By Jennifer Pegg
IThere's no escaping SATs at the moment, the Key Stage tests for 7, 11 and 14 year olds are back in the headlines, because of proposals to boycott the exams at 7 and 11 by members of the National Union of Teachers (NUT). The NUT is clear that they do not believe that these tests are beneficial for children. If anything they claim they are stressful and over emphasised. This is something that the government do not agree with, they claim the tests are beneficial and esteem boasting. They are also, according to the government a useful way of comparing schools and a way for parents to know how good the schools in their area are.
So who is right? Are the NUT, a group of experienced teachers who implement the tests every year, to be believed? Or perhaps we should believe the government, who continue the policy (a relic from the Thatcher years) and use SATs increases to claim children are learning more under their government than previously?
There is no escaping SATs, in all good bookshops a range of revision guides to help the young children along. Aged 7 the possibility that children will feel inadequate and 'thick', and those they may be written off as educational failures. The same at 11, incidentally one of the reasons for scrapping the 11 plus was this very real fear of children being less able to achieve because they had not achieved at 11, now it seems that 7 is an acceptable age to test children. At 14 the implications of SATs or any formal test of this sort are even more bizarre, to focus on just the three core subjects as they are known, seems strange when at GCSE level (school leavers exams that are used to obtain work or a college place) many more subjects will have been tested. SATs at 14 represent a test you will never need (no possibility of leaving school before 16), a test that will immediately be replaced by the taking of GCSEs, tested in a wider range of subjects at a more sensible time in the education of a child. Not designed to compare schools (even if used for this purpose). These SATs at 14 are therefore the most unnecessary test of all. If there is no point for the student taking it to do it what is the point of keeping it, especially when teachers hate SATs.
For 14 year olds being bad at Science Maths and English is not an option. The year following the SATs GCSE courses begin and students will be put into sets based on ability (determined in part by SATs). That's not forgetting that GCSE papers are tiered so a low set will be less likely to take the higher paper and therefore unable to achieve the top grades. A bad result does have an effect therefore, but it shouldn't because SATs will play no part at all in any child's adult life. This means it's hard for parents/guardians to not worry about SATs at 14 and therefore hard to tell students that they don't matter.
On of the key problems with SATS at both 7 and 11 is one of what is called the narrowing of the curriculum. It is claimed that it is common practice to emphasis those subjects in which SATs will be taken, especially approaching exam season, and that pupils are being taught for exams, rather than what would be preferred, namely teaching knowledge which is broad and wide ranging. As with SATs for 14 year olds, the results of these SATs can affect future achievement. As they enter secondary school, 11 year olds may well be placed into sets based on their SATs results and this could well have a knock on effect past this age, because it may be hard to move between sets.
One of the key things about SATs is that they don't pass or fail a child like the 11 plus. In this sense a child won't be called a failure as with the 11 plus, but rather a child will be awarded a level of achievement, determining their ability. The levels expected are, level 2 at 7, level 4 at 11 and 6 at 14, note that these are only the levels expected, many children do achieve them, few achieve higher than this. This is the nature of the system, the school should have taught a child to the level. However, this means achieving the correct level for their age makes the child average, achieving less than this makes them less than average, aged just 7. Think how confident and ready to learn this will make them feel for the next 9 years. John Coe, of the National Association for Primary Education, quoted in the Times Public Agenda earlier this year stated, 'I have had a child say to me "I am rubbish, I 'm a level one"' (20/05/03). This hardly seems like a confident young person speaking, the one's the government have suggested exist because of SATs.
Perhaps one of the saddest of all things about SATs is that ultimately the pressure put on pupils isn't about their individual performance - but about the school's. The pressure to perform well involves a certain amount of pressure from teachers, in turn under their own kind of pressure from above, to perform well in league tables, which affect the school in many ways. A high ranking for the school is a way of attracting pupils. SATs though they affect pupils as outlined above, should not matter to pupils at all.
So have you? Have you ever been asked for your SATs results? What not at all past the time you actually took them? But aren't they really important to you? No, I couldn't think of a time either. Ultimately Sats are useless to pupils and that's why SATs must go.
