make the educational and professional arguments.
“We have been opposed to the tests since their inception. With the NAHT, we represent the vast majority of heads in primary schools so this is the year where we can absolutely make the case.”
Ms Blower and Mick Brookes, NAHT general secretary, are holding on-going discussions with the Department for Children, Schools and Families about the tests. These include the role of the new report cards that could replace highly contentious school league tables.
“At the moment we are saying we have positive and constructive alternatives,” said Ms Blower.
“I cannot say the Government looks like pulling away from Sats, but that won’t stop us talking to them and trying to resolve this.”
The timing of any boycott will be a particular concern for the Government as it will take place in May, widely tipped to be the date for the next general election.
Ministers will not want to be dealing with an industrial dispute at that time, but neither will they want to be seen as caving in to union demands.
Mr Brown said that it had been necessary to have a “rigorous regime of targets and top down programmes” to drive up standards. But he added that having achieved better standards it is now time to show more trust in teachers.
“Trusting teachers is why we have thinned out the curriculum in secondary schools and plan the same in primaries, ensuring a continued focus on the basics alongside flexibility for teachers to ensure that every pupil is stretched and engaged in the classroom,” he said.
“Trusting teachers is why we are winding down the national strategies and devolving power to schools to decide themselves how they spend the money for raising standards.”
Read why Gordon Brown wants to free teachers to work small miracles
Comment (27)
What about Key Stage 1 SATs that we still have to sit!! Why do we have them when we do nothing with the data?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
13:58
30 October, 2009
thefairyteacher
If Mr Brown has really referred to today's children doing Sats, he doesn't know much and neither do his advisors who have failed to tell him that they were actually scrapped in 1992 and have made no return.
(And SATs, of course, are a different form of assessment altogether, and are irrelevant in Primary education as they are for the prospective university students who are close to leaving school.)
Primary children do use the nickname "sats" for national curriculum tests, of course, but grown ups should be able to express themselves in a more mature manner - unless they are just having a joke.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
17:00
30 October, 2009
markuss
(If the NUT and NAHT hold ballots on action over either Sats or SATs, they will look extremely silly!)
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
17:01
30 October, 2009
markuss
Oh silly me, there I was thinking that GCSEs and A Levels were meant to be useful qualifications. But, no they
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
22:39
30 October, 2009
firebird2110
(opps bit got cut there, trying again)
Oh silly me, there I was thinking that GCSEs and A Levels were meant to be useful qualifications. But, no they're really for 'holding schools to account'. That explains rather a lot.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
22:40
30 October, 2009
firebird2110
Standard Assessment Tests are exactly that! You can not improve what you can not measure nor can you can control what you can not measure - Mr Brown is right. I agree pupils should be tested; we were all tested in primary school. I believe it is the publication of the league tables that has caused this furore. I can not believe the stakeholders are taking so long to resolve this issue - so unprofessional!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
23:06
30 October, 2009
jintyjoyo
As a head for the last six years, and a Yr 6 teacher for 8 years prior to my headship, I think SATs are totally iniquitous - the time children spend in Yr 6 in many schools is tantamount to child abuse, and if you don't play the game and force feed the Level 3 / 4 borderlines then you are judged to be failing. With the present system cheating is rife and teaching to the test is rife, the tests are completely worthless and the sooner we get rid of them the better.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
23:13
31 October, 2009
JaneandNye
Totally agree JaneandNye - as a headteacher I tell my staff this regularly as long as we get the KS2 SAT percentages we will survive. This has also just been underpinned in the new OFSTED format "outcomes will be judged by the performance of a schools final year" or words to that effect. So we re-double our efforts to create exam passing automitons all throughout year 6 (and some of year 5). Quite simply it means our jobs to us - drilling the children also suits the politicians because it gives them a story to tell in the commons, it suits OFSTED because ti gives them a stick to measure and beat us with and it suits parents because it tells them little Jonny or Amy is doing great and going to a good school now (they moved house to get that school you see) Although that nasty secondary school did some tests and they are saying Jonny and Amy are realy levei 3 and put them in the bottom set.
