Are SATs exams necessary for primary school children?

19 Feb 2010

The apparent inconsistencies in marking of Standard Attainment Test (SATs) papers for children aged 11 years recently reported by the Daily Mail raise once again the extremely contentious subject of how children's progress is measured, and also how the achievements of schools are evaluated.

As a former teacher who has marked more exam papers than I could possibly recall, and who has conducted hundreds of training sessions for teachers using the right2learn online assessment service, I know all too well the difficulties in achieving consistency and standardisation in the marking of any exam paper. However, rather than discussing how greater accuracy and consistency in marking can be achieved, along with an increase in confidence in the results, I would like instead to examine the actual purpose of SATs, and the relative arguments for and against them, and the suggested alternatives.

Readers are invited to express their own opinions and also add their own comments to this Blog.

First of all, I should ask the question: "What are SATs and why do we have them?"  

SATs were first introduced in 1991 as part of the Conservative government's commitment to raising standards in schools. These were initially based on teacher observation of tasks for children on areas around the National Curriculum. These were soon deemed too time consuming to administer, resulting in paper and pencil tests being introduced in 1995, focusing on English and mathematics. Following the abolition of Key Stage 3 SATs for 14 year olds, the only remaining SATs tests are at Key Stage 2 in primary year 6. The tests are externally marked and moderated, and lead to a "level" of performance being reported for each child.

The levels are reported to parents as an indicator of their child's progress when they are about to advance to secondary school. The levels are also reported to the Department of Children, Schools and Families (DCSF), and form a de facto target for schools to ensure as many children as possible attain "level 4" by the time they reach the end of primary year 6. This is the standard considered necessary for children to have a chance of doing well at secondary school. SATs have therefore become a means via which the apparent success of schools is measured and are reported externally, via "league tables", which subsequently influence parents' decisions as to where to send their child. The results are also supposed to provide valuable information for the secondary schools, to assist them in placing children into groups or sets according to their level of ability.  

What are the apparent benefits of SATs?

The argument is that externally set and marked exams provide an invaluable mechanism for the academic success of the school in the "core subjects" to be measured, without the possibility of the results being either inflated or manipulated. It is also suggested that the public's right to know the relative success and achievements of the school to which they have entrusted the education of their child, is achieved effectively with benchmarking via league tables. The independence of the external papers arguably adds to public confidence in the validity of the reported information. The exams are also seen as a "tangible" result of the child's primary school career, thus providing a quantifiable outcome, enabling parents to conduct their own benchmarking, e.g. by comparing their child's results against expectations and against other children's results.

What are the reported problems with SATs?

The arguments against SATS, as put forward by the National Association of Headteachers (NAHT) include that the system does not place enough value on teacher assessment of children within the classroom. It is claimed that too much emphasis is placed on an inaccurate and unreliable system, which prevents the communication of the correct information regarding children's progress being made, adversely affecting the planning of their secondary school education. It is suggested that the excessive emphasis on SATs and the resulting league tables forces schools to spend too much time "rehearsing" children to take unnecessary tests, at the expense of some of the learning they should be doing in other subjects, particularly in year 6. Ultimately, it is claimed that the league tables deriving from SATs results have a negative impact upon parents and children, and do not create enough focus on the breadth of areas of achievement of schools, and subsequently prove a significant barrier to overall school improvement.

What are the alternatives to SATs?

In November 2009, the Secretary of State for DCSF (Ed Balls) announced that from 2011 the Government will publish teacher assessed papers alongside the results of SATs papers. Many schools hope that this will mark the beginning of the end for SATs if teacher assessed results are able to prove a credible alternative. It is argued that the more frequent assessments, conducted by teachers who have knowledge of the children involved, will have greater reliability. The Government is also piloting a Report Card system over the next two years, which is designed to provide parents with a wider variety of information. Areas which may ultimately be incorporated include whole school attainment; individual results for their child; rate of progress; health; enjoyment of subjects; discipline and parents' and pupils' overall views of the school. In addition, the Minister of State for DCSF (Jim Knight) announced in January 2008 that all secondary schools are to provide parents with online reports by September 2010, followed by primary schools in September 2012.

Comments

My personal view is placing SATs results alongside teacher assessed papers is a sensible approach and provides the opportunity for the merits of the approach preferred by many schools to be examined and compared directly against those of the existing system. Moving immediately from one system to another, without having first seen how it would effectively support the required outcomes, might otherwise create more problems than it is designed to resolve. Additionally, this will offer the opportunity for parents and schools to judge for themselves which system and form of information received has the greatest benefits, particularly to the children. It should not necessarily be assumed at this stage that SATs will definitely be abolished. The wider spectrum of issues to be included within the school report cards to be introduced from 2011 should arguably provide a more balanced view of the achievements and performance of each school.

With regard to the online reporting requirements, I believe this an excellent idea, as it will hopefully result in far more "real time" information being provided to parents regarding children's progress, behaviour and overall well-being at school. All too often have I experienced the frustration of having too little access to information from schools regarding my own children's specific needs and progress, and felt that more could and should be done for parents. This frustration was one of the fundamental reasons I founded Right2Learn, with the core aim of providing both parents and schools with an independent and reliable method of regularly identifying and addressing children's needs and raising their achievement. Although feedback on our service confirms that we make a valuable contribution in this area, I welcome the initiatives being introduced in the next few years, and the greater access to more balanced information they should provide on a more regular basis.

The final point I would like to make is an obvious one. Education is a process, rather than an outcome. There must inevitably be set outcomes at some stage, in order to qualify the level of education achieved and to give it purpose. For example a student's performance within GCSE and A' Level exams provides effective criteria via which an individual's suitability might be assessed for further education or employment. The achievement provides a benchmark for universities, colleges and employers to gauge the apparent level of commitment, ability and motivation a student might have elsewhere.

However, for primary school children such outcomes are in the distant future. As such, I would contend that it is the ongoing happiness of the child, and the rate of progress and learning being achieved which are most important, so that parents are satisfied that their individual children's needs are being met. This is an argument for formative assessment FOR learning, more than summative assessment OF learning. In short, ongoing assessments, such as those provided by right2learn, conducted regularly and in time to directly influence lesson planning and subsequently enable teachers to raise children's achievement, rather than merely report it.

As ever, any comments from parents, teachers or others are welcomed.

< Back