Over the last year SATs have had a universally bad press. The QCA is now trialling single level tests to replace them. Is it time to get rid of SATs completely?

I was speaking to a BBC education journalist last year and asked him about a piece that the BBC had run on a major news programme in which two guests who both were ‘anti’ SATs debated the evils of them, no contrary view was given. I asked him why this was and he said that it was virtually impossible to find anyone that would speak for SATs.

One of my favourite quotes is from the American industrialist Sloan. At a board meeting, in which consensus had rapidly been reached on an important matter he said:

If we are all in agreement on the decision - then I propose we postpone further discussion of this matter until our next meeting to give ourselves time to develop disagreement and perhaps gain some understanding of what the decision is all about.

As no-one else seems to be providing some disagreement on this subject I thought I might – if for no other reason than at least a debate on the alternatives might be good for avoiding further expensive mistakes.

The arguments most frequently put forward against SATs are that the tests are poorly marked, that our children are tested too much, that our teachers are teaching to the test (narrowing the curriculum), that the existence of the tests causes teachers and schools to do things they shouldn’t.

Of course it is true that SATs have been poorly marked and there is really little excuse for that happening. But this is entirely an operational problem that should be and can be fixed. What I wonder will magically make single level test marking better?

I think the second argument has little merit. Is it really too much to do an assessment at age 7, 11 and 14 (not that national curriculum tests at 14 are now continuing)? The actual tests represent about 0.15% of the actual school time available over the 5-14 period of education and are significantly less than say time spent on sports days. My youngest daughter (age 12) recently moved to our local Scottish state secondary school from an English secondary school and unprompted by me complained about the increased testing she was getting in her new Scottish school, where each subject seems to be tested at least twice per term.

SATs are not high stakes tests for pupils - they do not go on their external academic record after all. It is for schools that SATs are high stakes for and that is why I think the last two arguments do have something in them.

With regard to narrowing the curriculum – then that is surely not what we want to happen, but equally if pupils haven’t got a reasonably firm grasp of reading, writing and basic maths then it is probable that much of the rest of the curriculum will not be available to them.

Primary schools are driven to worry about KS2 SATs so much partly because of the fairly one-dimensional use in league tables. The fact that this relatively simplistic, whole institution analysis is then potentially used punitively against schools also isn’t helpful.

Perhaps the answer to that is to consider more carefully how league tables are drawn up. I am attracted by the suggestion of a balanced scorecard type approach as suggested by Tim Brighouse.

I think there are some arguments for maintaining SATs.

First, the consequences of poor literacy and numeracy at secondary level and beyond are severe and well documented and in the words I have available here I will not recite them again. Irrespective of other uses of the data isn’t it vital we as teachers, parents, heads etc. know exactly who is making progress on gaining those basic skills and who isn’t?

Second, we have got an excellent national data set (eg in the Fisher Family Trust data) that is hugely informative about educational performance that we may have to forgo. This data set can be immensely useful at pupil, institutional and national level. Abandoning SATs would seem to mean losing all comparability of data with earlier years.

Third, measurement is almost essential to improvement. Measuring on a consistent basis across pupils, institutions and over time seems plainly sensible.

SATs aren’t the answer to better teaching or curing illiteracy, but abolishing them and possibly sweeping the problem of basic functional skills under the carpet does not seem the answer to anything.

What will switching to single level tests solve? They will not stop people (and governments) producing league tables and I fear will add both cost and complexity. Switching to single level tests will mean the experience that has been gained in building up the data on pupil performance will largely go to waste. I worry that they seem to be a PR way of deflecting criticism of SATs rather than a fundamental look at the problems and issues.

In fact I believe that a much bigger problem for the country in assessment is in the genuinely high stakes examinations at the end of secondary school which seems to be crying out for further improvement.

For example, if we are worried about over-testing and stressing our children due to SATs then why do we allow hundreds of thousands of them to have GCSEs at age 15 or 16, A/S levels the following year and A2s a year after that – guaranteeing three successive springs sweating over revision for high stakes examinations that really do matter for a young persons academic record.

I suggest that instead of switching to single level tests we might (i) continue with SATs (ii) replace Science with ICT – which like Maths and English seems to be a basic functional skill for this century (iii) Replace simple league table analysis with a balanced scorecard approach (iv) abolish AS level immediately (v) Concentrate on developing an assessment system for pupils at the end of secondary which has the triple aims of (a) achieving broad acceptance of their rigour (b) achieving the genuine value for vocational qualifications that Mike Tomlinson wanted in his report of a few years ago (c) assessing less regurgitation of fact and looks more closely at those skills necessary to be effective in the 21st century.