SATS are failing everyone - they have no real use, other than a tool for scrutiny Boycott them at the first possible chance
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
10:17
1 November, 2009
wattie54
Sorry to go on a bit! - but Brown saying it's time to trust schools and teachers is a bit fresh too. No notice inspections, new GTC regulations, apart from the intended report cards SIPs watching us and still clinging on to SATs to boot I don't think so. National Stratigies did some hairbrained things - but some good things too, I would rather keep them and wind down OFSTED while beefing up the role of the SIPs. Brown and his cronies have "thinned out" the curriculum so they can add things like "community cohesion" and a host of other things that the government want schools to be responsible for instead of their parents.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
10:38
1 November, 2009
wattie54
I've just moved back to England after teaching Scotland for a few years. Teachers' judgement is trusted there through teacher assessment and voluntary tests set if-and-when the pupils are ready, regardless of year group. Secondary schools seem to take more notice of the primary teacher's efforts there too. I found there was far more flexibility in the curriculum and children were able to take more ownership of their learning. I'd forgotten how restrictive and stifling the English system can be!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
16:19
1 November, 2009
hcreber
Is it true that there are no SATs in Scotland and Wales?Why are MPs from these 2 countries allowed to say English children must do them? Isn
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
16:41
1 November, 2009
Ramjam
I don't think they would Ramjam- its the DCSF, quango's and inspectors that are saying this outdated regeime is essential. Mainly because their jobs depend on it and, god knows, they would not want to go back and work in schools after the mess they have made of them.
I think MPs would vote to get rid of them, given a free vote. Especially in a run up to an election - as hcreber indicated, we are made to have teaching qualifications, constant CPD, standards, performance management and I do not know a teacher or manager that wants to perform badly, but they spend millions of tax payers money on scrutiny. A third of funding that goes into schools never reaches the front line (schools) - why do we need SIPs as well as HMIs and then LA officers, quangos etc. Its overkill
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
18:22
1 November, 2009
wattie54
As a teacher working in Spain with Primary experience it looks as if there needs to be a meeting point somewhere between SATS and continuous assessment. I am in favour of KS2 testing but not one that puts the teacher and most importantly the child under pressure. The negative backwash these tests must produce is huge, plus we must remember that testing in this way is only a "snapshot" of what a child can actually do. For example a child may simply not be able to perform successfully on the day, which has to effect the reliability of SATS tests.
G
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
15:15
2 November, 2009
achogino1
Abolish SATs and OFSTED use the money for more staff and lets get on with educating children without stress and fear. Parents can get more information from teachers they will have more time to speak to parents. Oh and whilst we are doing lets get a Sec of State who understand education. This is not from a teacher but a parent and grandparents who for 30 years has worked with PTA
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
19:34
2 November, 2009
morrisseyobe
I am a head in a Special School and have just undertaken SAT's with one of my pupils - they call it his entitlement! What about his entitlement to a special education and one free from failure, although all the old school will tell you that failure is character building. It hasn't done his character much good. As per usual OfStEd only value what you can measure and do not value what you cannot. Is this a partial explanation to our societies social breakdown?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
23:04
2 November, 2009
helen49
Mr Brown should ask himself why there is a such a problem in recruiting senior leaders in schools. Who would want a job where there is so much scrutiny and the constant threat that your job is on the line if you cannot reach some arbitrary magic percentage for the children in your school. There have been some welcome changes in my 34 years as a teacher and now a head for the last 10. However, the constant pressure has seen colleagues leaving the profession in droves. Please allow us to use our professional judgement about children
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
8:53
3 November, 2009
lemolyneux
SATs is just the goverment way of trying to convince the public that they are doing the best for our children when in reality it is the worst. All it achieves is training children to perform like monkeys; heads to risk cheating and stressed out staff, parents and children (some having committed sucide). The government is de-skilling; de-humanising and de-valuing our CHILDREN, our TEACHERS and all other stake holders. Surely it is time that the government is held accountable for failing our children. I suggest that different ministers including the prime minister should be forced to teach a class of children for one week. this should be done with no changes to what the usual class teacher has to endure. The politics of winning votes is ruining this country. Please Mr. Brown listen to the voice of reason.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
14:36
3 November, 2009
basseemah
I would like to say a word on behalf of all those teachers and heads working in junior schools. Their performance is judged on achievement from KS1 SAT levels (based entirely on teacher assessment and use of pre-seen and taught-to tests) to KS2 SAT levels. In our school we undertake baseline testing using KS1 tests and the overwhelming pattern of results is that those assessed by the Infant school at Level 3 and Level 2c attain between 2 and 4 sub-levels lower than this in the baseline testing. Yet we are still expected to meet FFT D targets by our authority!! I do not blame the Infant schools - they are under the same OFSTED pressures as we are. But is this not hard evidence of the system being wrong?
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
8:16
4 November, 2009
Rosie267
Isn't this just another example of Government ignoring what people most experienced to judge are saying?
Children who do well in tests don't necessarily know how to apply the information they are tested on.
it doesn't demonstrate a teacher can teach the national curriculum it demonstrates the children can memorise the correct responces for a test.
Mr Brown should listen to the experts for once in his life and act upon the information recieved, not continue to do as he pleases at the expense of the people it is affecting the most.
Maybe there should be a test to show his capability (or lack of it) to run the Country????
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
8:17
4 November, 2009
Layny
To be fair to the Prime Minister, in the piece on page 29, he makes no comment whatsoever on either Sats (which were scrapped in 1992) or on SATs (which are tests for university entrance).
