Discussion:
SATS tests
Add Reply
The Todal
2017-05-12 11:11:51 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers regard them
as both pointless and stressful for pupils. And the Government is
powerless to suppress tweets!

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39895818

Government officials are waging a twitter battle with parents who tweet
questions from national tests being taken by primary pupils in England.

The Department for Education wants any information on the content of
Sats papers removed as pupils take the tests at various times over two
weeks.

Officials have been messaging parents since Monday asking them to remove
tweets revealing question details.
j***@gmail.com
2017-05-12 12:24:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
When I was a lad I remember a group of us being, I assume, randomly chosen and asked questions by an external body.

Is this not the best method of testing the schools
Nick
2017-05-12 12:46:34 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by j***@gmail.com
When I was a lad I remember a group of us being, I assume, randomly chosen and asked questions by an external body.
Is this not the best method of testing the schools
As with most statistics a comprehensive test of all children is "better"
than a sample. Ideally Sats were designed to be tests of schools, not
children, hence there should be no reason for children to be stressed
about them.

In practice teachers push their stress, over good performance in Sats,
onto children. Schools teaching staff interests are prioritised over the
welfare of children. The selection process of educational authorities,
teaching staff, and parental choice of schools makes this almost inevitable.

In effect it would be good if the tests continued but results were not
made public to either the public or educational institutions at the
local level. School and teacher performance should be judged by other
mechanisms.

Possibly in a more computerised age it will be possible to continually
assess pupils in a less stressful way, more holistic way.
Norman Wells
2017-05-12 13:11:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by j***@gmail.com
When I was a lad I remember a group of us being, I assume, randomly
chosen and asked questions by an external body.
Is this not the best method of testing the schools
As with most statistics a comprehensive test of all children is "better"
than a sample. Ideally Sats were designed to be tests of schools, not
children, hence there should be no reason for children to be stressed
about them.
In practice teachers push their stress, over good performance in Sats,
onto children. Schools teaching staff interests are prioritised over the
welfare of children. The selection process of educational authorities,
teaching staff, and parental choice of schools makes this almost inevitable.
In effect it would be good if the tests continued but results were not
made public to either the public or educational institutions at the
local level. School and teacher performance should be judged by other
mechanisms.
There is surely no better way to assess schools and teachers than to
assess how well their pupils have been taught. It goes directly to the
heart of what schools are about.
Post by Nick
Possibly in a more computerised age it will be possible to continually
assess pupils in a less stressful way, more holistic way.
There's no inherent reason why SATS tests should be stressful for
children. Teachers don't like them of course because it may show them
up to be inadequate. If they're that worried that they resent their
abilities being questioned, they obviously need to improve, and should
take the hint.
Nick
2017-05-12 13:58:50 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
There is surely no better way to assess schools and teachers than to
assess how well their pupils have been taught. It goes directly to the
heart of what schools are about.
Yes but if the assessment causes more damage to pupils than benefits it
is not worth doing.

A bit like medical X-Rays, the tests may be good diagnostically but the
damage done by the test can outweigh the benefit. One has to find an
optimal balance.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Possibly in a more computerised age it will be possible to continually
assess pupils in a less stressful way, more holistic way.
There's no inherent reason why SATS tests should be stressful for
children.
The reason is that teachers prioritise their own need for the child to
perform well in the test over the best interests of the child.
Norman Wells
2017-05-12 14:07:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
There is surely no better way to assess schools and teachers than to
assess how well their pupils have been taught. It goes directly to the
heart of what schools are about.
Yes but if the assessment causes more damage to pupils than benefits it
is not worth doing.
A bit like medical X-Rays, the tests may be good diagnostically but the
damage done by the test can outweigh the benefit. One has to find an
optimal balance.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Possibly in a more computerised age it will be possible to continually
assess pupils in a less stressful way, more holistic way.
There's no inherent reason why SATS tests should be stressful for
children.
The reason is that teachers prioritise their own need for the child to
perform well in the test over the best interests of the child.
Then they need to get over it. Their prime responsibility is to their
pupils. If it isn't, and they transfer any stress to them, they need to
be taken to task. The kids should be taking the tests under no pressure.
Martin Brown
2017-05-12 12:58:08 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers regard them
as both pointless and stressful for pupils. And the Government is
powerless to suppress tweets!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39895818
Government officials are waging a twitter battle with parents who tweet
questions from national tests being taken by primary pupils in England.
The Department for Education wants any information on the content of
Sats papers removed as pupils take the tests at various times over two
weeks.
It seems unduly careless to have a national examination that is not
either synchronised or using different exam papers at each sitting.

It might require a bit of post exam regularisation but there is no
reason why the exam questions at each sitting need to be exactly the
same. Merely that each one should be broadly comparable in difficulty.
(think lion or water wall on Only Connect)
Post by The Todal
Officials have been messaging parents since Monday asking them to remove
tweets revealing question details.
The main problem is that children can be coached to the tests and
teaching focussed solely on getting the best SATS test performance.
It is a overly narrow interpretation of education.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Fredxxx
2017-05-12 15:54:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers regard them
as both pointless and stressful for pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.

I don't have an issue for SATS every year. The more there are are, the
less stress for everyone rather than for the few under a spotlight.
Post by Martin Brown
Post by The Todal
And the Government is
powerless to suppress tweets!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39895818
Government officials are waging a twitter battle with parents who tweet
questions from national tests being taken by primary pupils in England.
The Department for Education wants any information on the content of
Sats papers removed as pupils take the tests at various times over two
weeks.
It seems unduly careless to have a national examination that is not
either synchronised or using different exam papers at each sitting.
It might require a bit of post exam regularisation but there is no
reason why the exam questions at each sitting need to be exactly the
same. Merely that each one should be broadly comparable in difficulty.
(think lion or water wall on Only Connect)
Post by The Todal
Officials have been messaging parents since Monday asking them to remove
tweets revealing question details.
The main problem is that children can be coached to the tests and
teaching focussed solely on getting the best SATS test performance.
It is a overly narrow interpretation of education.
Perhaps its a good lesson for teachers where they learn to coach pupils
for the best GCSE results?
pensive hamster
2017-05-14 11:23:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers regard them
as both pointless and stressful for pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.
But SATS tests don't distinguish between under-performing
teachers and under-performing pupils. Lazy children know
that if they don't put in the work, and don't get the results,
then the teachers will get the blame for being under-performing
teachers. QED

[...]
Fredxxx
2017-05-14 12:07:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers
regard them as both pointless and stressful for pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.
But SATS tests don't distinguish between under-performing teachers
and under-performing pupils.
They certainly can. I would hope a teacher is marked on how the class as
a whole has improved or deteriorated after the previous years results.
Hence the need for yearly tests.
Lazy children know that if they don't put in the work, and don't get
the results, then the teachers will get the blame for being
under-performing teachers. QED
If the child was lazy in the previous year's SATS then I don't see the
problem if the result was consistent?

There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is seen as such
a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will pull out every
ill-considered excuse as to why they should be stopped. Usually by
teachers, and some parents who think the school puts their child under
undue pressure.
pensive hamster
2017-05-14 13:06:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Fredxxx
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers
regard them as both pointless and stressful for pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.
But SATS tests don't distinguish between under-performing teachers
and under-performing pupils.
They certainly can. I would hope a teacher is marked on how the class as
a whole has improved or deteriorated after the previous years results.
Hence the need for yearly tests.
I was just repeating a comment by a friend of a friend (a
director of a sixth-form college) re SATS.
Post by Fredxxx
Lazy children know that if they don't put in the work, and don't get
the results, then the teachers will get the blame for being
under-performing teachers. QED
If the child was lazy in the previous year's SATS then I don't see the
problem if the result was consistent?
Children? Consistent??
Post by Fredxxx
There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is seen as such
a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will pull out every
ill-considered excuse as to why they should be stopped. Usually by
teachers, and some parents who think the school puts their child under
undue pressure.
I don't think anyone is arguing there should be no tests at all.
But all the teachers I have spoken to about testing, seem to
think that the increase in testing in recent years is driven by
politicians, who want figures and statistics to show the voters
they are "doing something" about education. Test results
provide those figures and statistics, especially when the
politicians can pressure headmasters to come up with the
"right" figures and statistics, otherwise they will be sacked.

Politicians mostly don't listen to the actual teachers, because
it doesn't suit their agenda, and because teachers have very
little power.

I don't work in education, but the above is what I universally
hear from teachers.
Norman Wells
2017-05-14 13:35:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is seen as such
a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will pull out every
ill-considered excuse as to why they should be stopped. Usually by
teachers, and some parents who think the school puts their child under
undue pressure.
I don't think anyone is arguing there should be no tests at all.
But all the teachers I have spoken to about testing, seem to
think that the increase in testing in recent years is driven by
politicians, who want figures and statistics to show the voters
they are "doing something" about education.
They want facts and figures to see what's going on. They're necessary
to put things right when they've gone wrong. Education is a government
responsibility and it's the government that gets it in the neck if
people aren't satisfied with it.

Anyway, as you say, there have to be some tests, so the argument should
be about how many. The above objections don't deal with that but rather
with whether there should be testing at all.
Post by pensive hamster
Test results
provide those figures and statistics, especially when the
politicians can pressure headmasters to come up with the
"right" figures and statistics, otherwise they will be sacked.
How many headmasters have been sacked for under-performance? I
shouldn't think many, if any. They're too scarce a resource. And what
the government wants is improvement not a reduction in numbers.
Post by pensive hamster
Politicians mostly don't listen to the actual teachers, because
it doesn't suit their agenda, and because teachers have very
little power.
I don't work in education, but the above is what I universally
hear from teachers.
So, what's their real objection if it's not fear of being shown up to be
not very good?
pensive hamster
2017-05-16 12:30:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is seen as such
a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will pull out every
ill-considered excuse as to why they should be stopped. Usually by
teachers, and some parents who think the school puts their child under
undue pressure.
I don't think anyone is arguing there should be no tests at all.
But all the teachers I have spoken to about testing, seem to
think that the increase in testing in recent years is driven by
politicians, who want figures and statistics to show the voters
they are "doing something" about education.
They want facts and figures to see what's going on.
But if the facts and figures are inaccurate or distorted,
they obscure what's going on.

