Here's to the end of SATs ... for this year at least (aka part two)

You might well ask: Are tests such a bad thing?  It's true that some children quite like an occasional test and a test can give some a great opportunity to show off what they know and what they can do.  Be careful though with the 'Tests never did me any harm!' line.  Bear in mind those other children in your class who dreaded them, under-performed in them, never did as well as their friends in a test and for whom the test only served to emphasise their difficulties.  There was probably someone in your class like the girl in mine whose dyslexia and dyscalculia literally turn tests like this week's into a nightmare, through which she can not sleep, which reduces her to tears and which has required her parents to seek help for her from a mental health worker.

If SATs were just a one-off test administered by teachers at a convenient juncture with the purpose of giving children that chance some of them like to show off the range of their knowledge, skills and understanding, there would be much, much less problem with them; even children like the girl I described above don't mind an occasional test that is balanced with their teacher's understanding of what they can do and isn't the be-all-and-end-all.

The emphasis on SATs in year six though is far too high.  Because the success and therefore a perception of the quality of a school is judged by the results of the SATs and schools are compared by them, headteachers and schools' governing bodies are anxious to ensure their results are at least comparable year-on-year and with other similar schools - ideally improving and better.  Their anxiety can border on paranoia.  Consequently, they can insist on such secondary school sounding things as revision and mocks.  Two or three months prior to the actual tests can be spent re-visiting aspects of English and Maths that might just come up in the tests and doing practice-tests from previous years so that children have a sense of what to expect.  As if the official tests weren't enough, year six children can end up doing several versions of them in each subject.  It's sometimes said that children from England are among the most tested in the world; I doubt that even takes account of these other hidden tests.

I don't think it was ever intended that SATs would be the monster they have become.  The Government Ministers who originally dreamt them up can't have wanted the months of preparation for them that can take place now.  I wonder if today's Secretary of State and his advisers even know what the tests bring about for children.  I suspect they would be careful to emphasise that their only expectation is that the tests be done in May; anything else schools choose to do is down to teachers' professional judgement.  Nonetheless, schools do what they do because of the way the outcomes of the tests are used by Government and its agencies.  Change that - trust teachers more - and the need for all the test-prep to guarantee all-important good results would be eliminated.

Teachers have at least as much to answer for as Government.  When SATs first came along, I wish teachers and headteachers (with the backing of their governing bodies) had administered them as a quick snapshot of what children could do on a given day in May at the end of year six without ever instituting months of preparation.  When the inspectors and the local authority bureaucrats came knocking, I wish they'd sworn by the validity of their longer term, thorough assessments for providing a clear, accurate and full picture of children's attainment and progress and insisted that they be the basis of any judgement of their school.  Instead, sadly, they allowed themselves to be convinced that the results of the tests were more reliable and they created the culture of the test that prevails today.  Frustratingly, it seems they never looked back.  Now we must be careful that this culture does not lead to dependence on tests.  We have a generation of young teachers and young headteachers who have known nothing different to assessment by test and question their own confidence to do assessment in another way.  The tests risk de-skilling teachers and undermining their confidence.

Teachers know children - talk to us and the depth of our knowledge about a child's abilities and the things he or she still needs to do and learn will impress you.  We, the children we teach and parents might like a test to affirm our knowledge, but we don't need it.  Children do not need a number assigned to them at eleven - be it level three, four or five, it makes no difference to them or their prospects.  We know the test results are often not an accurate reflection of a child's abilities - and so do secondary schools; they test children again early in year seven.

Society should trust teachers.  Government should take the lead in showing that trust.  Teachers must work hard to retain that trust.  And we should have the confidence to demand it.

SATs: The Argument Against (Part One)

This week, children the length and breadth of England have taken their SATs - the national tests in English and Maths for eleven year olds (and those who are not quite eleven).

For the benefit of anyone who doesn't know: these tests have all the feel of a GCSE or A' Level exam. Children are isolated at a desk, passers-by are banned, the room is silent, test papers are distributed and must not be opened until the word is given, teachers patrol with footsteps muffled, no help is given. Another teacher once told me that there is nothing more unnatural than a silent classroom in a primary school; the feel of the exam hall in SATs week certainly makes me uncomfortable.

