As the 62 primary schools across our trust enter Sats week, I find myself looking forward with a mixture of pride and optimism, but also a mild dose of concern.
Pride because our Year 6 children, whose early education was so disrupted by the pandemic, are not merely taking tests - they are showcasing resilience forged in extraordinary circumstances.
Optimism because of the unwavering dedication of our school leaders and teachers.
And mild concern? Well, because while we are not opposed to testing at the end of key stage 2, Sats continue to be a very imperfect tool within a high-stakes accountability system that fails to capture the real depth and breadth of children’s achievements.
The pandemic’s long shadow
We know this cohort of Year 6 children were in their formative years when lockdowns forced schools online, swapping classrooms for laptops and navigating isolation when strong peer relationships should have been formed.
But the challenge of the pandemic is the beginning of the story, not the end of it. The reality is that their journey to Year 6 is a testament to their tenacity, as well as the dedication of the teachers who have supported them.
Our school staff do an amazing job helping children succeed and giving them the best possible chance in national tests - it’s about knowing every child individually, looking them in the eye and saying, “we won’t let you down”.
This involves everything from organising minibuses to take them to breakfast club during Sats week itself to sharpening pencils, providing favourite pens and knowing exactly the right moment to provide words of encouragement.
Doing better for our children
As a trust, we are not opposed to national tests. We understand and support the need for rigorous assessment at the end of primary school. Even where individual headteachers might have deep personal reservations about the testing regime, they don’t let this lower their expectations for children’s achievement.
Yet around this point every year, I always find myself wondering why the system can’t do better for children.
For example, in the past, we have had tests start with particularly tricky questions. How does this help an anxious child? It would not be a lowering of expectations to provide a few easier questions at the start of the test to build confidence and a sense of initial success, so they don’t stumble in their self-belief within the first few minutes.
We are not afraid to be held to account as a profession, and I am fine with national testing being part of that. But the system itself doesn’t always support a rigorous understanding of children’s achievement.
It is possible for one child to pass the test on the basis of having earned a single mark more than another child, while that other child fails. And yet, in reality, one is unlikely to be more cognitively capable than the other in any meaningful sense. I understand the need for an objective measure of achievement, but is this really the best we can do for children?
Curriculum and assessment review
Professor Becky Francis’s curriculum and assessment review may provide some leverage to make changes, though, as we have seen from the interim findings, it seems only KS2 writing may be in scope for any significant alterations.
We need to make sure we don’t miss an opportunity here.
The review’s broad advocacy for offering better support for all learners, particularly those who have been historically underserved, may provide an opening, as might its focus on reducing assessment pressures, streamlining content and enhancing inclusivity.
In the end, we don’t need to take a polarising or controversial view here, or necessarily call for abolishing Sats. But I absolutely think it is possible to say that we can do better.
Andrew Rigby is national director of education at REAch2 Academy Trust
For the latest education news and analysis delivered every weekday morning, sign up for the Tes Daily newsletter