As I cited in another post in this thread:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm

'... the data derived from the testing system
do not necessarily provide an accurate or complete picture of the
performance of schools and teachers, yet they are relied upon by
the Government, the QCA and Ofsted to make important decisions
affecting the education system in general and individual schools,
teachers and pupils in particular. ...'
Post by Norman Wells
They're necessary
to put things right when they've gone wrong. Education is a government
responsibility and it's the government that gets it in the neck if
people aren't satisfied with it.
[...]
Norman Wells
2017-05-16 13:21:44 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is seen as such
a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will pull out every
ill-considered excuse as to why they should be stopped. Usually by
teachers, and some parents who think the school puts their child under
undue pressure.
I don't think anyone is arguing there should be no tests at all.
But all the teachers I have spoken to about testing, seem to
think that the increase in testing in recent years is driven by
politicians, who want figures and statistics to show the voters
they are "doing something" about education.
They want facts and figures to see what's going on.
But if the facts and figures are inaccurate or distorted,
they obscure what's going on.
Well, they shouldn't be inaccurate or distorted. If they are, it's the
teachers who are to blame and they need to be held to account. It's
just the sort of cheating they would denounce in any of their pupils.
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm
'... the data derived from the testing system
do not necessarily provide an accurate or complete picture of the
performance of schools and teachers,
I read 'do not necessarily', which is a phrase they have carefully
chosen, as meaning 'generally they're OK but there are some exceptions
we should take note of'.
Post by pensive hamster
yet they are relied upon by
the Government, the QCA and Ofsted to make important decisions
affecting the education system in general and individual schools,
teachers and pupils in particular. ...'
The fact that there may be some exceptions or valid excuses doesn't mean
the whole system is at fault. It just needs to be tuned a little.
Teachers would help if they didn't try to fiddle the results.
pensive hamster
2017-05-16 15:59:28 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is seen as such
a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will pull out every
ill-considered excuse as to why they should be stopped. Usually by
teachers, and some parents who think the school puts their child under
undue pressure.
I don't think anyone is arguing there should be no tests at all.
But all the teachers I have spoken to about testing, seem to
think that the increase in testing in recent years is driven by
politicians, who want figures and statistics to show the voters
they are "doing something" about education.
They want facts and figures to see what's going on.
But if the facts and figures are inaccurate or distorted,
they obscure what's going on.
Well, they shouldn't be inaccurate or distorted. If they are, it's the
teachers who are to blame and they need to be held to account. It's
just the sort of cheating they would denounce in any of their pupils.
Post by pensive hamster
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm
'... the data derived from the testing system
do not necessarily provide an accurate or complete picture of the
performance of schools and teachers,
I read 'do not necessarily', which is a phrase they have carefully
chosen, as meaning 'generally they're OK but there are some exceptions
we should take note of'.
Well, it's not very good data if it is subject to that degree of
interpretation. Personally, I interpret 'do not necessarily' as
a polite parliamentary way of saying "the data is not reliably
accurate."

There needs to be some independent, objective and scientific
way of measuring the accuracy of the data. Data of uncertain
accuracy, is poor quality data.
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
yet they are relied upon by
the Government, the QCA and Ofsted to make important decisions
affecting the education system in general and individual schools,
teachers and pupils in particular. ...'
The fact that there may be some exceptions or valid excuses doesn't mean
the whole system is at fault. It just needs to be tuned a little.
Teachers would help if they didn't try to fiddle the results.
But is it the teachers or the politicians fiddling the results?
Both professions may be guilty of gaming the system to
get the figures they want.
Fredxxx
2017-05-16 20:22:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is
seen as such a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will
pull out every ill-considered excuse as to why they should
be stopped. Usually by teachers, and some parents who think
the school puts their child under undue pressure.
I don't think anyone is arguing there should be no tests at
all. But all the teachers I have spoken to about testing,
seem to think that the increase in testing in recent years is
driven by politicians, who want figures and statistics to
show the voters they are "doing something" about education.
They want facts and figures to see what's going on.
But if the facts and figures are inaccurate or distorted, they
obscure what's going on.
Well, they shouldn't be inaccurate or distorted. If they are, it's
the teachers who are to blame and they need to be held to account.
It's just the sort of cheating they would denounce in any of their
pupils.
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm
'... the data derived from the testing system
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
do not necessarily provide an accurate or complete picture of
the performance of schools and teachers,
I read 'do not necessarily', which is a phrase they have carefully
chosen, as meaning 'generally they're OK but there are some
exceptions we should take note of'.
Well, it's not very good data if it is subject to that degree of
interpretation. Personally, I interpret 'do not necessarily' as a
polite parliamentary way of saying "the data is not reliably
accurate."
Are you suggesting a greater need for testing? The more the greater the
accuracy.
Post by pensive hamster
There needs to be some independent, objective and scientific way of
measuring the accuracy of the data. Data of uncertain accuracy, is
poor quality data.
It would also help if the poorest performing students weren't sent home
instead of sitting SATS.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
yet they are relied upon by the Government, the QCA and Ofsted to
make important decisions affecting the education system in
general and individual schools, teachers and pupils in
particular. ...'
The fact that there may be some exceptions or valid excuses doesn't
mean the whole system is at fault. It just needs to be tuned a
little. Teachers would help if they didn't try to fiddle the
results.
But is it the teachers or the politicians fiddling the results? Both
professions may be guilty of gaming the system to get the figures
they want.
Perhaps if teachers suggested means of improving the tests, rather than
doing their best to stop them, their views on accuracy and other issues
might carry weight.
Nick
2017-05-17 10:03:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Are you suggesting a greater need for testing? The more the greater the
accuracy.
That assumes the tests are giving the type of result you want. If test
results give a biased or unuseful result doing more of them will not
make them unbiased or useful.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pensive hamster
There needs to be some independent, objective and scientific way of
measuring the accuracy of the data. Data of uncertain accuracy, is
poor quality data.
It would also help if the poorest performing students weren't sent home
instead of sitting SATS.
I am not a teacher but my understand was that all children on the school
role were included in the results and if the child did not sit the test
it was regarded as a fail. Hence teachers getting uptight about kids
going on holiday during the SATS tests.


[snip]
Post by Fredxxx
Perhaps if teachers suggested means of improving the tests, rather than
doing their best to stop them, their views on accuracy and other issues
might carry weight.
They have been suggesting alternatives for years.
Brian Reay
2017-05-17 10:11:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by Fredxxx
Are you suggesting a greater need for testing? The more the greater the
accuracy.
That assumes the tests are giving the type of result you want. If test
results give a biased or unuseful result doing more of them will not
make them unbiased or useful.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pensive hamster
There needs to be some independent, objective and scientific way of
measuring the accuracy of the data. Data of uncertain accuracy, is
poor quality data.
It would also help if the poorest performing students weren't sent home
instead of sitting SATS.
I am not a teacher but my understand was that all children on the school
role were included in the results and if the child did not sit the test
it was regarded as a fail. Hence teachers getting uptight about kids
going on holiday during the SATS tests.
At our school, absences for tests were rare but, as I recall, the test
was simply sat later. However, I can't recall it ever happening for
NATs, at least not for one of my pupils.
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 10:12:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
I am not a teacher but my understand was that all children on the school
role were included in the results and if the child did not sit the test
it was regarded as a fail. Hence teachers getting uptight about kids
going on holiday during the SATS tests.
SATS are held during term time, just like GCSEs and A-levels. Kids
can't just go away on holiday during term time, especially at exam time,
and expect no consequences. And teachers can't be allowed the leeway to
send marginal or failing kids away on 'holiday' on the day of the test
so as to fiddle the results.
Nick
2017-05-17 10:57:56 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
I am not a teacher but my understand was that all children on the school
role were included in the results and if the child did not sit the test
it was regarded as a fail. Hence teachers getting uptight about kids
going on holiday during the SATS tests.
SATS are held during term time, just like GCSEs and A-levels. Kids
can't just go away on holiday during term time, especially at exam time,
and expect no consequences.
By that logic presumably if a school annoys a child it should expect
consequences, a child refusing to do SATS would seem to be fair.
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 11:20:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
I am not a teacher but my understand was that all children on the school
role were included in the results and if the child did not sit the test
it was regarded as a fail. Hence teachers getting uptight about kids
going on holiday during the SATS tests.
SATS are held during term time, just like GCSEs and A-levels. Kids
can't just go away on holiday during term time, especially at exam time,
and expect no consequences.
By that logic presumably if a school annoys a child it should expect
consequences, a child refusing to do SATS would seem to be fair.
The answer to that would be to make it illegal and subject to a criminal
record and a substantial fine.
Nick
2017-05-17 11:27:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
By that logic presumably if a school annoys a child it should expect
consequences, a child refusing to do SATS would seem to be fair.
The answer to that would be to make it illegal and subject to a criminal
record and a substantial fine.
lol!


Johnny Briggs, aged 11 1/4, of class 6a you are hereby sentenced to five
years imprisonment, with hard labour, for not trying hard enough in your
SATS test.

Out of curiosity what was your level of educational attainment, Norman?
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 11:56:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
By that logic presumably if a school annoys a child it should expect
consequences, a child refusing to do SATS would seem to be fair.
The answer to that would be to make it illegal and subject to a criminal
record and a substantial fine.
lol!
Johnny Briggs, aged 11 1/4, of class 6a you are hereby sentenced to five
years imprisonment, with hard labour, for not trying hard enough in your
SATS test.
Parents are obliged to ensure that their children attend school
regularly. If they don't, they are liable to get a criminal record and
a fine.

If the fine is substantial enough, they find a way to make their kids
attend.

The same could be applied specifically to SATS days.

And to any other resit day until any recalcitrant child attends and
behaves responsibly.
Post by Nick
Out of curiosity what was your level of educational attainment, Norman?
What do you think?
Nick
2017-05-17 15:32:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
By that logic presumably if a school annoys a child it should expect
consequences, a child refusing to do SATS would seem to be fair.
The answer to that would be to make it illegal and subject to a criminal
record and a substantial fine.
lol!
Johnny Briggs, aged 11 1/4, of class 6a you are hereby sentenced to five
years imprisonment, with hard labour, for not trying hard enough in your
SATS test.
Parents are obliged to ensure that their children attend school
regularly. If they don't, they are liable to get a criminal record and
a fine.
If the fine is substantial enough, they find a way to make their kids
attend.
The same could be applied specifically to SATS days.
And to any other resit day until any recalcitrant child attends and
behaves responsibly.
But what if the child just doesn't make any effort to do the test.
Should the parents be fined if a child does worse than expected.

