Mick Brookes Writes to Ed Balls on NAHT's Position on SATs

24 November 2008

Rt Hon Ed Balls MP

Secretary of State

Department for Children, Schools and Families

Sanctuary Buildings

Great Smith Street

London

SW1P 3BT

Dear Ed

Thank you for agreeing to meet with the NAHT. As you know we have an important meeting with our branch and regional officials in early December to decide on the next phase of our campaign. It will be of crucial importance to be able to report to them your response to our concerns about the maintenance of the testing regime at the end of KS2.

I am writing before we meet so that you can be absolutely clear about the NAHT’s policy position on these matters:

We completely agree with the need for schools to be held accountable to parents, to the general public (both local and national) and of course to the children themselves.

We are concerned that the information that is passed on to parents about their child’s progress is accurate and up to date. We are convinced that SATs are not a reliable indicator as a free standing accountability measure at school and pupil level.

• We have asked the NAA to advise us as to their reliability quality assurance; we will also be seeking a meeting with Ofqual on this.

• Our own assessment is that at school level, there is a 1:5 chance of receiving an incorrect grade in Maths and Science and a 1:3 chance of receiving an incorrect grade in English. We are conducting further research based on the 2008 results.

In your statement to the House on 14^th October 2008 you stated three reasons for assessment at the end of KS2. (i) to give parents information; (ii) to track and secure the progress of each child; and (iii) to hold governance (local and national) to account.

However you missed a prime function of assessment at the end of Y6; to give the receiving teachers in Y7 accurate information about progress to enable a smooth transition to the secondary phase of education.

Research conducted by the Guardian (21/10/08) suggests that some 67% of schools (CAT) test children in Y7 as they are concerned about the validity of the data produced by SATs.

In our conversation on 23/10/08 you stated the need to have external validation of pupil progress at the end of the Primary and Secondary phases. We agree, but it would be fatuous to compare the data produced at the end of the Primary phase with the data produced by the examination system in KS4. The assertion that the validity of a 45minute test (that is not a qualification) in a narrow range of subjects is equal to an examination across a broad range of subjects does not bear scrutiny.

The narrowing of the curriculum at KS2 is caused by the constraints of the testing regime. This distorts, and for some destroys the joy of learning in the primary phase. Particularly vulnerable to this are the children who do not qualify for ‘boosting’ and those who may not be stretched creatively because of the ‘high stakes’ testing regime: precisely the same children you have identified in ‘coasting’ schools.

In summary we believe that:

Educationally

• High stakes testing narrows the curriculum;

• High stakes testing encourages teaching to the test;

• The bureaucracy of the system causes the tests to be taken too early in the summer term and wastes public money;

• At school and pupil level there are issues of unreliability.

Professionally

• The current arrangements imply a lack of trust of/in the profession;

• Compiling league tables from flawed data humiliates and demeans the work of colleagues in our most challenging schools;

• CVA data is compiled on weak foundations and is inappropriately applied to the inspection process;

• League table data puts our members’ jobs and health at risk.

Succession Planning

• The system causes high levels of tension that drains the energy levels and confidence of school leaders;

• The job of Head is seen as high risk – particularly in challenging schools;

• Recruitment to headship in the primary sector is very poor.

However we do not want to spend our thirty minutes discussing these issues, but rather where we want to go with assessment, at least in the interim – as follows:

• Standardised testing to be retained as a measure to inform teacher assessment (with moderation of mismatches);
  
  

• Schools will administer the tests at a time appropriate for their school, certainly not in early May;
  
  

• Schools will arrange local independent markers – (chartered?);
  
  

• Pupil progress is reported to parents, to governors and to the receiving school;

• APU style sampling arrangements put in place to inform government (as with KS3);
  
  

• Work commissioned by DCSF in partnership with NAHT to develop Y6/7 transfer arrangements;
  
  

• Inspectors use ‘validated’ teacher assessment results to inform inspection outcomes;
  
  

• Accountability is reinforced at school/pupil level by using accurate data.

•  

Yours sincerely

Mick Brookes

General Secretary