Education Secretary Charles Clarke faced an audience of concerned and angry parents in his local constituency, Norwich, on 9 May, as he attempted to defend the Government's policy on testing and targets in schools.
Clarke admitted he hadn't expected such a large meeting at Parkside primary school. Perhaps he was under the impression that parents welcome their children being tested in more public examinations than any other children in Western Europe. Or that parents appreciate the results published in school performance League Tables. If so, he was about to learn the truth.
One after another, parents pointed out to Mr Clarke how their children were being subjected to unacceptable levels of stress over Standard Assessment Tests at Key Stages 1 and 2. In some cases children's health was being affected.
Schools were being forced to abandon vital elements of a broad and balanced curriculum in order to teach-to-the-test within a punitive target-setting culture. Even the Chief Inspector of Schools has acknowledged the 2004 targets for Primary Schools are "unattainable and counter-productive".
When Mr. Clarke asserted testing raised achievement, he was met with academic evidence from the work of the Assessment Reform Group demonstrating that, for many children, they do the opposite: "Low achievers become overwhelmed by assessments and de-motivated by constant evidence of their low achievement. The effect is to increase the gap between low and high achieving pupils. Low achieving pupils are doubly disadvantaged by tests. Being labelled as failures has an impact on how they feel about their ability to learn. It also lowers further their already low self-esteem and reduces the chance of future effort and success... Instead of motivation increasing with age, older pupils feel more resentment, anxiety, cynicism and mistrust of standardised achievement tests... Girls are also more likely to think that the source of success or failure lies within themselves rather than being influenced by external circumstances." (Testing, Motivation and Learning: Assessment Reform Group pamphlet 2002).
Unfortunately Clarke chose to ignore the facts in his relentless pursuit of the Government's line. There was a need for a system of national tests, but he was open to discussion on ways to improve it, he said. A target-setting regime was essential but, he conceded, it might be that targets should be decided more locally. At Key Stage 1 there might be scope to consider an increased role for teacher-assessment. It was up to schools and teachers to build confidence in every child, and unfortunately some schools needed the "stimulus" of high-stakes testing to "drive them forward". (Or, rather, as one parent later put it, some schools need a big stick.)
Clarke also clung desperately to his ignorance of any of the issues by reasserting the view that schools could be held up for comparison on the basis of the number of students receiving free school meals. That is an index of measurement that has been widely shown to mislead.
For Clarke, SATs were the route to maximising the number of students who could "read, write and count to an acceptable standard". This is a complete fetish. Would scrapping SATs prevent teachers helping their students to learn? I don't think so.
Primary Head Teacher Gill Coathup, speaking for the National Union of Teachers, appealed to Mr. Clarke to spend more productively the money wasted on SATs. The millions spent of SATs could buy more music teachers in schools and more instruments too. They could pay for more classroom assistants, more books and better resources.
Although the Secretary of State assured us his ears were open, we were reminded of how his predecessor David Blunkett had given similar assurances in 2000 about dropping SATs at Key Stage 1 if it could be proved they put children under pressure. Despite the evidence that SATs generate excessive anxiety, sleeplessness and eating disorders in some children, are educationally worthless and work to worsen educational standards for all, SATs remain.
Activists in the National Union of Teachers are now determined to see an end to them. They are stepping up activity around the country to build the campaign. Teachers should organise meetings in their schools to discuss what a SATs boycott will look like and how best to implement it with the support of parents, colleagues and governors. NUT associations should produce and distribute materials explaining the case against SATs at each Key Stage, as well as using the NUT's own "Not Good For Children" leaflet and petition.
We need to set up public meetings every where. Campaigners should come to the anti-SATs Conference in London on 28 June. For the boycott to happen in 2004 and the campaign against national testing and school League Tables to be successful, the ground needs to be laid now.
* For details of anti-SATs activity in Norwich, contact Pat: 01362 860826
* Building the Boycott Conference: Islington Green School, Saturday 28 June.
