The schools minister has been told that the key stage 2 Sats reading paper that reportedly left pupils in tears was not more difficult than previous years’ assessments.
Nick Gibb said last month that he would look at this year’s reading paper taken by Year 6 pupils in response to concerns about its level of difficulty.
Today the Department for Education told Tes that the chief executive of the Standards and Testing Agency (STA), Gillian Hillier, had concluded that the paper was “in line with previous years” after Mr Gibb had asked her for the agency’s “expert assessment” of the difficulty of the English Sats reading test.
But Geoff Barton, general secretary of the Association of School and College Leaders, who Tes revealed earlier this week was calling for a “proper review” of the paper, described Ms Hillier’s review as “very disappointing” and accused the DfE of “sweeping the matter under the carpet”.
Mr Gibb said earlier this month that while the STA had trialled this year’s reading paper before the pandemic and tested it last year, he would “certainly look at this because I know that there has been concern expressed by some schools, to make sure”.
A DfE spokesperson said: “Based on evidence gathered and considered throughout the test development process, STA has confirmed that the content of this paper was in line with previous years.”
The DfE said that the conclusion that the STA gave to Mr Gibb was not a formal review of the paper but the judgement reached after the agency assessed the evidence of the paper’s relative difficulty and the issues raised by pupils and parents.
Sats 2023 reading paper ‘excessively difficult’
Mr Barton said: “This is a very disappointing response from the Department for Education. The schools minister should be seeking direct input from school leaders about the difficulty of this year’s reading paper and the impact on pupils.
“We already knew that the STA considers the paper to have been appropriate. The point is that the experience of pupils and teachers contradicts that viewpoint and indicates that it was excessively difficult, and, indeed, the published materials show that it would be hard to complete this paper in the given time.
“Given the level of public concern, why was there not a more formal review of the evidence? This response feels like an exercise in sweeping the matter under the carpet.”
Sarah Hannafin, head of policy for the NAHT school leaders’ union, said pupils should not be put through “this sort of experience” amid a “growing mental health crisis”.
Ms Hannafin said that while the data from the test development process may show that the reading test was within the limits of the guidance, it was “clear from the responses of staff and pupils that the reality of taking the live test did not match with the experience of the trials”.
“It is not enough to point to the standards maintenance process and that mark boundaries will be adjusted to allow for the difficulty of this year’s test. This is a concept which even GCSE and A-level students can find difficult to grasp and so will offer little reassurance to 10- and 11-year-olds,” she added.
Ms Hannafin said that “simply adjusting mark boundaries will not erase the experience that children have had with the tests this year. With a growing mental health crisis, we simply should not be putting children through this sort of experience”.
A further analysis of the paper will be completed and reviewed as part of the normal standards maintenance process, set to conclude in the next six weeks, Tes understands.
Earlier this month Tes revealed that Capita had delayed the marking of Sats papers by a week because of “technical issues”.
