Isn't it time we saw the end of Key Stage 3 tests?

Times Education Editor Alexandra Frean thinks it is.  She says that it's better for schools to do badly in them - so their progress at GSCE is all the more impressive.

"Secondary school key stage 3 results came out today, and showed that improvement in school tests at age 14 has ground to a virtual standstill.

A third of 14-year-old boys failed to meet the lower of two expected standards in English and one in five didn't even reach the level of an 11-year-old.

Ministers, who hoped to exceed targets set last year, have now missed them in English, maths and science.

On the face of it, this sounds rather depressing. But do many people really care?

It is widely acknowledged, both within the teaching profession and among politicians and parents. that some form of national testing at age 11 (the end of Key Stage 2) is needed. It provides a kind of marker of school performance (albeit an imperfect one), and it give parents and pupils an idea of how their achievement compares with the national average.

But the same cannot be said for Key Stage 3, which many in the education community (although, sadly, not the government) regard as a complete waste of time.

Schools don’t pay much attention to Key Stage 3 results simply because there’s no advantage to them in doing well. In fact, it’s the reverse. They are better off doing badly because this will make their progress scores at GCSE seem so much better. (They can get away with this attitude because, unlike the primary school Key Stage 2 results, Key Stage 3 results are not used to compile school league tables).

Most teachers are perfectly capable of judging pupil progress at the age of 14 though the use of internal tests and teacher assessment. Many would prefer to spend the time they currently devote to preparing for the Key Stage 3 tests doing something more useful.

Pupils and parents don’t care very much about them either. In theory, the tests are supposed to provide students and their parents with useful pointers about what GCSE courses pupils might like to take the following year. But given that all pupils will have to take English and maths after the age of 14, they don't really help at all (apart perhaps from the science test.)

Many students are fully aware of these issues and have developed a healthy disregard for the Key Stage 3 tests and their results, which - given the continuing chaos surrounding marking - could turn out to be unreliable anyway.

One simple solution might be to replace the Key Stage 3 tests with internal teacher assessments. Apart from the government, it is hard to see who would miss them."

Comments

[pete]

Actually I think it was Andy who just failed english comprehension.

[william shepherd]

Very silly idea. As a key stage 2 teacher I routinely sent bright, able, motivated and highly achieving children to the the comprehensive. Almost lawys there was a falling off int heir enthusiasm and achievement. Why? Because the "little ones", i.e. years 7 and 8 were taught by younger staff and non specialists and supply teachers. The senior staff concentrated on GCSE and A levels. This is a very short sighted strategy because it turns children off as soon as they start their secondary education.

So no, don't cancel any exams. They are the means by which we detect failure in the system and can help us focus of the problems in schools.

[Jim Bean]

Hi from the U.S.A., we have pointless, stupid nation-wide tests here, too.

I just got my Masters of Education, and what I would like to see is not the students being tested for highly specific forms of knowledge and responses... but tests of teachers to reality check the capacities of those who are supposed to mentor children.

I recently watched two determined, but very stupid, women getting their certifications argue about why it is impossible to teach students how light bulbs work because the process is too "magical" to understand. The kids are fine. The teachers, however, may not be.

[Andy]

"except we got exams at the end."

You're a teacher? Dear Lord, no wonder our children are so stupid nowadays.

[Tom Hinsley]

Well, this sucks.

I'm going into year 10 this comming september and apparently I and one of the last to ever do coursework. Now i'm one of the last to do KS3 S.A.T's too?

[Kelly]

I teach KS3 (and have marked the Reading papers for KS3 English) and the students are bored rigid of being tested, and see little value in them when GCSEs are just 2 years away.

My experiences as a marker highlights how little value they have as it has not informed my practice in the classroom half as much as marking GCSE papers did - an experience I found invaluable.

As for teacher assessments being biased, we frequently moderate KS3 work to ensure we mark fairly and consistently - just like at KS4 with coursework.

[Bucko]

Whoever told you that secondary schools don't care about their Key Stage 3 results?! And that they are not used to compile league tables?! They ARE used for that purpose and in these days of parental choice, schools live or die by their position in these tables - JOBS depend on it. So what we actually have is the pupils being hothoused for the tests that benefit them not one iota - no certificate, no qualification, nothing. These tests are for the SCHOOLS not the KIDS.

[Frank Upton]

If assessment is left to teachers it will be heavily influenced by their personal likes, dislikes and perceptions of pupils. It may wrongly discourage some pupils and encourage others to take the wrong GCSEs.

[Tommy]

Although, as a secondary teacher, I agree that the KS3 tests are a waste of time in many ways, the fact that they are low value does mean that it doesn't really matter whether they stay or go as they don't have a huge impact on the curriculum in Year 9 anyway. I would also point out that the key measure of progression for secondary schools is the progress from KS2 to KS4 so schools have no incentive to do badly at KS3.

[Dave]

Tiredmum, "preparing" for KS2 in the final year of primary school simply is not true.

Our teaching in that year was just like any other year, except we got exams at the end. It was not obvious the teaching was being directed towards the KS2 exams.

[Gill]

Kids choose their gcse subjects and the school guides them on their performance related pathway 'before' they take their KS3 tests, let alone get the results, which makes the idea that they help them choose their best subjects rubish

[tiredmum]

can we get rid of KS2 tests too? the children are too young, and develop at such different rates at this age.

I can just about see the point of KS2 tests as the children are about to change schools - but find it a little sad that they have to spend so much of their final year of primary school preparing for them.