What would you do if you bought in these fines and the results got
worse. Would you consider changing strategy?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Out of curiosity what was your level of educational attainment, Norman?
What do you think?
I have no idea. You do seem very dogmatic. I could imagine you having a
degree in a dogmatic subject such as Religion, Psychology or Social
studies but I would be disappointed if you had a degree in a real science.
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 15:50:39 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
By that logic presumably if a school annoys a child it should expect
consequences, a child refusing to do SATS would seem to be fair.
The answer to that would be to make it illegal and subject to a criminal
record and a substantial fine.
lol!
Johnny Briggs, aged 11 1/4, of class 6a you are hereby sentenced to five
years imprisonment, with hard labour, for not trying hard enough in your
SATS test.
Parents are obliged to ensure that their children attend school
regularly. If they don't, they are liable to get a criminal record and
a fine.
If the fine is substantial enough, they find a way to make their kids
attend.
The same could be applied specifically to SATS days.
And to any other resit day until any recalcitrant child attends and
behaves responsibly.
But what if the child just doesn't make any effort to do the test.
Should the parents be fined if a child does worse than expected.
No, the parents would have done their job in getting him there.

If the child makes no or very little effort to do the test, he would be
forced to attend remedial classes until he changes his ways.
Post by Nick
What would you do if you bought in these fines and the results got
worse. Would you consider changing strategy?
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Out of curiosity what was your level of educational attainment, Norman?
What do you think?
I have no idea. You do seem very dogmatic. I could imagine you having a
degree in a dogmatic subject such as Religion, Psychology or Social
studies but I would be disappointed if you had a degree in a real science.
Your disappointment is my pain.
Fredxxx
2017-05-17 18:32:16 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
By that logic presumably if a school annoys a child it should expect
consequences, a child refusing to do SATS would seem to be fair.
The answer to that would be to make it illegal and subject to a criminal
record and a substantial fine.
lol!
Johnny Briggs, aged 11 1/4, of class 6a you are hereby sentenced to five
years imprisonment, with hard labour, for not trying hard enough in your
SATS test.
Parents are obliged to ensure that their children attend school
regularly. If they don't, they are liable to get a criminal record and
a fine.
If the fine is substantial enough, they find a way to make their kids
attend.
The same could be applied specifically to SATS days.
And to any other resit day until any recalcitrant child attends and
behaves responsibly.
But what if the child just doesn't make any effort to do the test.
Should the parents be fined if a child does worse than expected.
No, the parents would have done their job in getting him there.
If the child makes no or very little effort to do the test, he would be
forced to attend remedial classes until he changes his ways.
In these days of Political Correctness how would you ensure that? Did
you have leg irons in mind?

I believe the world has moved on. Howver, there are some Middle Eastern
countries that might take a more pro-active role with discipline?
Norman Wells
2017-05-17 19:14:59 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
By that logic presumably if a school annoys a child it should expect
consequences, a child refusing to do SATS would seem to be fair.
The answer to that would be to make it illegal and subject to a criminal
record and a substantial fine.
lol!
Johnny Briggs, aged 11 1/4, of class 6a you are hereby sentenced to five
years imprisonment, with hard labour, for not trying hard enough in your
SATS test.
Parents are obliged to ensure that their children attend school
regularly. If they don't, they are liable to get a criminal record and
a fine.
If the fine is substantial enough, they find a way to make their kids
attend.
The same could be applied specifically to SATS days.
And to any other resit day until any recalcitrant child attends and
behaves responsibly.
But what if the child just doesn't make any effort to do the test.
Should the parents be fined if a child does worse than expected.
No, the parents would have done their job in getting him there.
If the child makes no or very little effort to do the test, he would be
forced to attend remedial classes until he changes his ways.
In these days of Political Correctness how would you ensure that? Did
you have leg irons in mind?
I would repeal all Political Correctness laws and change attitudes. I
would introduce sanctions and penalties that the kids really, really do
not like. They've been absent for far too long, and there has been no
discipline as a result. We've done the experiment with wishy-washy,
concerned liberalism and it hasn't worked. It's time to get down to
business.

I'm not sure leg irons are the solution, but the taser might be. It's
ever so cheap, ever so quick, leaves no marks, and hurts like hell. I
shouldn't think anyone who has been tasered would risk it again. A bit
like the birch then but with nothing except a whine that the dear little
misunderstood victims can show off to their mates afterwards.

What's not to like?
Post by Fredxxx
I believe the world has moved on.
Yes, America has got Trump, the Middle East has got ISIS, Europe has
millions of migrants, and world population is growing out of control.
Not all 'moving on' is for the better.
Post by Fredxxx
Howver, there are some Middle Eastern
countries that might take a more pro-active role with discipline?
Perhaps we should not dismiss them out of hand (which some of the
victims are in a sense of course) but take a closer look to see if
they're effective. We have choices. My own preference is still for the
taser though.
pensive hamster
2017-05-18 12:43:47 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Nick
By that logic presumably if a school annoys a child it should expect
consequences, a child refusing to do SATS would seem to be fair.
The answer to that would be to make it illegal and subject to a criminal
record and a substantial fine.
lol!
Johnny Briggs, aged 11 1/4, of class 6a you are hereby sentenced to five
years imprisonment, with hard labour, for not trying hard enough in your
SATS test.
Parents are obliged to ensure that their children attend school
regularly. If they don't, they are liable to get a criminal record and
a fine.
If the fine is substantial enough, they find a way to make their kids
attend.
The same could be applied specifically to SATS days.
And to any other resit day until any recalcitrant child attends and
behaves responsibly.
But what if the child just doesn't make any effort to do the test.
Should the parents be fined if a child does worse than expected.
No, the parents would have done their job in getting him there.
If the child makes no or very little effort to do the test, he would be
forced to attend remedial classes until he changes his ways.
In these days of Political Correctness how would you ensure that? Did
you have leg irons in mind?
I would repeal all Political Correctness laws and change attitudes. I
would introduce sanctions and penalties that the kids really, really do
not like. They've been absent for far too long, and there has been no
discipline as a result. We've done the experiment with wishy-washy,
concerned liberalism and it hasn't worked. It's time to get down to
business.
I'm not sure leg irons are the solution, but the taser might be. It's
ever so cheap, ever so quick, leaves no marks, and hurts like hell. I
shouldn't think anyone who has been tasered would risk it again. A bit
like the birch then but with nothing except a whine that the dear little
misunderstood victims can show off to their mates afterwards.
What's not to like?
Post by Fredxxx
I believe the world has moved on.
Yes, America has got Trump, the Middle East has got ISIS, Europe has
millions of migrants, and world population is growing out of control.
Not all 'moving on' is for the better.
Post by Fredxxx
Howver, there are some Middle Eastern
countries that might take a more pro-active role with discipline?
Perhaps we should not dismiss them out of hand (which some of the
victims are in a sense of course) but take a closer look to see if
they're effective. We have choices. My own preference is still for the
taser though.
The kids will just start fighting back. They know where the
teachers live.
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 13:43:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by Fredxxx
Howver, there are some Middle Eastern
countries that might take a more pro-active role with discipline?
Perhaps we should not dismiss them out of hand (which some of the
victims are in a sense of course) but take a closer look to see if
they're effective. We have choices. My own preference is still for the
taser though.
The kids will just start fighting back. They know where the
teachers live.
Then we'll have to taser them again until they realise it's not nice.

We can't have the situation where we're frightened to impose discipline
because of threats, especially from kids. They need to know who's in
charge and learn a bit of respect.
Fredxxx
2017-05-17 18:29:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On 17/05/2017 11:12, Norman Wells wrote:

<snip>
Post by Norman Wells
And teachers can't be allowed the leeway to
send marginal or failing kids away on 'holiday' on the day of the test
so as to fiddle the results.
I can assure you the practice was widespread. I'm now out of touch with
anyone in the teaching profession so perhaps things have since changed?
pensive hamster
2017-05-16 12:45:33 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sunday, 14 May 2017 14:35:27 UTC+1, Norman Wells wrote:
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
How many headmasters have been sacked for under-performance?
This is about Ofsted reports rather than SATS, but:

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/11/heads-poor-ofsted-report-dismissal-shortages
11 March 2014
A poor Ofsted report could lead to headteachers being 'disappeared'
Headteachers in challenging schools say they live in fear for their jobs
as Kent county council spells out the consequences of a failed Ofsted
inspection

'This is like public flogging, when it’s already hard to fill vacancies,' says
one primary school leader.

Is a headteacher's job the best in the world or, these days, is it an
endless stream of policy changes against a backdrop of constant fear
that one disappointing Ofsted inspection could see the end of your
career? The burden of responsibility has long been blamed for a
reluctance by many teachers to apply for senior leadership roles.

... Figures from Education Data Surveys suggest that about a quarter
of vacancies for primary school heads remain unfilled after 60 days
of being advertised, and so need to be readvertised.
-----------------------------------------
Also:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39028840
21 February 2017
Teacher shortage getting worse, say MPs

The Education Select Committee has called for a long-term plan,
as schools struggle to recruit enough teachers and pupil numbers
continue to rise. ...

The MPs want measures to tackle problems that make people
leave teaching - such as an "unmanageable workload" or a lack
of professional development. ...

[Committee chairman Neil Carmichael] suggested schools needed
time to support staff development without constantly being
"distracted by the demands of the latest Whitehall directive".

