I was the headteacher at an infant school for nine years and throughout my time I really struggled with the idea of children as young as 7 going through statutory testing with the key stage 1 Sats. I could (uneasily) reconcile this only because the outcomes supported teacher assessment, which was valued and reported. This let us, the children, and parents put the tests in their appropriate educational and emotional place.

However, as an infant school, the teacher assessment outcomes were the key measure of accountability and, therefore, important to Ofsted and the local authority. The other focus was progress, measured by either stage of development on entry compared to KS1 outcomes or EYFS profile data compared to end of KS1 outcomes. Neither of which were reliable: two curriculums, two assessment systems and different things being measured.

During those nine years as an infant head, I visited many other schools, had conversations and made observations. A picture emerged of some schools:

• Over-assessing children’s attainment;
• Over-guiding children when working so the writing and maths evidence was stronger;
• Prioritising booster groups in Year 2;
• Narrowing the curriculum in Year 2;
• Adding in revision classes for Year 2;
• Lowering on-entry or end of reception assessments.

I’m now a head of a primary school and face leading us through KS2 Sats for the first time, and again, I’ve found it a huge moral challenge. It has raised many questions about what happens in Year 6, caused many sleepless nights and led me to ask where the children are in our present assessment regime. Sadly, the following observations of current practice did not help.

Some schools do the following...

• Significantly narrow the curriculum in Year 6 (Sats preparation from Christmas or before);
• Carry out lots of booster activities, especially for “cusp” children;
• Put on Easter holiday revision classes;
• Send out online links to parents for home Sats practice and revision;
• Organise numerous mock Sats weeks and tests;
• Cap KS1 data and restrict the number of level 3/greater depth judgments given in Year 2;
• Pressure children to achieve in the test.

So why are these practices taking place in infant, junior and primary schools? Why are these immoral and detrimental activities happening? Why does genuine assessment (i.e., teacher assessment) seem to get sidelined? Why do leaders and teachers, who are in this profession because they care about children and want to do the very best for them, act in these ways?

I have asked colleagues and these are the most common reasons: 

• “Ofsted will judge my school on our KS2 outcomes and progress measures. Data is the main focus of any Ofsted inspection.”
• “If we do not act in this way, our results will be lower than the other schools’. And, as most schools are doing these things, the national average is going up. Therefore, if we don’t do these things, we will slip further behind.” 
• “I have to achieve the targets as part of my performance management, as it is very important we achieve the targets.”
• “Because that is what happens in Year 6 and Year 2. You just have to accept it.”
• “You have to play the game.”
• “If my school does not achieve or maintain a ‘good’ or ‘outstanding’ in an Ofsted inspection, I will be out of a job.” 
   

None of the reasons given were: “It is in the best interest of the children”!  Very worryingly, colleagues believe that a lot - if not everything - rides on the KS2 outcomes, especially the school’s Ofsted grade.  

Ofsted, however, has clearly stated that data is not king and not inspectors’ sole focus when making their judgment. 

Sadly, it would seem leaders are not confident that this is the case. This lack of confidence is due to their own personal experience and the experience of others who have been through an Ofsted inspection, driven by the data and also the local authority/MAT’s focus on the data during their monitoring visits.

If schools truly knew that data doesn’t determine everything, these immoral and bizarre practices would stop overnight, as there would be no reason to act in this way.

For why would you do any of the things listed above, as none of them benefit the children?

The writer is a headteacher in Hampshire