As I have observed before, education in this country is a political football which politicians rediscover and set out to reform periodically, usually at strategic intervals (eg, when facing falling opinion polls), or to enhance their own reputations. Today, the BBC reported the pronouncements of the latest in a long line of such politicians:
"Schools Minister Nick Gibb welcomed the rise in results, especially in writing but he said a third of children were still struggling in the three Rs."
He said: "There has been a decline in the proportion of children - both boys and girls - who can read and write beyond the expected level. And the results of our weakest readers and writers also remain a real concern."
The "results" he is talking about are, of course, SATs results. These have been subject (no pun intended) to withering criticism for years by the leaders of the teacher unions and various educationalists. I totally endorse this view, having seen, at grass roots level, the effect that SATs pressure can have on some parents and children. I know that some 11 year olds are pressurised by ambitious parents into long hours of SATs revision - sometimes for periods of time that would do credit to undergraduates facing their Finals. I have seen young children in tears because they have not got the results they (and their parents) wanted. It has been known even for some children to be threatened with violence, should they not get high grades in their SATs. These tests, in a nutshell, should be abolished completely. They prove nothing of any value; they encourage "teaching to the test", not education; after SATS, year 6 children are as keen on coming to school as GCSE and "A" level students are after their exams (i.e. not at all) - except that the older pupils go on "study leave". Nor are SATs of much value to secondary schools, who implement their own ability tests in Year 7, making SATs results irrelevant.
Mr Gibb (or should it be "Glib"?) seizes upon the fact that many children cannot read and write as well as he would seem to expect. It may be true, but there is nothing new about this. If we look back to 1945 and beyond, we see that there has ALWAYS been a problem with general literacy, and Mr Glib deserves no credit for discovering something well known already. The real reason for this problem lies not in teaching methods, but in attitudes of wide sections of the population towards education - in particular, the hostile attitude of many in the white working class - the lowest attaining educational grouping. In my opinion, those negative attitudes need to be tackled root and branch, rather than making a few cosmetic changes in order to score political points over rival parties.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I remember in Whitby, Yorkshire, looking in a shop window that sold Whitby lucky ducks, with charming testimonials from children. One, however, drew me up short: an 11-year old girl saying how she was really worried about her SATs, but she took her lucky duck with her and got a good result. Why on earth are we putting 11-year olds through such stress? Personally, I regard it institutionalised child cruelty.
ReplyDeleteI don't say this because children shouldn't suffer stress - stress is a part of life - but because SATs, which cause such extreme stress, are utterly meaningless. This means there is no positive side to the stress imposed, so to inflict it on kids without any purpose must be cruel. As SATs do not have any educational value, they take time and energy away from meaningful learning.
SATs results go up, and yet we get complaints from employers and universities about the declining standards of numeracy and literacy among school leavers. They are no more than a political gimmick that serve no useful purpose. Time to scrap them and allow children to learn without distractions and stress from completely pointless tests.