[...]
Norman Wells
2017-05-16 13:28:06 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
How many headmasters have been sacked for under-performance?
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2014/mar/11/heads-poor-ofsted-report-dismissal-shortages
11 March 2014
A poor Ofsted report could lead to headteachers being 'disappeared'
Headteachers in challenging schools say they live in fear for their jobs
as Kent county council spells out the consequences of a failed Ofsted
inspection
'could lead'? Seems to me like it doesn't, otherwise it would have
said. As I said, those willing to be headmasters are in short supply.
It would be folly to 'disappear' them when what you want is not a
shortage of staff but improvement.
Post by pensive hamster
'This is like public flogging, when it’s already hard to fill vacancies,' says
one primary school leader.
Is a headteacher's job the best in the world or, these days, is it an
endless stream of policy changes against a backdrop of constant fear
that one disappointing Ofsted inspection could see the end of your
career? The burden of responsibility has long been blamed for a
reluctance by many teachers to apply for senior leadership roles.
... Figures from Education Data Surveys suggest that about a quarter
of vacancies for primary school heads remain unfilled after 60 days
of being advertised, and so need to be readvertised.
That's not because of job insecurity but a reluctance to abandon
hands-on teaching and accept more responsibility.
Fredxxx
2017-05-14 15:32:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Fredxxx
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers
regard them as both pointless and stressful for pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.
But SATS tests don't distinguish between under-performing teachers
and under-performing pupils.
They certainly can. I would hope a teacher is marked on how the class as
a whole has improved or deteriorated after the previous years results.
Hence the need for yearly tests.
I was just repeating a comment by a friend of a friend (a
director of a sixth-form college) re SATS.
As I said, anyone who doesn't want testing of their staff will think of
silly reasons why SATS should stop. Even Directors of 6th form Colleges
it seems.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
Lazy children know that if they don't put in the work, and don't get
the results, then the teachers will get the blame for being
under-performing teachers. QED
If the child was lazy in the previous year's SATS then I don't see the
problem if the result was consistent?
Children? Consistent??
A child progression is consistent depending on the teaching staff. I
have certainly known children to stagnate with one teacher and shine
with another.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is seen as such
a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will pull out every
ill-considered excuse as to why they should be stopped. Usually by
teachers, and some parents who think the school puts their child under
undue pressure.
I don't think anyone is arguing there should be no tests at all.
But all the teachers I have spoken to about testing, seem to
think that the increase in testing in recent years is driven by
politicians, who want figures and statistics to show the voters
they are "doing something" about education. Test results
provide those figures and statistics, especially when the
politicians can pressure headmasters to come up with the
"right" figures and statistics, otherwise they will be sacked.
Teachers are arguing against any form of testing. Pupils will only find
out about the little they learned when it is all too late, being taught
by incompetent teachers who should never entered the teaching profession.
Post by pensive hamster
Politicians mostly don't listen to the actual teachers, because
it doesn't suit their agenda, and because teachers have very
little power.
Collectively teachers wield significant power. Politician shouldn't
listen to teachers when their aim is to cover incompetent teaching.
Post by pensive hamster
I don't work in education, but the above is what I universally
hear from teachers.
Yes, teachers hate the idea of being shown up as incompetent.
pensive hamster
2017-05-16 12:23:05 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Fredxxx
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers
regard them as both pointless and stressful for pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.
But SATS tests don't distinguish between under-performing teachers
and under-performing pupils.
They certainly can. I would hope a teacher is marked on how the class as
a whole has improved or deteriorated after the previous years results.
Hence the need for yearly tests.
I was just repeating a comment by a friend of a friend (a
director of a sixth-form college) re SATS.
As I said, anyone who doesn't want testing of their staff will think of
silly reasons why SATS should stop. Even Directors of 6th form Colleges
it seems.
Teachers don't necessarily think SATS should stop, rather
that they are subject to gaming, and so are not very
accurate tests, plus they have various undesirable side-effects.
So the SATS system should be modified.

The Parliamentary "Select Committee on Children, Schools and
Families" seems to think much the same:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm

2. The evidence we have received strongly favours the
view that national tests do not serve all of the purposes for which
they are, in fact used. The fact that the results of these tests are
used for so many purposes, with high-stakes attached to the
outcomes, creates tensions in the system leading to undesirable
consequences, including distortion of the education experience of
many children. In addition, the data derived from the testing system
do not necessarily provide an accurate or complete picture of the
performance of schools and teachers, yet they are relied upon by
the Government, the QCA and Ofsted to make important decisions
affecting the education system in general and individual schools,
teachers and pupils in particular. In short, we consider that the
current national testing system is being applied to serve too many
purposes. (Paragraph 44)

3. We consider that the over-emphasis on the importance
of national tests, which address only a limited part of the National
Curriculum and a limited range of children's skills and knowledge
has resulted in teachers narrowing their focus. Teachers who feel
compelled to focus on that part of the curriculum which is likely to
be tested may feel less able to use the full range of their creative
abilities in the classroom and find it more difficult to explore the
curriculum in an interesting and motivational way. We are concerned
that the professional abilities of teachers are, therefore, under-used
and that some children may suffer as a result of a limited
educational diet focussed on testing. ...
Norman Wells
2017-05-16 13:41:25 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Teachers don't necessarily think SATS should stop, rather
that they are subject to gaming, and so are not very
accurate tests, plus they have various undesirable side-effects.
So the SATS system should be modified.
3. We consider that the over-emphasis on the importance
of national tests, which address only a limited part of the National
Curriculum and a limited range of children's skills and knowledge
has resulted in teachers narrowing their focus.
They test what the government has laid down as key skills every pupil
should have by certain ages. They are the really basic tools that are
necessary for further study and for life.

"At Key Stage 1 (Year 2), your child will take official SATs in reading,
grammar, punctuation and spelling, and maths. They will also be assessed
by their teacher (known as the teacher assessment) on speaking and
listening, writing and science. At Key Stage 2 (Year 6), teacher
assessment will cover English reading, grammar, punctuation and
spelling, and maths. Other subjects including writing, speaking and
listening and science are teacher assessed."
Post by pensive hamster
Teachers who feel
compelled to focus on that part of the curriculum which is likely to
be tested may feel less able to use the full range of their creative
abilities in the classroom and find it more difficult to explore the
curriculum in an interesting and motivational way. We are concerned
that the professional abilities of teachers are, therefore, under-used
and that some children may suffer as a result of a limited
educational diet focussed on testing. ...
Every child should have at least those skills, shouldn't they? If they
haven't, they need to be concentrated upon even to the exclusion of
other more 'creative' or 'interesting' things. It's perfectly
reasonable to say 'No, you can't have a Mars Bar before your dinner'.
All we need are teachers who will say it.
pensive hamster
2017-05-16 15:44:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Teachers don't necessarily think SATS should stop, rather
that they are subject to gaming, and so are not very
accurate tests, plus they have various undesirable side-effects.
So the SATS system should be modified.
3. We consider that the over-emphasis on the importance
of national tests, which address only a limited part of the National
Curriculum and a limited range of children's skills and knowledge
has resulted in teachers narrowing their focus.
They test what the government has laid down as key skills every pupil
should have by certain ages. They are the really basic tools that are
necessary for further study and for life.
This teacher disagrees with you. She says the job is now to
prepare children for tests, rather than to provide them with
any transferable, real-life skills:

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/teachers-crisis-education-leaving-profession-jobs-market-droves-who-would-be-one-a7591821.html
21 February 2017

'... As one former teacher, Zoe Brown, who quit last year,
told The Independent: “In some ways I don’t feel like a
teacher at all anymore. I prepare children for tests and, if
I’m honest, I do it quite well. It’s not something I’m particularly
proud of, as it’s not as if I have provided my class with any
transferable, real-life skills during the process. They’ve not
enjoyed it, I’ve not enjoyed it, but we’ve done it: one thing my
children know how to do is answer test questions.”

And the Parliamentary Select Committee on Children, Schools
and Families says much the same thing:

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm

7. We believe that the system is now out of balance in
the sense that the drive to meet government-set targets has
too often become the goal rather than the means to the end of
providing the best possible education for all children. This is
demonstrated in phenomena such as teaching to the test,
narrowing the curriculum and focussing disproportionate
resources on borderline pupils. We urge the Government to
reconsider its approach in order to create incentives to
schools to teach the whole curriculum and acknowledge
children's achievements in the full range of the curriculum.
The priority should be a system which gives teachers, parents
and children accurate information about children's progress.
(Paragraph 82) ...

13. We received substantial evidence that teaching to
the test, to an extent which narrows the curriculum and puts
sustained learning at risk, is widespread. Whilst the
Government has allocated resources to tackle this
phenomenon and improve practice they fail to accept the
extent to which teaching to the test exists and the damage it
can do to a child's learning. We have no doubt that teachers
generally have the very best intentions in terms of providing
the best education they can for their pupils. However, the way
that many teachers have responded to the Government's
approach to accountability has meant that test results are
pursued at the expense of a rounded education for children.
(Paragraph 130)

