A great deal has always ridden on the outcome of year 6 SATs, to the point where there are some schools which grind out the last two years of Primary school undertaking endless English and Maths lessons, with accompanying tests. The rest of the curriculum can be put to one side, sacrificed on the altar of SATs. The new National Curriculum has looked, from its inception, to be embedding the same expectations. I rue the day the Government took science out of the SATs; at least the subject had status beforehand.
However, this is not a rant against testing, but a plea to consider alternative opportunities.
I have listened in a number of fora, to Secondary teachers and SLT telling an audience that they will certainly be continuing to test children on entry into year 7, as the complexity of multiple assessment systems will be next to impossible to interpret accurately.
Now, it seems to me that the year 6 test, by default, also becomes superfluous, within that regime, so that it could be argue that a better use of the available funding would be to undertake diagnostic, summative testing on children in year 4 instead, with the outcomes informing the final two years of Primary education.
The evidence, presented to parents at that point, would be far stronger in persuading some that extra support was needed, as their child would leave at the end of year 6, better prepared for Secondary education.
Of course, the diagnostic testing could be more targeted, with a focus on specific children (lower half of achievement?) or it could be random sampling, say of 1/3 of a cohort and subject to local moderation, to validate teacher assessment.
All of the above approaches would, to my mind, at least, provide substantive evidence for internal support and targets, would better inform teacher-parent discussions, and potentially provide better value for money, all of which strikes me as a good thing…
However, this is not a rant against testing, but a plea to consider alternative opportunities.
I have listened in a number of fora, to Secondary teachers and SLT telling an audience that they will certainly be continuing to test children on entry into year 7, as the complexity of multiple assessment systems will be next to impossible to interpret accurately.
Now, it seems to me that the year 6 test, by default, also becomes superfluous, within that regime, so that it could be argue that a better use of the available funding would be to undertake diagnostic, summative testing on children in year 4 instead, with the outcomes informing the final two years of Primary education.
The evidence, presented to parents at that point, would be far stronger in persuading some that extra support was needed, as their child would leave at the end of year 6, better prepared for Secondary education.
Of course, the diagnostic testing could be more targeted, with a focus on specific children (lower half of achievement?) or it could be random sampling, say of 1/3 of a cohort and subject to local moderation, to validate teacher assessment.
All of the above approaches would, to my mind, at least, provide substantive evidence for internal support and targets, would better inform teacher-parent discussions, and potentially provide better value for money, all of which strikes me as a good thing…
RSS Feed