Neither form of assessment has any relevance in primary education today.
Messrs Vaughan and Marley, please take note!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
20:47
4 November, 2009
markuss
One of the reasons I chose to retire early from Headship was the manner in which schools are held "to account" as Mr Brown puts it for the success or failure in SATs.
I was under the apparently mistaken impression that schools were there to educate and prepare children for their future lives by giving them a thirst for and enjoyment of learning - not put them on a treadmill of exams from an early age.
When are our politicians going to realise also that children need different kinds of teaching and different curricular models to suit their own skills and abilities.
The government also wants to blame teachers and schools for boys underperformance when compared to girls. It is a well known fact that girls and boys are physiologically different. Why can they not understand trhis ?
I am afraid that we are turning many children off genuine education and learning for life. All children see education as is "hoops" they have to go through to get from a to b.
From the age of 4 to the age of 11 schools also need to put much effort into developing children's social skills and interpersonal behaviours. Much of the time for this has been "squeezed out" by the rigid formal curriculum.
If teachers believe the job is about preparing children to achieve the best results from the age of 4 then the style of teaching and the teachers we are employing have got it wrong !
Yes we must strive for ALL children to achieve the best they possibly can but this will not be achieved by setting arbitrary levels to reach. These may be achieved on a Monday in May after much practice but is this really and truly a measure of a children's regular everyday ability.
If the average adult could achieve Level 4 SATs in Literacy and Numeracy I would be quite surprised and yet this is what we expect of our 11 year olds each year.
Wake up Mr Brown. Care more for children and less for data !!!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
14:47
5 November, 2009
stewpot2
Anyone who is passionate about children's education and well-being knows that the tests are a unmitigated disaster. It makes me weep to think that I have been a HT and teacher for 30 years and have spent much of it trying to protect teachers and children from the misguided policies of successive governments. Enough is enough and if a battle over the Y6 tests has to be waged lets gird our loins and fight for our children's future. There is much that has been good in the changes that have been made over the past 20 years but the Y6 tests have been a blight on the educational landscape. Get rid!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
19:46
5 November, 2009
bertie wooster
The most useful thing everyone here can do is write to the Prime Minister and to their local MP and put your point across. It really does make a difference.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
14:40
7 November, 2009
baggyann3
The Key Stage One and Key Stage Two SATS are completely irrellivant and in my opinion have no significance in childrens learning. I totally agree with the Unions arguement about narrowing the curriculum. The teaching is primarily focussed on achieving high SATS results which is not effective for childrens learning. Although in our school the SATS preparation and build up is kept as informal as we possibly can, there is an immense pressure for children at such an early age to perform to an expected standard- this is fuelled by parents, who often hold the mis conception that SATS results show the child's level of intelligence and knowledge. There are so many variables that affect the results of the child's performance on that particular day/s that it is literally impossible to count SATS results as a level of intellect. They are merely indicators of their performance on that particular day. Personally I feel teacher assesment is far more accurate and effective in order to gain a real picture of the child's development and profression and level of understanding.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
15:08
12 November, 2009
imreenf
I have spent many Saturdays over the last 6 months standing on an anti-SATs stall and it shows how out of touch the Prime Minister and Mr Balls are. I have been involved in numerous campaigns about education but I have never received such positive feedback from the general public. They want rid of these tests and the petitions will show that. These tests are tantamount to government sponsored child abuse and are inducing physical symptoms such as panic attacks and other ailments. They have no educational value, pupils are coached on how to pass them, they narrow the curriculum and take the enjoyment out of Year 6, they make some pupils ill, they are used to punish schools and teachers, they encourage teachers to focus on the borderline pupils not all pupils, in fact I can't think of anything good about them! GCSEs and A levels are the currency pupils take out into the real world to get into HE and to find work and are therefore useful for the students. SATs only cause harm and to make this comparison is idiotic.
When I was in year 6 (My favourite year in school), we spent our time working on cross curricular topics as well as the basic skills and learned how to reasearch independently and combine different skills into one project and even present our topic to the class. I chose to work on the Olympics and the 2nd World War and each project included numerous curriculum strands (History, Geography, Art, English, Maths and Science as well as Modern Languages,) but more than that I enjoyed it. It developed in me further curiosity about the world and made me want to learn. The thirst for knowledge that this gave me and the skills I learned, motivated me and gave me the skills required to access the curriculum and to succeed in secondary school. I will be a life long learner and still have the curiosity that was developed and thank my Year 5 and 6 teachers for this (Mr Brewer and Mrs Swainston if you're reading this). Would I be where I am if I was educated in today's system. I think not. I'd be bored by repeatedly doing practise tests. Because of this I would have disrupted the class and the education of others. And I was one of the bright ones. Its far worse at the other end. For bright kids each practise test is given back with a well done, excellent you're a level 5 and a pat on the back. For the less able it is incredibly demotivating, Each time you do a test you're told you are not good enough reinforcing feelings of failure that some already have at age 11. I talk to students when they arrive at the comp and the number who seem to think they won't be able to do languages because they are "thick" (their words) is massive and incredibly worrying. When you ask them why they feel this they say "because I was only a level 3/4" or "I did badly in my SATs." Many of these pupils are giving up on themselves at age 11 and the SATs tests are reinforcing this. Why do we have so many disaffected secondary school pupils? One of the main reasons is SATs.