14. We believe that teaching to the test and this
inappropriate focus on test results may leave young people
unprepared for higher education and employment. We
recommend that the Government reconsiders the evidence
on teaching to the test and that it commissions systematic
and wide-ranging research to discover the nature and full
extent of the problem. (Paragraph 131) ...
Post by Norman Wells
"At Key Stage 1 (Year 2), your child will take official SATs in reading,
grammar, punctuation and spelling, and maths. They will also be assessed
by their teacher (known as the teacher assessment) on speaking and
listening, writing and science. At Key Stage 2 (Year 6), teacher
assessment will cover English reading, grammar, punctuation and
spelling, and maths. Other subjects including writing, speaking and
listening and science are teacher assessed."
Post by pensive hamster
Teachers who feel
compelled to focus on that part of the curriculum which is likely to
be tested may feel less able to use the full range of their creative
abilities in the classroom and find it more difficult to explore the
curriculum in an interesting and motivational way. We are concerned
that the professional abilities of teachers are, therefore, under-used
and that some children may suffer as a result of a limited
educational diet focussed on testing. ...
Every child should have at least those skills, shouldn't they? If they
haven't, they need to be concentrated upon even to the exclusion of
other more 'creative' or 'interesting' things. It's perfectly
reasonable to say 'No, you can't have a Mars Bar before your dinner'.
All we need are teachers who will say it.
Norman Wells
2017-05-16 16:20:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Teachers don't necessarily think SATS should stop, rather
that they are subject to gaming, and so are not very
accurate tests, plus they have various undesirable side-effects.
So the SATS system should be modified.
3. We consider that the over-emphasis on the importance
of national tests, which address only a limited part of the National
Curriculum and a limited range of children's skills and knowledge
has resulted in teachers narrowing their focus.
They test what the government has laid down as key skills every pupil
should have by certain ages. They are the really basic tools that are
necessary for further study and for life.
This teacher disagrees with you. She says the job is now to
prepare children for tests, rather than to provide them with
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/teachers-crisis-education-leaving-profession-jobs-market-droves-who-would-be-one-a7591821.html
21 February 2017
'... As one former teacher, Zoe Brown, who quit last year,
told The Independent: “In some ways I don’t feel like a
teacher at all anymore. I prepare children for tests and, if
I’m honest, I do it quite well. It’s not something I’m particularly
proud of, as it’s not as if I have provided my class with any
transferable, real-life skills during the process. They’ve not
enjoyed it, I’ve not enjoyed it, but we’ve done it: one thing my
children know how to do is answer test questions.”
She appears to be saying that reading, grammar, punctuation and
spelling, maths, speaking and listening, writing and science, which are
what the kids are tested on are not 'transferable real-life skills'.
Well, they're not cooking, ironing, decorating and having babies, that's
true. But they are basic academic necessities, and I for one consider
them to be just the sort of transferable real-life skills that should be
taught in schools. They are the necessary springboard for everything
else. Other non-academic or more fun things can follow or be taught at
home.
Post by pensive hamster
And the Parliamentary Select Committee on Children, Schools
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm
7. We believe that the system is now out of balance in
the sense that the drive to meet government-set targets has
too often become the goal rather than the means to the end of
providing the best possible education for all children. This is
demonstrated in phenomena such as teaching to the test,
narrowing the curriculum and focussing disproportionate
resources on borderline pupils. We urge the Government to
reconsider its approach in order to create incentives to
schools to teach the whole curriculum and acknowledge
children's achievements in the full range of the curriculum.
That seems to me to be an argument for extending the SATS tests, not
reducing them.
Post by pensive hamster
The priority should be a system which gives teachers, parents
and children accurate information about children's progress.
(Paragraph 82) ...
13. We received substantial evidence that teaching to
the test, to an extent which narrows the curriculum and puts
sustained learning at risk, is widespread. Whilst the
Government has allocated resources to tackle this
phenomenon and improve practice they fail to accept the
extent to which teaching to the test exists and the damage it
can do to a child's learning. We have no doubt that teachers
generally have the very best intentions in terms of providing
the best education they can for their pupils. However, the way
that many teachers have responded to the Government's
approach to accountability has meant that test results are
pursued at the expense of a rounded education for children.
(Paragraph 130)
It's for the government to decide what it wants from the education
system. It set a core curriculum and introduced SATS because there was
a feeling in the country as a whole that kids were not being taught the
basics and emerged from school not being able to read, write or
understand numbers properly. The feeling was that they had been allowed
too much leeway in what they did and as a result learnt very little,
except to have superb over-confidence in their own lack of knowledge and
skills. Maybe that was regarded by some as 'a rounded education' but
it's not my idea of one.
Post by pensive hamster
14. We believe that teaching to the test and this
inappropriate focus on test results may leave young people
unprepared for higher education and employment. We
recommend that the Government reconsiders the evidence
on teaching to the test and that it commissions systematic
and wide-ranging research to discover the nature and full
extent of the problem. (Paragraph 131) ...
Of course, any system needs to be kept under review. I don't think it's
very wide of the mark as it is though.
pensive hamster
2017-05-18 13:22:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/teachers-crisis-education-leaving-profession-jobs-market-droves-who-would-be-one-a7591821.html
21 February 2017
'... As one former teacher, Zoe Brown, who quit last year,
told The Independent: “In some ways I don’t feel like a
teacher at all anymore. I prepare children for tests and, if
I’m honest, I do it quite well. It’s not something I’m particularly
proud of, as it’s not as if I have provided my class with any
transferable, real-life skills during the process. They’ve not
enjoyed it, I’ve not enjoyed it, but we’ve done it: one thing my
children know how to do is answer test questions.”
She appears to be saying that reading, grammar, punctuation and
spelling, maths, speaking and listening, writing and science, which are
what the kids are tested on are not 'transferable real-life skills'.
Well, they're not cooking, ironing, decorating and having babies, that's
true. But they are basic academic necessities, and I for one consider
them to be just the sort of transferable real-life skills that should be
taught in schools. They are the necessary springboard for everything
else. Other non-academic or more fun things can follow or be taught at
home.
You seem to think that 'academic' and 'transferable real-life skills'
are synonymous. There is some overlap, but some aspects are
distinct.

Drama, for example, can help draw a child out, and give them
confidence in speaking and communicating, in a way that learning
the correct terms for various grammatical constructions cannot.
But testing knowledge of grammatical terms is much easier than
testing dramatic performance.

As the Parliamentary Select Committee put it (in Civil Servant
speak):

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm

'3. We consider that the over-emphasis on the importance of
national tests, which address only a limited part of the National
Curriculum and a limited range of children's skills and knowledge
has resulted in teachers narrowing their focus. Teachers who
feel compelled to focus on that part of the curriculum which is
likely to be tested may feel less able to use the full range of their
creative abilities in the classroom and find it more difficult to explore
the curriculum in an interesting and motivational way. We are
concerned that the professional abilities of teachers are, therefore,
under-used and that some children may suffer as a result of a
limited educational diet focussed on testing....'

Or as this article puts it:

http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/new-grammar-test-fails-gauge-use-language-say/story-18980993-detail/story.html
May 14, 2013

A new grammar test being sat today by thousands of Year 6
pupils misses the purpose of communicating, the National
Association of Head Teachers has warned.

The test, which quizzes youngsters on spelling, punctuation
and grammar (SPaG), has been brought in amid Government
concerns about literacy standards.

It consists of a 45-minute paper on grammar, followed by a
15-minute spelling test on 20 commonly misspelt words
including "separate", "preferred" and "necessary".

Ministers claim the new SPaG test, which will be sat by
11-year-olds as part of the annual Sats tests, will help to raise
standards for thousands of children.

But the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) fears
the test fails to assess pupils’ ability to communicate.

Russell Hobby, general secretary of NAHT, said: “The teaching
of grammar, spelling and punctuation is vital.

“It is important that children learn to communicate clearly and
– as far as possible – elegantly; knowledge of the rules of
language helps them to do so.

“We should not, however, confuse testing with teaching.

“The new test focuses on the knowledge of grammar in the
abstract; it tells us nothing about how someone uses that
knowledge to communicate.

“Just because you can circle an adverb in a multiple choice
test does not mean you know how to use an adverb appropriately”.

The NAHT, an independent trade union and professional association,
believes assessing a child’s portfolio of work is a better indicator of
their ability to use technical English.

Mr Hobby said: “We already have a better test, which is the
assessment of the student’s portfolio of work from across year six.

“Why limit ourselves to whether someone can spot an adverb, when
we can examine how they use them?

“Why limit ourselves to the spellings of 20 words, when we can
look at the spellings of thousands?

“Even the government’s own experts agree that the technical
aspects of English are best assessed in the context of a full
composition.”

Writing in the Guardian earlier this month Michael Rosen said:
"There is no evidence that teaching 10- and 11-year-old children
the kind of grammar questions that they will face in next week's
Spag test will help them to do anything better.

"The reasons are obvious: the work involved is highly abstract;
talking about bits of grammar separately from the children's
reading, speaking and writing is almost meaningless."
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
And the Parliamentary Select Committee on Children, Schools
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm
7. We believe that the system is now out of balance in
the sense that the drive to meet government-set targets has
too often become the goal rather than the means to the end of
providing the best possible education for all children. This is
demonstrated in phenomena such as teaching to the test,
narrowing the curriculum and focussing disproportionate
resources on borderline pupils. We urge the Government to
reconsider its approach in order to create incentives to
schools to teach the whole curriculum and acknowledge
children's achievements in the full range of the curriculum.
That seems to me to be an argument for extending the SATS tests, not
reducing them.
If by "extending the SATS tests", you mean "broadening (that's a
gerund or present participle btw) the SATs tests" and attempting to
assess a wider range of skills, then I might not disagree.

[...]
Norman Wells
2017-05-18 13:59:17 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
[...]
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/teachers-crisis-education-leaving-profession-jobs-market-droves-who-would-be-one-a7591821.html
21 February 2017
'... As one former teacher, Zoe Brown, who quit last year,
told The Independent: “In some ways I don’t feel like a
teacher at all anymore. I prepare children for tests and, if
I’m honest, I do it quite well. It’s not something I’m particularly
proud of, as it’s not as if I have provided my class with any
transferable, real-life skills during the process. They’ve not
enjoyed it, I’ve not enjoyed it, but we’ve done it: one thing my
children know how to do is answer test questions.”
She appears to be saying that reading, grammar, punctuation and
spelling, maths, speaking and listening, writing and science, which are
what the kids are tested on are not 'transferable real-life skills'.
Well, they're not cooking, ironing, decorating and having babies, that's
true. But they are basic academic necessities, and I for one consider
them to be just the sort of transferable real-life skills that should be
taught in schools. They are the necessary springboard for everything
else. Other non-academic or more fun things can follow or be taught at
home.
You seem to think that 'academic' and 'transferable real-life skills'
are synonymous. There is some overlap, but some aspects are
distinct.
Drama, for example, can help draw a child out, and give them
confidence in speaking and communicating, in a way that learning
the correct terms for various grammatical constructions cannot.
But testing knowledge of grammatical terms is much easier than
testing dramatic performance.
But speaking and listening are also part of the SATS tests. They are in
addition to reading, grammar, punctuation and spelling, not alternatives.

