The SATS results

The publication of results this week has raised at least two issues:

One is the effect of regular testing.

Civitas, the think tank, recently released the results of a telephone survey undertaken among school teachers. Among other things, it emerged that almost 80% of the respondents believe that the tests exaggerate the level of competence in children, because many schools to preserve their reputation, or defend themselves against others who do, by orientating their teaching over long periods towards passing the tests as well as possible, "teaching to the test".

Other people have claimed that the test are such an interruption that important time is wasted on them, while still others feel that tests are an imposition on young children with possible unknown harmful effects.

There seem to be two broad approaches to ensuring quality standards in our schools. The one adopted by the 1988 Education Reform Act is to have tests at ages 7,11 and 14, underpinned by the National Curriculum and Ofsted inspections. It was felt that without outside checks the subjective teacher apraisal and reporting would be open to question.

There is an alternative way, if people wish to avoid tests. This is to make the system more open and locally accountable, allowing parents the possibility of "voting with their feet" if performance is poor. Germany has selective education without the final "eleven plus", by having marks accumulated throughout junior school. This chimes with the best of public schools who regularly report on attainment and effort to parents who are the customers. So, why not make all parents customers, able to seek other schools if they are disappointed?


The second issue is what the tests reveal, even if exaggerated.(There seems to be no measure or agreement of how much the abilities are exaggerated.)

Today's Daily Telegraph reveals that the test results show that almost a third of 14 year olds lack important ability in reading, especially among boys, and that levels have fallen since the tests began. If schools are "teaching to exams" and exaggerating ability then the education system is failing the less able fairly dramatically. If reading is inadequate then all subjects will prove difficult.

Further evidence is that almost four in ten failed to reach the expected standard in all three subjects, English, Mathemtics and Science. This is not a good sign in the run up to GCSEs. Worse, about 20% of boys and 10% of girls have reading skills less than average 11-year-olds.

In general, despite all the extra spending, and some worthwhile initiatives there has been a recent small but general decline in the percentages of pupils achieving expected standards at stage three.

Nick Gibbs, the Shadow Schools Minister, is conerned at the number of children who achieve a satisfactory level at age 11 but not achieveing the expected standard at age 14.

Leaving aside the administrative blunders and lateness, and the inconsistency of some marking, it is obvious that secondary education is not building on earlier achievements.