Some people argue that children need to learn about how it feels to sit an exam, strategies for passing a test and to deal with the pressure of an exam-type situation.

At ten years old? Really?! What relevance do those things have to such young children? Can they not wait until secondary school? The counter-argument goes: need they wait? On that basis though, why not bring much more of what happens at secondary school forward to children's formative years at primary school?

At ten years old, every minute of school should be spent finding things out, developing new skills, discovering and honing strengths and having fun in learning. Children love school when they're ten. Any time not spent doing those things that matter most at that age is an opportunity lost.

I'm all for having high expectations of the children I teach; I am always amazed by their capacity to learn and by their achievements. Those expectations, however, have to be balanced with the simple value of childhood and the preservation of it. SATs, I am afraid, run counter to that.

AV? Yes ... please.

Tomorrow I shall vote for AV.

The problems with first-past-the-post are clear to me.  A system that elects Members of Parliament who actually carry the support of less than half of their electorate and permits government on the same basis is not as democratic as it should be.  The complacency of MPs who are elected on that basis is staggering.  It angers me that my vote counts for less than one cast in a more marginal seat elsewhere.  Bournemouth East is a safe seat for our MP, Tobias Ellwood.  Because another party would have to achieve such a massive swing against Mr Ellwood, his is one of those seats that is so unlikely to change hands that it barely features on television coverage at a General Election - unlike those marginal seats that formed the BBC's Downing Street paving-slabs.  It was in those marginals that the election was really fought.  A vote there stood a far better chance of achieving the required swing to unseat its incumbent; effectively it was worth more than mine.  For my vote to fully count toward the outcome of an election, I therefore must move to live in a marginal constituency.  Obviously, a democratic system that requires me to do that is seriously flawed.  Moreover, although Mr Ellwood claims he did fight to hold his seat, he did not really need to.  It was so hard for one of the other major parties to unseat him that they sensibly directed their resources elsewhere - to the battle for more marginal seats - and were barely heard of in Bournemouth.  I felt cheated.  AV will not spell the end of safe seats, but it will at least ensure that an MP like Mr Ellwood has to fight for everyone's vote - even their second and third preferences - rather than being able to simply depend on his substantial core vote.

It might not be AV that is used in elections in Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and for our elections to the European Parliament, but there is a proportional element to those elections that helps ensure that the parliaments and assemblies in those places are more representative of the electorate than the UK Parliament is.  I have never understood why proportionality is appropriate for the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish electorate and for elections to Europe, but not for Westminster.  Again, I feel cheated.

The 'No!' campaign for tomorrow's referendum has made much of the cost of changing our electoral system.  That argument is infuriating!  As a country, we supposedly value democracy so highly that we promote it around the world, condemn countries that flaunt it and send our own soldiers to fight for it in other oppressed lands.  We should be proud of that, of course, but we should also make sure our own house is in order.  In Libya and Syria people value democracy so highly they are paying for it with their lives.  Millions of pounds might seem like a lot, especially in a time of financial difficulty, but it is far less than the cost others are footing for democracy.

It is true that AV is not perfect - there are better systems for achieving proportional representation - but it does have the advantage of allowing us to keep our constituency representation at Westminster, and it is the best on offer.  It has the potential to reconnect politicians to their electorate as they would have to take more of an interest in all voters, not only those for whom they might be the first preference.  The problems with our democracy run deeper than that though.  Turnout tends to be shockingly low and has been for too long, especially among certain groups of voters, like the young.  Obviously, there are many reasons - children aren't properly educated in citizenship, some politicians' conduct has been outrageous, often political systems seem complex and unaccessible - but above all, I think, people feel the issues that matter most to them aren't properly addressed by our politics.  Engaging people in our democracy has to begin at the grassroots - in their own neighbourhoods - and feed up from there.  We need to feel that there is a way for us to take control of our own streets and schools and parks and youth centres, without referring to the sprawling bureaucracies local councils have become.  Local democracy needs a shake-up - and not just by having elections for new authorities like for the Tories' planned Police Chiefs; I'm afraid there is such a thing as election-fatigue!  For democracy to work, we need to find simple ways for people to become properly involved beyond just writing numbers next to the names of candidates they have vaguely heard of and never seen, and show them that it is worth it.