The elements that are tested in SATS are the basic tools. Once you have
them, you can progress onto the more exciting things like drama. But I
think schools need to teach kids they need to walk before they can run.
It's best to give them a lesson on how to use a chainsaw before you let
them loose with one.
Post by pensive hamster
As the Parliamentary Select Committee put it (in Civil Servant
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm
'3. We consider that the over-emphasis on the importance of
national tests, which address only a limited part of the National
Curriculum and a limited range of children's skills and knowledge
has resulted in teachers narrowing their focus. Teachers who
feel compelled to focus on that part of the curriculum which is
likely to be tested may feel less able to use the full range of their
creative abilities in the classroom and find it more difficult to explore
the curriculum in an interesting and motivational way. We are
concerned that the professional abilities of teachers are, therefore,
under-used and that some children may suffer as a result of a
limited educational diet focussed on testing....'
http://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/new-grammar-test-fails-gauge-use-language-say/story-18980993-detail/story.html
May 14, 2013
A new grammar test being sat today by thousands of Year 6
pupils misses the purpose of communicating, the National
Association of Head Teachers has warned.
The test, which quizzes youngsters on spelling, punctuation
and grammar (SPaG), has been brought in amid Government
concerns about literacy standards.
It consists of a 45-minute paper on grammar, followed by a
15-minute spelling test on 20 commonly misspelt words
including "separate", "preferred" and "necessary".
Ministers claim the new SPaG test, which will be sat by
11-year-olds as part of the annual Sats tests, will help to raise
standards for thousands of children.
But the National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) fears
the test fails to assess pupils’ ability to communicate.
That's the function of the speaking and listening elements of the SATS
tests, not the grammar ones. The grammar ones are not just about
pupils' ability to communicate, they're the tools to enable them to do
so effectively.
Post by pensive hamster
Russell Hobby, general secretary of NAHT, said: “The teaching
of grammar, spelling and punctuation is vital.
“It is important that children learn to communicate clearly and
– as far as possible – elegantly; knowledge of the rules of
language helps them to do so.
“We should not, however, confuse testing with teaching.
“The new test focuses on the knowledge of grammar in the
abstract; it tells us nothing about how someone uses that
knowledge to communicate.
“Just because you can circle an adverb in a multiple choice
test does not mean you know how to use an adverb appropriately”.
Don't get me on to the subject of multiple choice tick boxes in kids'
exams. Make them write something proper. Then spend the time marking
it, not leaving it up to the computer.
Post by pensive hamster
The NAHT, an independent trade union and professional association,
believes assessing a child’s portfolio of work is a better indicator of
their ability to use technical English.
Mr Hobby said: “We already have a better test, which is the
assessment of the student’s portfolio of work from across year six.
“Why limit ourselves to whether someone can spot an adverb, when
we can examine how they use them?
“Why limit ourselves to the spellings of 20 words, when we can
look at the spellings of thousands?
“Even the government’s own experts agree that the technical
aspects of English are best assessed in the context of a full
composition.”
"There is no evidence that teaching 10- and 11-year-old children
the kind of grammar questions that they will face in next week's
Spag test will help them to do anything better.
"The reasons are obvious: the work involved is highly abstract;
talking about bits of grammar separately from the children's
reading, speaking and writing is almost meaningless."
They're basic tools. You can't make anything properly without being
familiar with the tools.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
And the Parliamentary Select Committee on Children, Schools
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm
7. We believe that the system is now out of balance in
the sense that the drive to meet government-set targets has
too often become the goal rather than the means to the end of
providing the best possible education for all children. This is
demonstrated in phenomena such as teaching to the test,
narrowing the curriculum and focussing disproportionate
resources on borderline pupils. We urge the Government to
reconsider its approach in order to create incentives to
schools to teach the whole curriculum and acknowledge
children's achievements in the full range of the curriculum.
That seems to me to be an argument for extending the SATS tests, not
reducing them.
If by "extending the SATS tests", you mean "broadening (that's a
gerund or present participle btw) the SATs tests" and attempting to
assess a wider range of skills, then I might not disagree.
Criticism of certain aspects of certain papers does not mean the whole
system is at fault and needs to be scrapped, which is what teachers
appear to be arguing.
Brian Reay
2017-05-16 17:23:13 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Norman Wells
Post by pensive hamster
Teachers don't necessarily think SATS should stop, rather
that they are subject to gaming, and so are not very
accurate tests, plus they have various undesirable side-effects.
So the SATS system should be modified.
3. We consider that the over-emphasis on the importance
of national tests, which address only a limited part of the National
Curriculum and a limited range of children's skills and knowledge
has resulted in teachers narrowing their focus.
They test what the government has laid down as key skills every pupil
should have by certain ages. They are the really basic tools that are
necessary for further study and for life.
This teacher disagrees with you. She says the job is now to
prepare children for tests, rather than to provide them with
Some, vocal teachers think like that but that doesn't mean all do.

We taught the NC and used the NATs (the new name for SATs) as the Y9
exams in the relevant subjects. The results, besides providing the NC
level data, were also used for 'setting' for the GCSE years. There would
have been exams anyway.

Some teachers fear having their results being checked, those who do
shouldn't be teaching.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
Fredxxx
2017-05-16 20:25:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Fredxxx
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers
regard them as both pointless and stressful for pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.
But SATS tests don't distinguish between under-performing teachers
and under-performing pupils.
They certainly can. I would hope a teacher is marked on how the class as
a whole has improved or deteriorated after the previous years results.
Hence the need for yearly tests.
I was just repeating a comment by a friend of a friend (a
director of a sixth-form college) re SATS.
As I said, anyone who doesn't want testing of their staff will think of
silly reasons why SATS should stop. Even Directors of 6th form Colleges
it seems.
Teachers don't necessarily think SATS should stop, rather
that they are subject to gaming, and so are not very
accurate tests, plus they have various undesirable side-effects.
So the SATS system should be modified.
Necessarily? The NUT is doing its best to stop SATS. They happen to
represent teachers.
Post by pensive hamster
The Parliamentary "Select Committee on Children, Schools and
https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmchilsch/169/16912.htm
2. The evidence we have received strongly favours the
view that national tests do not serve all of the purposes for which
they are, in fact used. The fact that the results of these tests are
used for so many purposes, with high-stakes attached to the
outcomes, creates tensions in the system leading to undesirable
consequences, including distortion of the education experience of
many children. In addition, the data derived from the testing system
do not necessarily provide an accurate or complete picture of the
performance of schools and teachers, yet they are relied upon by
the Government, the QCA and Ofsted to make important decisions
affecting the education system in general and individual schools,
teachers and pupils in particular. In short, we consider that the
current national testing system is being applied to serve too many
purposes. (Paragraph 44)
3. We consider that the over-emphasis on the importance
of national tests, which address only a limited part of the National
Curriculum and a limited range of children's skills and knowledge
has resulted in teachers narrowing their focus. Teachers who feel
compelled to focus on that part of the curriculum which is likely to
be tested may feel less able to use the full range of their creative
abilities in the classroom and find it more difficult to explore the
curriculum in an interesting and motivational way. We are concerned
that the professional abilities of teachers are, therefore, under-used
and that some children may suffer as a result of a limited
educational diet focussed on testing. ...
Ah, so more SATS and a wider range of testing. Simples.
JNugent
2017-05-15 19:30:57 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Politicians mostly don't listen to the actual teachers, because
it doesn't suit their agenda, and because teachers have very
little power.
I don't work in education, but the above is what I universally
hear from teachers.
In the current era of universal entitlement, "listen to" has apparently
taken on the same meaning as "do what I say".

This means that "You're mot listening" actually means "You have the
temerity not to agree with me and give me everything I want, without demur".

And of course, there is no automatic reason to suppose that the agendas
of government and teachers are the same.



---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
pensive hamster
2017-05-16 12:08:27 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Politicians mostly don't listen to the actual teachers, because
it doesn't suit their agenda, and because teachers have very
little power.
I don't work in education, but the above is what I universally
hear from teachers.
In the current era of universal entitlement,
I do not know what you mean by "the current era of universal
entitlement". It is an era which, sadly, seems to have passed
me by.
Post by JNugent
"listen to" has apparently
taken on the same meaning as "do what I say".
As regards teaching in schools, schoolteachers are the people
who are trained, qualified, and experienced. So why would you
not listen to what they say?
Post by JNugent
This means that "You're mot listening" actually means "You have the
temerity not to agree with me and give me everything I want, without demur".
And of course, there is no automatic reason to suppose that the agendas
of government and teachers are the same.
It would seem to be a big problem if government and teachers
have differing agendas in the field of education. Such a setup
is unlikely to work very well.
JNugent
2017-05-16 21:58:54 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Politicians mostly don't listen to the actual teachers, because
it doesn't suit their agenda, and because teachers have very
little power.
I don't work in education, but the above is what I universally
hear from teachers.
In the current era of universal entitlement,
I do not know what you mean by "the current era of universal
entitlement". It is an era which, sadly, seems to have passed
me by.
Irony passes you by too?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
"listen to" has apparently
taken on the same meaning as "do what I say".
As regards teaching in schools, schoolteachers are the people
who are trained, qualified, and experienced. So why would you
not listen to what they say?
Did you actually read what I wrote?

Go on - have another read. Then see whether your question is a logical
sequitur.

[Hint: it isn't.]

Taking your non-sequitur question as a free-stander, there is no reason
not to listen to teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants running the various
departments of government).

Neither is there any reason to agree with any or all of what they say
when you do listen to them. They do not have an automatic right to be
obeyed or agreed with. Are you getting it now?
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
This means that "You're mot listening" actually means "You have the
temerity not to agree with me and give me everything I want, without demur".
And of course, there is no automatic reason to suppose that the agendas
of government and teachers are the same.
It would seem to be a big problem if government and teachers
have differing agendas in the field of education. Such a setup
is unlikely to work very well.
Indeed. And the government and Parliament are the ones that must prevail.

You wouldn't (I'd bet) hand over social-security policy making to the
officers at the local dole office. What's the difference with teachers?
pensive hamster
2017-05-18 12:31:45 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Politicians mostly don't listen to the actual teachers, because
it doesn't suit their agenda, and because teachers have very
little power.
I don't work in education, but the above is what I universally
hear from teachers.
In the current era of universal entitlement,
I do not know what you mean by "the current era of universal
entitlement". It is an era which, sadly, seems to have passed
me by.
Irony passes you by too?
You will have to explain what supposed irony in your
comments has passed me by. I can't spot any.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
"listen to" has apparently
taken on the same meaning as "do what I say".
Your argument seems to depend on the mistaken assumption
that "listen to" means the same as "obey" or "do what I say".

Whoever attempted to teach you English at school, appears to
have been not entirely successful. Have you considered a
course in Remedial English?
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
As regards teaching in schools, schoolteachers are the people
who are trained, qualified, and experienced. So why would you
not listen to what they say?
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Go on - have another read. Then see whether your question is a logical
sequitur.
[Hint: it isn't.]
Taking your non-sequitur question as a free-stander, there is no reason
not to listen to teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants running the various
departments of government).
Neither is there any reason to agree with any or all of what they say
when you do listen to them. They do not have an automatic right to be
obeyed or agreed with. Are you getting it now?
Do you really believe there isn't any reason to agree with any
or all of what teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants say when you do
listen to them???

