Julia Manning: More teaching and less testing in schools

Julia Manning is a healthcare professional and a first wave member of the Priority List.  Julia was PPC for Bristol East at the last General Election.

> Policy Summary

To change the primary school SATs [Standard Assessment Tasks] tests:

• Removing the Key Stage 1 test in year 2 [at age 7]
• Moving the Key Stage 2 test to year 5 [at age 9-10]
• Introducing a 4th, randomly selected subject into the Key Stage 2 test.

Primary Schools will be freed up to focus on more teaching and less testing, and encouraged to teach a broad range of subjects in addition to English, Maths and Science. This is to enable a broader and better educational start for children and a much fairer reflection of the standard of education offered by the primary school.

> Policy Explanation

School league tables, introduced by a Conservative Government, were initially introduced to help teachers establish the effectiveness of their teaching. It didn’t take long for them to become pressurised exams, undertaken three times formally during a child’s education, before they reach their GCSE year.

Many schools use the same criteria to assess their pupils on a yearly basis. End of year exams are helpful to both pupil and teacher in establishing what has been learned and understood. But because a primary school's position in a league table is based on the results of Key Stage 2 SATS, taken at the start of the summer term in year 6, it has become a real temptation for schools to only teach Maths, English and Science up to year 6. This has many deleterious effects. Children get bored with the monotony and misbehave. They miss out on years of a broad education, comprising geography, history, art, music, foreign language, IT, drama and DT. They arrive at secondary school with little sense of culture, identity and heritage. They also lack the social and reasoning skills that have been squeezed out of the curriculum by the culture of testing and ticking boxes.

In fact, some primary schools, by introducing more subjects after the SATs, can still look good to Ofsted, even though the broader range of subjects is only available in the last few weeks of term. Believe me, the timetable the school produces can bear no relevance to what happens during the week.

The reasoning behind the policy therefore is that:

• Children do not need to be tested at age 7.
• Moving the SATs to year 5 means that the curriculum in year 6 can be one that properly prepares pupils for secondary school.
• Extending the range of examined subjects to include a random 4th subject such as geography or a language, not notified to the school ahead of time, would mean that schools would be encouraged to provide a broader and better curriculum.
• The league tables would therefore reflect more accurately the education that a school provides.

> Political Risks and Opportunities

It would not be surprising for some schools to object to this policy. They’ve got their league table ranking through a solid, boring 'three-subjects-approach' and they don’t want that jeopardised.

However, the opportunities for children – less pressure at an early age, engaging their interest, a more stimulating environment, more variety, a broader education and time to prepare for secondary school - would be significant. It says that the Conservative Party cares about the majority of British children who attend state primary schools having a rounded primary education. What parent would object to that?

The risks are in schools demanding more money to be able to offer a broader curriculum. The issue of money is more crucial when it comes to having to deal with a class that is so diverse [in language, background, disability and culture] that just keeping it together is a huge challenge. This needs another policy altogether, along with a wholesale review of the content of the national curriculum.

However, a good teacher would appreciate that getting together new schemes of work would be interesting for both them and their pupils; children with a flair for a particular subject would be encouraged who otherwise could have gone unnoticed – or worse, given detention for poor behaviour as a response to monotony.

> Questions for ConservativeHome readers

• Should we only be concerned with English, Maths and Science for the 11’s and under, or should we ensure that they are offered a broader early education?
• If a random fourth subject is to be tested, what subjects should be included?
• How would we reassure teachers that this is for the benefit of all? What else do they need to be in place to help them to teach?

> Costs

• Schools: None. A teacher would take a year to put together schemes of work as they do for the standard three subjects, that they could perform with their classes. After this the plans would be in place for subsequent years.
• Examining Authorities: Overall reduction.  Another SAT test would have to be devised for each subject agreed. However, if we are abolishing testing at 7, the overall cost of administering SATs would reduce significantly.

Comments

[Fred Baker]

"Testing takes valuable time from learning."

That phrase stirred people up! There were no SATs tests when I sat GCE, which involved a lot more than the modern GCSE. The short tests are all well and good but SATs, they are a different matter. Often even the questions are intelligible!

"KEY STAGE 3
SATs take place in May 2nd to 5th 2006 and are once again formal tests/exams. The exams cover work done in English, maths and science ………..”

“Formal Examinations” – they are. That could be some three months taken out of learning time!