To be honest, I'm not overly optimistic for the outcome of tomorrow's poll.  I shall vote nonetheless because doing so is a tribute to those who have gone before and fought and died for the right to do so and is small way for me to stand shoulder to shoulder with those brave souls who still fight and die for their same right.

God Save The Queen!

Friday's royal wedding was the stuff of fairy tale.  Since, I've been wondering: shouldn't I  have outgrown fairy tale?  On the other hand, is it possible to rationalize support for the monarchy and enjoy it unashamedly?

Britain certainly does events like Friday's better than anywhere else - it's hard to imagine a worldwide audience of the size of Friday's for the marriage of a member of the Japanese royal family or the Swedish, and elected presidents don't bring the same dynastic heritage with them to inspire the same level of interest.  We can be rightly proud of being able to stage such a spectacle to rival any on Earth.  It must do wonders for our tourism industry too.  (It also, by the way, bodes well for the great spectacles of 2012 that Britain will stage.)  Without a living monarchy, royal weddings, the State Opening of Parliament, Trooping the Colour, Coronations and Jubilees would all be consigned to history.  Probably because of our royal traditions, Britain doesn't have great annual celebrations like America's Independence Day, France's Bastille Day and the national days of other countries around the globe.  The closest we get must be Guy Fawkes night or our patron Saints' days, but our efforts to mark them are less than half-hearted.  The inspiration to celebrate with gusto those great national days in other countries is born of history - often revolution.  Britain hasn't had a revolution like those other countries and doesn't want one.  Change in our constitution comes quietly, thankfully, through our vote, which seems unlikely to inspire any great, annual celebration, even if it was a vote to become a Republic!  And we do still crave the spectacle of these occasions, an excuse for happiness and celebration, a great coming-together of people, a chance to mark our national identity, and for us Britons, it is still royalty that does it.  It's hard to imagine anything doing as good a job.

So, how can the birth-right of one family to reign over us be justified?  I suppose, it can't; however, as a role model of resilience and duty, our Queen is exceptional - the fact that she and her Father remained in London during the blitz of the second world war still resonates - and it is to be expected that her heirs will follow her example.  There's no doubting too that she and other senior royals work hard, moreso now perhaps than ever, as expectations of them have risen.  She has, at least, earned our respect.

There would certainly be no guarantee that any replacement of our monarch would be a sound role model or would earn respect, at least not judging by some of the leaders that manage to get elected to high office around the world.  Moreover, a President would be elected, but would surely expect and need a political role beyond that of the figurehead-role our monarch fulfills and, should we go to the lengths of electing a leader, we would also expect that election to carry the weight of some power (otherwise, what would be the point?) yet all the power that needs exercising in our country and all the political duties that need fulfilling are already managed perfectly well by the Prime Minister - a different political leader as Head of State in Britain seems unnecessary.  The idea of any of our recent Prime Ministers as Head of State in place of The Queen just doesn't work.  We have a cluttered democracy already anyway, with annual elections to one authority or another, interest in and turnout for which is often poor.  The quality of democracy doesn't improve by adding another tier to it.

There are obvious cost implications of having our monarchy, but the cost of it has been diminished and should continue to be diminished.  Arguably too, we should be careful to condemn the monarchy on the basis of its cost, lest we end up with something less costly but more inferior.

There is, I think, something to be said too for the enduring nature of our monarchy.  William provides a direct link back through hundreds of years of history, to medieval times and through all manner of historic events with which his ancestors were directly involved.  As fascinating as that is, it is the past and we can not be a backward-looking country.  What can be overlooked though, is that William is a link to the future too.  He will be King sometime in the mid-twenty-first century; his grandson or grand-daughter will probably be King or Queen for the turn of the twenty-second.  In our monarchy, we can see our way into the future; it can offer a sense of certainty about it, implies if we want it to that there is much to look forward to and have hope for and gives us a glimpse of its potential.

Finally, I want to note that should Britain one day choose to abolish the monarchy, it will be a decision taken at the ballot-box, not through a bloody revolution such as those that have happened and continue to happen elsewhere.  However I ended up voting and whatever the outcome might be, I am unspeakably thankful to live in a country where I would be accorded the power to peaceably help make the decision.

Yes, I still enjoy the fairy tale!  Is that such a bad thing?!