That sounds like a dangerous megalomania on your part.
Surely it should depend on whether what they say has any
merit or not? (And if it doesn't have any merit, that would
rather tend to undermine one's confidence in the selection
process for those professions.)
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
This means that "You're mot listening" actually means "You have the
temerity not to agree with me and give me everything I want, without demur".
And of course, there is no automatic reason to suppose that the agendas
of government and teachers are the same.
It would seem to be a big problem if government and teachers
have differing agendas in the field of education. Such a setup
is unlikely to work very well.
Indeed. And the government and Parliament are the ones that must prevail.
You wouldn't (I'd bet) hand over social-security policy making to the
officers at the local dole office. What's the difference with teachers?
Who is talking about handing over policy making to them?
Not me.

Policy should be developed in conjunction with the people
who have to put policy into practise, who have the direct
experience of how well policy works out in practice.

Otherwise you end up with an inefficient centralised (and
probably ideologically-driven) bureaucracy, a la Soviet Russia.
Handsome Jack
2017-05-18 15:48:52 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
"listen to" has apparently
taken on the same meaning as "do what I say".
Your argument seems to depend on the mistaken assumption
that "listen to" means the same as "obey" or "do what I say".
What he's getting that is this: you said "Politicians mostly don't
listen to the actual teachers, because it doesn't suit their agenda, and
because teachers have very little power. I don't work in education, but
the above is what I universally hear from teachers."

What that *really* means is "Politicians don't do what teachers want
them to do, and that is a bad thing." JNugent is pointing out that
actually no, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Because what teachers
want from the education system isn't necessarily the same as the rest of
us want from it. In particular they want easy lives.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
As regards teaching in schools, schoolteachers are the people
who are trained, qualified, and experienced. So why would you
not listen to what they say?
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Go on - have another read. Then see whether your question is a logical
sequitur.
[Hint: it isn't.]
Taking your non-sequitur question as a free-stander, there is no reason
not to listen to teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants running the various
departments of government).
Neither is there any reason to agree with any or all of what they say
when you do listen to them. They do not have an automatic right to be
obeyed or agreed with. Are you getting it now?
Do you really believe there isn't any reason to agree with any
or all of what teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants say when you do
listen to them???
No, there isn't any reason to agree with them, because the ideas they
put forward regarding the adminsitration of the educational system are
tainted by their own self-interest.

And Yes, exactly the same argument is true of policemen, doctors et al.
Post by pensive hamster
That sounds like a dangerous megalomania on your part.
Surely it should depend on whether what they say has any
merit or not? (And if it doesn't have any merit, that would
rather tend to undermine one's confidence in the selection
process for those professions.)
It might have merit, and we should listen to them. But we shouldn't
afford their ideas any special respect just because they are teachers,
for the reason I set out above.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
This means that "You're mot listening" actually means "You have the
temerity not to agree with me and give me everything I want, without demur".
And of course, there is no automatic reason to suppose that the agendas
of government and teachers are the same.
It would seem to be a big problem if government and teachers
have differing agendas in the field of education. Such a setup
is unlikely to work very well.
Indeed. And the government and Parliament are the ones that must prevail.
You wouldn't (I'd bet) hand over social-security policy making to the
officers at the local dole office. What's the difference with teachers?
Who is talking about handing over policy making to them?
Not me.
Policy should be developed in conjunction with the people
who have to put policy into practise, who have the direct
experience of how well policy works out in practice.
It should be developed in conjunction with everybody, not just one
particular special interest group.
--
Jack
JNugent
2017-05-19 15:03:01 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Handsome Jack
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
"listen to" has apparently
taken on the same meaning as "do what I say".
Your argument seems to depend on the mistaken assumption
that "listen to" means the same as "obey" or "do what I say".
What he's getting that is this: you said "Politicians mostly don't
listen to the actual teachers, because it doesn't suit their agenda, and
because teachers have very little power. I don't work in education, but
the above is what I universally hear from teachers."
What that *really* means is "Politicians don't do what teachers want
them to do, and that is a bad thing." JNugent is pointing out that
actually no, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Because what teachers
want from the education system isn't necessarily the same as the rest of
us want from it. In particular they want easy lives.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
As regards teaching in schools, schoolteachers are the people
who are trained, qualified, and experienced. So why would you
not listen to what they say?
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Go on - have another read. Then see whether your question is a logical
sequitur.
[Hint: it isn't.]
Taking your non-sequitur question as a free-stander, there is no reason
not to listen to teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants running the various
departments of government).
Neither is there any reason to agree with any or all of what they say
when you do listen to them. They do not have an automatic right to be
obeyed or agreed with. Are you getting it now?
Do you really believe there isn't any reason to agree with any
or all of what teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants say when you do
listen to them???
No, there isn't any reason to agree with them, because the ideas they
put forward regarding the adminsitration of the educational system are
tainted by their own self-interest.
And Yes, exactly the same argument is true of policemen, doctors et al.
Post by pensive hamster
That sounds like a dangerous megalomania on your part.
Surely it should depend on whether what they say has any
merit or not? (And if it doesn't have any merit, that would
rather tend to undermine one's confidence in the selection
process for those professions.)
It might have merit, and we should listen to them. But we shouldn't
afford their ideas any special respect just because they are teachers,
for the reason I set out above.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
This means that "You're mot listening" actually means "You have the
temerity not to agree with me and give me everything I want, without demur".
And of course, there is no automatic reason to suppose that the
agendas
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
of government and teachers are the same.
It would seem to be a big problem if government and teachers
have differing agendas in the field of education. Such a setup
is unlikely to work very well.
Indeed. And the government and Parliament are the ones that must prevail.
You wouldn't (I'd bet) hand over social-security policy making to the
officers at the local dole office. What's the difference with teachers?
Who is talking about handing over policy making to them?
Not me.
Policy should be developed in conjunction with the people
who have to put policy into practise, who have the direct
experience of how well policy works out in practice.
It should be developed in conjunction with everybody, not just one
particular special interest group.
Bingo.

The PP (pensive hamster) and others would *never* agree that soldiers
should make foreign policy, that officers working on the counter at a
dole office should make social security policy, or that police officers
should decide penal and judicial policy, yet has no difficulty in
reaching the opposite conclusion about teachers - for some reason.
JNugent
2017-05-20 10:46:46 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Politicians mostly don't listen to the actual teachers, because
it doesn't suit their agenda, and because teachers have very
little power.
I don't work in education, but the above is what I universally
hear from teachers.
In the current era of universal entitlement,
I do not know what you mean by "the current era of universal
entitlement". It is an era which, sadly, seems to have passed
me by.
Irony passes you by too?
You will have to explain what supposed irony in your
comments has passed me by. I can't spot any.
I was referring to the well-recognised phenomenon of certain groups
"feeling" that they are entitled to whatever they want and that it is
simply the duty of others to provide it at the price they want to pay
(which may well be zero).

This applies not only to material things (houses being a good example)
but also to the less tangible.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
"listen to" has apparently
taken on the same meaning as "do what I say".
Your argument seems to depend on the mistaken assumption
that "listen to" means the same as "obey" or "do what I say".
On the contrary.

I am pointing out that that is how "listen to me" has become corrupted.
Those asking for a right to be "listened to" often use that phrase as
weasel words for "do what I ask".
Post by pensive hamster
Whoever attempted to teach you English at school, appears to
have been not entirely successful. Have you considered a
course in Remedial English?
Don't be stupid (assuming you can help it).
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
As regards teaching in schools, schoolteachers are the people
who are trained, qualified, and experienced. So why would you
not listen to what they say?
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Go on - have another read. Then see whether your question is a logical
sequitur.
[Hint: it isn't.]
Taking your non-sequitur question as a free-stander, there is no reason
not to listen to teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants running the various
departments of government).
Neither is there any reason to agree with any or all of what they say
when you do listen to them. They do not have an automatic right to be
obeyed or agreed with. Are you getting it now?
Do you really believe there isn't any reason to agree with any
or all of what teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants say when you do
listen to them???
There is no reason to automatically agree with anyone's demands.

They might be wrong. You might be right. Which way round that is falls
to be determined emprically.
Post by pensive hamster
That sounds like a dangerous megalomania on your part.
Again, you are being stupid.

I am pointing out the megalomania (if that's a good word for the
concept) in groups who think they are to be obeyed simply because they
have an occupational link with the subject.
Post by pensive hamster
Surely it should depend on whether what they say has any
merit or not?
Bingo.

And that, as has already been said, falls to be determined empirically.
And even if there *is* merit in it, othger countervailing views still
have to be captured and weighed in the balance.

The line: "I'm a teacher, so you should arrange education in the way I
dictate" is distinctly unimpressive, particularly as you would not
accept it from other occupational groups (police officers, for instance).
Post by pensive hamster
(And if it doesn't have any merit, that would
rather tend to undermine one's confidence in the selection
process for those professions.)
Not at all.

I can respect a good teacher for being a good teacher without their
fitness to dictate educational policy ever being or becoming an issue.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
This means that "You're mot listening" actually means "You have the
temerity not to agree with me and give me everything I want, without demur".
And of course, there is no automatic reason to suppose that the agendas
of government and teachers are the same.
It would seem to be a big problem if government and teachers
have differing agendas in the field of education. Such a setup
is unlikely to work very well.
Indeed. And the government and Parliament are the ones that must prevail.
You wouldn't (I'd bet) hand over social-security policy making to the
officers at the local dole office. What's the difference with teachers?
Who is talking about handing over policy making to them?
Not me.
Of course, you're not (because you wouldn't), but the proposition is
100% analogous to the concept of letting teachers decide educational policy.
Post by pensive hamster
Policy should be developed in conjunction with the people
who have to put policy into practise, who have the direct
experience of how well policy works out in practice.
Not "conjunction".

Maybe "consultation".

But no more than that.
Post by pensive hamster
Otherwise you end up with an inefficient centralised (and
probably ideologically-driven) bureaucracy, a la Soviet Russia.
And you said you didn't get irony.
pensive hamster
2017-05-20 14:23:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Politicians mostly don't listen to the actual teachers, because
it doesn't suit their agenda, and because teachers have very
little power.
I don't work in education, but the above is what I universally
hear from teachers.
In the current era of universal entitlement,
I do not know what you mean by "the current era of universal
entitlement". It is an era which, sadly, seems to have passed
me by.
Irony passes you by too?
You will have to explain what supposed irony in your
comments has passed me by. I can't spot any.
I was referring to the well-recognised phenomenon of certain groups
"feeling" that they are entitled to whatever they want and that it is
simply the duty of others to provide it at the price they want to pay
(which may well be zero).
If it is a well-recognised phenomenon, presumably you
will be able to cite some evidence that it is a well-recognised
phenomenon, and particularly among teachers?
Post by JNugent
This applies not only to material things (houses being a good example)
but also to the less tangible.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
"listen to" has apparently
taken on the same meaning as "do what I say".
Your argument seems to depend on the mistaken assumption
that "listen to" means the same as "obey" or "do what I say".
On the contrary.
I am pointing out that that is how "listen to me" has become corrupted.
Those asking for a right to be "listened to" often use that phrase as
weasel words for "do what I ask".
Again, can you cite some evidence for your claim, and
specifically that it applies to teachers?