Secondly there is no educational value in these tests and every piece of research about the tests is damning. They narrow the curriculum and the punitive measures schools face in this "high stakes" testing is causing teachers to teach to the test, for fear of the dreaded school category. Having worked in a school in a category I sympathise it's hell!! I love the job but at times I nearly left the profession during these 2 years.
Thirdly I wish to talk about accountability in teaching. I am all in favour of being accountable. I am accountable to my manager and the Head as well as the kids I teach and their parents. But accountability in education is a strange beast. We are probably the only profession that deals with 30 clients at a time some of whom are trying to stop you doing your job. How many patients don't want to be cured? How many clients of the legal profession want to lose their case? Who wants to be sold shoddy goods? You can't treat teaching like manufacturing. When you work with raw materials a certain expected output can be achieved (If the machinery is working), but when the results you achieve as a teacher rely on the fragile psyche of a group of 30 eleven year olds you can fail through no fault of your own. In a sample of 30 the results are also statistically very dubious and these are used to judge schools. Equally the schools that do badly are generally in the more deprived socio-economic areas of the country and this is the biggest determining factor in achievement. But you don't need a level 5 to know that it's obvious. What does that say about our politicians? Providing more activities for young people from these backgrounds and closing the poverty gap in this country are the priorities to improve achievement in these areas.
Finally and I know i've rambled on. These tests are used to set targets for what a child should achieve at 16 and 18. This normally comes in the form of an FFT target and is the benchmark for schools. When pupils enter secondary school their levels drop before they atart to rise due to the inaccuracy of these results. I would have much more faith in teacher assessment levels, especially in an environment where they didn't feel under pressure to over report. This data is also used by secondary schools to set pupils and some schools don't move students up and down groups who are achieving well or badly because this is their target and they must meet it. This is a throwback to the 11+ where one test at the age of 11 had a massive effect on your educational chances. Another nail in the coffin of comprehensive education. Finally when setting these targets, these levels in English and Maths are used to set targets in other subjects. Recently I had a discussion with a Dance teacher. She said her targets for GCSE were set from KS2 Science scores! I don't want to state the obvious but in my experience the venn diagram of ability in these two subjects has a very small overlap of students who are good at both. One final point, My targets are set from English levels (reasonably sensible I hear you say.) This would be true if they arrived with a similar level in the two subject (many students start 4 or 5 levels behind in Languages) and this is made worse by teaching in an area with a strong BNP, which the FFT does not take into account and probably does not know. This means I am meant to challenge stereotypes and racism and gain 5 more levels in French than they achieve in English over the 5 years (They are expected to make 2-3 levels progress, we are expected to make between 5 and 8 even with the BNP locally) I will keep on working to fight the BNP and achieve as well for my students as I can and will work between 50 and 60 hours a week to do this, because I care about the achievement of ALL pupils I teach.
I could carry on forever about why these tests don't work, but I will stop here. If the government want to improve education I will give them some advice. Scrap SATs, Scrap OFSTED and use the money to lower class size, put in support for children who are struggling and give teachers time to prepare and resource more interesting lessons all the time, which in the profession at the moment is unsustainable, and let educators tell you how to improve the system. They know. Don't shut those out who don't agree with you, let them explain the alternatives. Also if you trust teachers why would you be introducing a teachers MOT every 5 year. Personally I don't trust a word politicians say about education, most of them didn't even go to a state school.
Well Done Christine Blower and Mick Brooks and all members of these unions. Keep Fighting! This time we must win there's too much at stake.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
14:30
13 November, 2009
Rob_Illingworth
"Scap SATs"? Nothing we can do in that line in England although we could stop trialling them and decide not to introduce them after all. SATs are American owned/run tests for university entrance.
If any union leaders ballot junior school members on boycotting SATs, they will look (and be) extremely silly!
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
14:59
19 November, 2009
markuss
Whether SATS stays or not really doesn't matter. The tests may seem to restrict ones teaching but one thing we must not ignore is the impact on the children. I love drills and I encourage my children to look forward to them. The pressure I think is usually mounted by the parents and school heads. Teachers know best.
Unsuitable or offensive? Report this comment
9:05
25 November, 2009
adesua