SATs and the Education Factories

For most of us who were at primary school in the 1950s and early 1960s, our memories are generally happy. This is not to say things were easy. Post-war British schools were obviously poorly resourced compared to those of today, and, for all 11-year olds in the state sector, there was the dreaded 11-Plus exam, which was supposed to determine our abilities and future educational (and life) prospects. There was also corporal punishment, meted out in various forms and remembered with feeling by those who received it to the present day.
But, by and large, there was no pressure on us as youngsters to sit, revise for, or pass as many tests as children face today. Memory plays tricks, but I can remember sunny afternoons when we abandoned lessons to play games outside while being supervised. School life, viewed admittedly through lenses of nostalgic hindsight, seemed to be more relaxed and somehow happier then. No school would dare give its pupils free time like that nowadays, as well I know.
For this reason, I have some sympathy for the parents who kept their children off school yesterday as a protest against excessive SATs testing, even though, like shadow education secretary Lucy Powell has said, I cannot condone children being taken out of school. Anyway, 40 000 parents have signed a petition calling for a boycott of SATs tests to be held later this month. The Children's Laureate, Chris Liddell, said yesterday:
"We should be turning children into readers with the pleasure that gives, rather than relying on a testing culture".
Pleasure is distinctly lacking in today's primary schools, and I speak from experience, having taught in many, both as a supply teacher and a permanent member of staff. This is not to say that every primary school I have been in has been a dismal, joyless place (some were), but the pressure of preparing children for SATs exams is ever present, even in the pleasantest of schools, and that pressure can be intense, for pupils, parents and staff. As Michael Rosen wrote in yesterday's Guardian, in an open letter to the Education Secretary, Nicky Morgan:
" We have now reached a point in English primary education where children will be locked into a sequence of “reliable” tests at four, at the end of year 1, end of year 2 and end of year 6...One vehicle for this “reliability” is based on a lie: that questions about spelling, punctuation and grammar have only right and wrong answers."
On his blog,he states: " It's not really the children being tested. Their results are being used to test the teachers and the schools."
The BBC website sums up the argument against SATs testing very well, saying:
"In an open letter to the education secretary, campaigners have warned of schools becoming "exam factories" and that testing causes stress and can make young children feel like "failures"."
Now, as might be expected, the educational establishment have reacted to yesterday's events with extreme displeasure. The first reaction to consider is that of (Hello again!) Sir Michael Wilshaw, OFSTED chief:
"The government is right to introduce greater structure and rigour into the assessment process. Those who oppose this testing need to consider England's mediocre position in the OECD education rankings," said Sir Michael.
The OECD stands for "Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development ", which has a mission to: "...to promote policies that will improve the economic and social well-being of people around the world." All very laudable, but when it places countries in an educational ranking system, it does not allow for cultural or educational differences between countries. Chris McGovern, head of the Campaign for Real Education, would do well to be aware of this. According to McGovern:
"The importance of testing was emphasised by Chris McGovern...
He said that any short-term stress was worth it if in the longer term it meant that children finished school with better results...We're three years behind the Chinese at the age of 15. We are a bit of a basket case internationally."
He is clearly unaware of the fact that Chinese children do not learn in the same way as UK children, relying heavily on rote learning and that Chinese and Japanese schools are even more regimented and exam-oriented than ours, so far at least. Sir Michael Wilshaw, as ever, fails to explain why OFSTED has not dealt with this problem before, despite being in existence since the 1990s.
Nick Glibb, Education Minister, provided an unintentional lighter moment, saying:
"Schools should not be putting pressure on young people when taking these assessments.
"I've been to many schools where the children don't even know they're taking the tests," said Mr Gibb."
I suppose this is possible. I had forgotten Mr Glibb's existence; I didn't even know he was still Education Minister. I think I see pigs flying in formation over Hounslow...
As I have previously observed, Mrs Nicky Morgan and the educational establishment seem to spend so much time reading "Alice Through the Looking-Glass" that they seem to have passed through the looking-glass themselves. I myself have seen the results of SATs and parental pressure upon children, especially the 11-year olds taking their pre-secondary school SATs. I have seen children in tears because they have not gained the highest grades in their results and feared their parents' reaction. I even knew of a case where one child was threatened with violence by her father if she failed to get three Level Five grades in her three exams. These are extreme reactions, but not uncommon. Many parents see good SATs results as necessary for their child's future secondary school place, unaware that most secondary schools administer their own tests for new pupils on arrival, calling the need for Primary SATs at 11 years of age into question. In fact, I have been told by some secondary teachers that they test children in Year 7 because they have no confidence in the Year 6 SATs results! The real reason for the Year 6 SATs tests is to check on primary school teachers and their schools, as Michael Rosen has said. Schools that do not do well in their SATs are penalized by OFSTED, which explains the pressure on teachers, who in turn pressurize their pupils.
Interestingly enough, private schools (and academies) do not have to implement SATs. A Daily Telegraph article of 2012 spelt out the reason for this:
"Less than a fifth of independent preparatory schools now voluntarily stage exams in the three-Rs for 11-year-olds – half the number in the late-90s. David Hanson, chief executive of the Independent Association of Prep Schools, said the tests – compulsory in the state sector – were increasingly seen as a “minority sport” among private headmasters.

He also criticised the “obsession” with literacy and numeracy in state schools, claiming that a national drive to improve standards in the basics was actually damaging pupils’ education, particularly among boys."
I wonder if Nicky Morgan sends her children to an independent school?

Anyway, it looks as if more tests are on the way for our primary schools and, despite Nick Glibb's delusions, will lead to more teaching to the test, and our schools becoming more like education factories than ever. I wonder: will children and staff need to clock on and clock off at the beginning and end of the school day?