I posted that I have heard teachers say that politicians mostly
don't listen to the actual teachers. I interpreted the teachers'
complaint to mean that the politicians mostly don't give any
reasons why they reject the points and concerns raised by the
teachers.

If the politicians had listened to the teachers' points, then
they would have addressed those points directly, giving reasons
why they disputed or disagreed with those points. They would
have engaged in some form of dialogue with the teachers.

The fact that the politicians mostly didn't do that, strongly
suggests that often they didn't even listen to what the teachers
said.

And yet you, not having met these actual teachers, seem to
think you can divine at a distance what these teachers actually
meant.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Whoever attempted to teach you English at school, appears to
have been not entirely successful. Have you considered a
course in Remedial English?
Don't be stupid (assuming you can help it).
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
As regards teaching in schools, schoolteachers are the people
who are trained, qualified, and experienced. So why would you
not listen to what they say?
Did you actually read what I wrote?
Go on - have another read. Then see whether your question is a logical
sequitur.
[Hint: it isn't.]
Taking your non-sequitur question as a free-stander, there is no reason
not to listen to teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants running the various
departments of government).
Neither is there any reason to agree with any or all of what they say
when you do listen to them. They do not have an automatic right to be
obeyed or agreed with. Are you getting it now?
Do you really believe there isn't any reason to agree with any
or all of what teachers (or doctors, or police officers, or fire
officers, or tax inspectors, or civil servants say when you do
listen to them???
There is no reason to automatically agree with anyone's demands.
They might be wrong. You might be right. Which way round that is falls
to be determined emprically.
Post by pensive hamster
That sounds like a dangerous megalomania on your part.
Again, you are being stupid.
I am pointing out the megalomania (if that's a good word for the
concept) in groups who think they are to be obeyed simply because they
have an occupational link with the subject.
Post by pensive hamster
Surely it should depend on whether what they say has any
merit or not?
Bingo.
And that, as has already been said, falls to be determined empirically.
And even if there *is* merit in it, othger countervailing views still
have to be captured and weighed in the balance.
The line: "I'm a teacher, so you should arrange education in the way I
dictate" is distinctly unimpressive, particularly as you would not
accept it from other occupational groups (police officers, for instance).
But that's not what the teachers actually said, that's you
imagining what some imaginary teachers might have said.
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
(And if it doesn't have any merit, that would
rather tend to undermine one's confidence in the selection
process for those professions.)
Not at all.
I can respect a good teacher for being a good teacher without their
fitness to dictate educational policy ever being or becoming an issue.
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
Post by pensive hamster
Post by JNugent
This means that "You're mot listening" actually means "You have the
temerity not to agree with me and give me everything I want, without demur".
And of course, there is no automatic reason to suppose that the agendas
of government and teachers are the same.
It would seem to be a big problem if government and teachers
have differing agendas in the field of education. Such a setup
is unlikely to work very well.
Indeed. And the government and Parliament are the ones that must prevail.
You wouldn't (I'd bet) hand over social-security policy making to the
officers at the local dole office. What's the difference with teachers?
Who is talking about handing over policy making to them?
Not me.
Of course, you're not (because you wouldn't), but the proposition is
100% analogous to the concept of letting teachers decide educational policy.
Post by pensive hamster
Policy should be developed in conjunction with the people
who have to put policy into practise, who have the direct
experience of how well policy works out in practice.
Not "conjunction".
Maybe "consultation".
But no more than that.
Post by pensive hamster
Otherwise you end up with an inefficient centralised (and
probably ideologically-driven) bureaucracy, a la Soviet Russia.
And you said you didn't get irony.
Martin Brown
2017-05-14 14:58:40 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Fredxxx
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers
regard them as both pointless and stressful for pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.
But SATS tests don't distinguish between under-performing teachers
and under-performing pupils.
They certainly can. I would hope a teacher is marked on how the class as
a whole has improved or deteriorated after the previous years results.
Hence the need for yearly tests.
I am inclined to think the UK over tests its pupils to the detriment of
general education beyond very basic numeracy and literacy.
Post by Fredxxx
Lazy children know that if they don't put in the work, and don't get
the results, then the teachers will get the blame for being
under-performing teachers. QED
If the child was lazy in the previous year's SATS then I don't see the
problem if the result was consistent?
There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is seen as such
a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will pull out every
ill-considered excuse as to why they should be stopped. Usually by
teachers, and some parents who think the school puts their child under
undue pressure.
I don't think testing is a bad thing to establish what skills have been
taught. You need to measure performance at certain ages.

But too much testing merely results in teaching to the exam and more
coaching on how to pass the test. That is a corollary of the what you
measure gets controlled maxim. If you over test then you end up with
people gaming the system to pass the tests without proper understanding.
--
Regards,
Martin Brown
Fredxxx
2017-05-14 15:36:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most
teachers regard them as both pointless and stressful for
pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.
But SATS tests don't distinguish between under-performing
teachers and under-performing pupils.
They certainly can. I would hope a teacher is marked on how the
class as a whole has improved or deteriorated after the previous
years results. Hence the need for yearly tests.
I am inclined to think the UK over tests its pupils to the detriment
of general education beyond very basic numeracy and literacy.
Post by Fredxxx
Post by pensive hamster
Lazy children know that if they don't put in the work, and don't
get the results, then the teachers will get the blame for being
under-performing teachers. QED
If the child was lazy in the previous year's SATS then I don't see
the problem if the result was consistent?
There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is seen as
such a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will pull out every
ill-considered excuse as to why they should be stopped. Usually by
teachers, and some parents who think the school puts their child
under undue pressure.
I don't think testing is a bad thing to establish what skills have
been taught. You need to measure performance at certain ages.
But too much testing merely results in teaching to the exam and more
coaching on how to pass the test.
Pardon? SATS are on pupils aged 7 and 11. Is that really too much?
Post by Martin Brown
That is a corollary of the what you measure gets controlled maxim. If
you over test then you end up with people gaming the system to pass
the tests without proper understanding.
Given that GCSE and other exams result are the key to many successful
careers, I would hope children are taught to pass exams.
Norman Wells
2017-05-14 16:57:48 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Martin Brown
Post by Fredxxx
Post by Fredxxx
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers
regard them as both pointless and stressful for pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.
But SATS tests don't distinguish between under-performing teachers
and under-performing pupils.
They certainly can. I would hope a teacher is marked on how the class as
a whole has improved or deteriorated after the previous years results.
Hence the need for yearly tests.
I am inclined to think the UK over tests its pupils to the detriment of
general education beyond very basic numeracy and literacy.
Post by Fredxxx
Lazy children know that if they don't put in the work, and don't get
the results, then the teachers will get the blame for being
under-performing teachers. QED
If the child was lazy in the previous year's SATS then I don't see the
problem if the result was consistent?
There really is no QED about it. Its strange how testing is seen as such
a bad thing, where those opposed to SATS will pull out every
ill-considered excuse as to why they should be stopped. Usually by
teachers, and some parents who think the school puts their child under
undue pressure.
I don't think testing is a bad thing to establish what skills have been
taught. You need to measure performance at certain ages.
But too much testing merely results in teaching to the exam and more
coaching on how to pass the test. That is a corollary of the what you
measure gets controlled maxim. If you over test then you end up with
people gaming the system to pass the tests without proper understanding.
That's not a problem of over-testing but a problem of testing at all.
If you have an exam at the end kids *should* be taught towards it.
That's no bad thing. If it's what you as a government have decided
children should know, you *want* teachers to teach to the test. And you
hopefully set the test so that it reveals whether the student has a
proper understanding of the subject or not. It's not beyond the wit of man.
Brian Reay
2017-05-16 15:14:02 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by pensive hamster
Post by Fredxxx
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers regard them
as both pointless and stressful for pupils.
Because under-performing teachers are shown for what they are.
But SATS tests don't distinguish between under-performing
teachers and under-performing pupils. Lazy children know
that if they don't put in the work, and don't get the results,
then the teachers will get the blame for being under-performing
teachers. QED
[...]
It isn't as simple as that.

The pupils are 'tracked' and their expected performance is known. Those
with a history of under performance aren't, for example, expected to get
level 8 in say Maths. However, a good pupil may be expected to. The
teach would be expected to 'get the best' given the pupils he/she has.

The targets are set independently, not by the school, typically using,
for example Fisher Family Trust.

It is, of course, perfectly reasonable that teacher performance should
be checked- I wouldn't have been happy with a poor teacher teaching my
children.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
burfordTjustice
2017-05-12 14:30:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 12 May 2017 12:11:51 +0100
Post by The Todal
And the Government is
powerless to suppress tweets!
As it should be!
Brian Reay
2017-05-16 15:04:42 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Todal
Very amusing - the SATS tests are idiotic and most teachers regard them
as both pointless and stressful for pupils. And the Government is
powerless to suppress tweets!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-39895818
Government officials are waging a twitter battle with parents who tweet
questions from national tests being taken by primary pupils in England.
The Department for Education wants any information on the content of
Sats papers removed as pupils take the tests at various times over two
weeks.
Officials have been messaging parents since Monday asking them to remove
tweets revealing question details.
SATS tests are a perfectly legitimate way to establish progress against
the National Curriculum (NC).

They give a common measure of summative attainment. I can see no reason
why a good teacher should object to them- I never did.

Likewise, as a parent I found them useful to check our childrens'
progress against the NC.

Attempts to undermine such exams are beyond petty and do nothing to
teach children the value of education or about integrity.
--
Suspect someone is claiming a benefit under false pretences? Incapacity
Benefit or Personal Independence Payment when they don't need it? They
are depriving those in real need!

https://www.gov.uk/report-benefit-fraud
Loading...