Function of Sats, not testing, the problem
Anastasia De Waal, 3 August 2010
Released KS2 results re-ignite the debate over primary testing. However, the problem with Sats tests is their purpose, not testing itself: the Sats currently exist to prove pupils have reached the required level, rather than to gauge pupil understanding and ability.
The arduousness of the Sats for pupils and teachers, therefore, is wrongly attributed to the ‘pressure of testing’, when in fact it lies in the pressure to prove ‘proficiency’ irrespective of where each child’s learning actually is.
Getting rid of testing per se is neither necessary, nor would it end the current problem.
In light of robust evidence showing externally marked Sats results to be inflated, the fact that this year’s teacher assessment results are so close to those in the externally marked tests, implies that the focus on reaching the expected level makes teacher assessment just as vulnerable to distortions as the externally marked Sats tests.
The key remedies to the main problem – teaching to the test, not testing – are:
- Ending the system of a single ‘expected level’, turning instead to more sophisticated grades of achievement, as in other national examinations.
- Ensuring that test content is unseen by both teachers and pupils, thereby not allowing what’s tested to dictate overall learning.’
How SATs have been used to rank schools is a national disgrace. However we DO need something nationally at KS2 – although many secondary schools will do their own tests – leaving teachers alone to grade their pupils would result in guage transformations of ability levels between junior school intakes.
The main problem is KS3. Many pupils learning slows down and even regresses in these years. KS3 tests were at least a benchmark with much of their content at higher levels not even matched at GCSE. Now we have schools setting their own KS3 exams (based on previous KS3 SATs tests!) and pupils have less confidence that what they achieve at this level really counts.
Many pupils shine at junior school only to flounder in the large comprehensive. This especially occurs in middle sets where where the effects of disruptive behaviour which has to be included ‘at all costs’ causes much more relative damage to learning than in higher sets.
“The arduousness of the SATs for pupils and teachers, therefore, is wrongly attributed to the ‘pressure of testing’, when in fact it lies in the pressure to prove ‘proficiency’ irrespective of where each child’s learning actually is. Getting rid of testing per se is neither necessary, nor would it end the current problem.”
In the context of SATs, perhaps “pressure” should be replaced by the word “anxiety”. The anxiety is evident in the teachers, because of the dubious ways in which the SATs results are used by external groups to rate them and their schools. This anxiety inevitably influences their approach to teaching and it is subconsciously, or even perhaps more directly, passed on to the pupils.
Many years of experience in a non-selective independent school indicate that “pressure” causes few problems – it might actually help to focus minds on effective learning. Following on from the regular testing that they have had during the year, from 9 years of age all children in the school have end-of-year examinations in eight academic subjects, each paper of usually 1 hour duration.
There is an expectation that they should take all this in their stride (including pupils with SEN, who have 25% extra time) and they do. No child has yet collapsed under the pressure of this rigorous assessment, and pupils of an initially wide ability range progress to achieve a high standard at GCSE level and beyond.