[Richard]

"Oh I fully agree Richard - so long as they pay the whole cost of running the school. Otherwise, why should a person's taxes pay to promote a religion they disagree with. This problem dates back to the 19th century and we have still not found a solution. "

Agreed. I'm in favour of the privatisation of all religious schools (and other schools). Suffice to say though that will lose us the election.

I suppose insofar as parents of children at church schools pay taxes they are paying indirectly for their childrens education.

[Richard]

And speaking of education I'm aware I missed an apostrophe in my last post.

[Thomas Hobbes]

"Often even the questions are intelligible!"

Too true Fred. The maths papers often have references to rare birds because the chief paper setter is a bird watcher!

[Fred Baker]

"Buddhism and pagan Hinduism are placed alongside Christianity as equals."

I would go along with that. Anyway Buddhism is not a religion. And there is no evidence of a God.

Sex education leads to sex and drug education leads to drug taking.

If kids are taught it, they think they have to do it! The sad thing is that homosexuality is taught to twelve year olds. Half of them get the idea that they may be that way inclined!

[David Banks]

and whats wrong with being gay , or thinking that you may be that way inclined?

[Thomas Hobbes]

Don't know about you Fred, but no matter how old I was and regardless of how many lesson I went to I wouldn't fancy having another man do that to me!

As the real Thomas Hobbes said - a man judges the likely behaviour of other men by what goes on in his own head.

[Editor]

We're getting off the subject of the thread folks!

[Fred Baker]

Julia Manning is correct “less testing as in "Formal Examinations” is required”. The Headmistress of our “top of the borough” Primary School has said so – say no more.
In Primary schools SATs are a distraction.

As Julia says they have become “pressurised exams”. My reckoning is that some couple of months is spent revising for these in secondary schools. For what avail – to decide on which subjects the pupils will take for GCSE. The attitude of children changes by the day. SATs are a distraction in both Primary and Secondary Schools.

Julia has given this policy some consideration. Vote “YES less testing”

[Matt Davis]

Rather than test on a random subject it would be a lot better to initiate some kind of primary level "General Studies" type curriculum area that contained the basics of History, Geography and Modern Languages but also tied them all together so that they can be tested. For example one year as well as the basic building blocks of those subjects pupils nationally might be asked to more deeply learn about, say, France or Germany as real places, with their history, geography and language all taught and learnt about in a joined up holistic way.

[Yet Another Anon]

There is a problem with there being national standards and a timetable set nationally (and of course national sets of tests imply this) and local independence in running of schools, and the same is true of hospitals, obviously there needs to be some kind of monitoring of what is going on in schools - for one thing to make sure that criminal\terrorist activity is not being encouraged (that includes in non-state schools), if teachers are teaching things poorly or teaching what is patently incorrect .

Do kids really need to be taught drama - surely that's an extra-curricular activity.
and in fact most actors including theatrical actors didn't pursue studies in it formally, most theatrical actors went to Drama school later - most of the most successful actors and script writers\directors etc... never studied Drama as a subject, the most talented actors, dancers, directors get their talent from general life experiences.

[Alison Inglis-Jones]

It's all brilliant, select this woman for a safe seat now......

[Editor]

Is that an order, Alison? lol, Tim

[Lisa]

I used to be a teacher, but now hold the view that for many families schools no longer need to play an important part in our children's education. We live in an information rich society and can find out anything we need from the internet and people in the community. There should be more community based learning centres where children can choose what they are interested in and attend classes of their choosing. This way they are more likely to enjoy learning and want to pursue their interests.
We focus on the 3Rs far to early in this country, children should be children and need to have more time to play. Reading and writing should not be such a big thing in the early stages. Literacy should be enhanced through play until the age of seven or older if the child is not ready. Reading should be a fun, relaxed activity that is enjoyable. Many children and indeed adults who have been through our ridiculus National Curriculum would not pick up a book for pleasure because they have been turned off from reading at an early age.

I strongly believe that testing children at all ages is not helpful for them unless they have chosen to be tested themselves.

Schools should change their approach from teacher led to child led. It is much easier to remember things that you have discovered yourself than stuff you have been force fed.
We have in this country teenagers who are totally fed up with learning, it is hardly surprising when they have been institutionalised for a large part of their life with little input into the type education they wish to follow.
It is only after leaving school that education really begins. I beleive that sending your child to school is a big risk and that if you are dedicated to the education of your children, it is much safer to educate your children at home and in the community.
visit: http://www.educationotherwise.org/
website for more information if you are interested in finding out more.
living is learning,
Lisa

[cheap air yeezy]

Today must borrow nothing of tomorrow.