The National Union of Teachers have announced that they will not go ahead with a boycott of school tests for seven and 11 year olds in England.
The NUT's general secretary Doug McAvoy wanted a boycott, saying that the English, maths and science tests "create substantial workload for teachers and disrupt children's education for no benefit".
Although the majority of teachers who voted supported a boycott, the turn-out was too low for action to go ahead.
Education Secretary Charles Clarke has said there is a "clear moral purpose" behind the tests and that to boycott them would amount to a "gross betrayal of children".
Do you think tests are beneficial for primary pupils? Send us your views.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.
Your reaction:
I'm amazed at the number of correspondents who think that national tests are a means of identifying bad teachers; surely that is what Ofsted inspections are for? If the way to identify poor teaching is to make badly taught pupils feel inferior, then there is something seriously wrong with the educational philosophy of this country. In any case, national tests only serve to identify an aptitude for taking said tests. This is not the same thing as being well educated.
John Effay, Norwich, UK
As a secondary school teacher the vote does not involve me directly however I am delighted with the outcome. The testing allows us to monitor how our children are performing in an objective fashion. Without them there would be a return to the bad old days of primary schools being totally unaccountable for their work and standards. The Key Stage 2 SATS tests in particular give secondary schools invaluable information about pupils - much better than the notoriously subjective and inaccurate teacher's assessment.
Paul, Leeds,UK
I
am concerned with the emphasis that people are putting on the KS1and 2 SATs. Testing at 7 (KS1) is there to give the school a baseline against which they can measure performance. This testing should be done as unobtrusively as possible. Neither of my daughters were aware of their KS1 SATs prior to them happening and they were only just aware of them during the process. SATs when used properly by the school as a measure of progress are a good thing. The problem comes when schools corrupt the whole idea by have them as the focus of the school years with regular mock tests etc. If your kids are worried about SATs then they have been told the wrong things about them. SATs measure schools not children.
Chris Lowe, Cambridge, UK Testing is not so much the issue - it's the way it is being done. It's interesting though how when discussing teachers in a higher education debate, they are angels of light but in any discussion about them (shock horror) complaining about anything they become work shy layabouts who are trying to conceal their own incompetence. Can't we be realistic as a nation and recognise that there are good teachers and bad teachers and treating them all as imbeciles who can't do their job does no one any favours? Too many tests like this homogenise education. At a time when we are complaining about the 'dumbing down' of education and society, do we want a system that denies teachers the ability to treat pupils as individuals rather than statistics?
Katherine, London, UK
Ah yes, yet another pointless test to put already stressed children under even more pressure. These kids undergo unofficial tests all the time so that the teachers can see where they're going wrong, so it's not for the benefit of the children, but for the teachers/schools/government. I HATED regular tests as a child, and I managed to avoid GCSEs (also quite pointless in my opinion) but from the stories my friends told me at the time, I am incredibly glad I managed to avoid those. And those are tests that are deemed to have a "purpose".
Sam Martin, Milton Keynes, England
There is still an unbelievable amount of ignorance as to what teachers do on a day to day basis. As a school governor I see first hand the hours that staff put in, not only to educate but to try and give an enriching and stimulating experience at school. Teachers are always seen as the means to address real issues that often come from the home environment. Poor teaching - what about poor parenting? Most workers in this country could not hack the amount of work that a teacher does on a daily basis. Let the teachers assess how the kids are doing - and find other means to root out bad teaching/teachers. Let's support those who often do what parents can't!
Gary McKeating, Cumbria
This is infuriating!
My two children are now doing yet more tests, they've been tested yearly since they started school. The tests have done no more than show that they are way above what this country expects them to achieve. The tests do nothing more than that, or possibly give parents something to argue over. They did nothing to show up my daughter's Aspergers Syndrome, or help my son with his handwriting. The very idea that we can educate children by teaching them to pass tests is abhorrent, and my children are all the poorer for the notion that testing is the same thing as teaching. It is not.
Claire Taylor, Leicester England
Life, in general is filled with tests. Tests in school age children merely prepares them for life. We must evaluate their learning and only those who have something to fear from the results are against them being given.
John, UK
 |  It is the emphasis that the government places on the school league tables that is divisive  |
It is not the tests that are a problem - they give a useful measure for the teachers in assessing a child's current level e.g. if they have just moved to the school from a different area. However it is the emphasis that the government places on the school league tables that is divisive. This scares some teachers into spending too much time preparing for tests and putting pressure on their pupils.
Neil K, Swindon, England As a parent, I would want my children to be tested, at early stages of there life's, to able to help and support them in there weakness, and also by the time they reach the age of real exam they will be much more prepared.
Abid, Leeds UK
I'm not surprised that the NUT doesn't like SATs - these test are, after all, a measure of how well children are taught and teachers clearly have a right not to have any objective assessments made of their performance. It is a shame that so many overly anxious parents seem to think SATs are a critical measure of individual children. Anyone heard of any employees who want to know a person's SAT scores? Didn't think so!
Rob Lee, UK
Of course there should be tests. It seems to me that the main reason for stooping tests is to hide poor performance and take the pressure to achieve off teachers. I considered my local schools to be quite good until testing revealed the unpalatable truth. Of course the teachers etc. have a list of excuses as long as your arm for the poor performance. Excuses do not educate children though.
Dave Morgan, Cheltenham England
When will it stop? People are constantly coming up with more and more things children can't do. What next? No P.E in case of a grazed knee or a spell in the finger from the rounders bat? Lets wrap them in cotton wool and put them in a match box
grant, Teesside
I remember doing a few tests at age 11, just so i was placed in the appropriate class in my secondary school. There was no pressure and it was all very informal. I think children shouldn't be given lots of exams at a young age as they will have enough pressure when they grow up. Let them enjoy school and play like the care free children they should be.
Ria, UK
| Let the kids know it's not about finding out who is bright and who is not |
As a terribly shy child at primary school, I was labelled as "below average". I was one of the guinea pigs for standardised tests at primary school (about 9 years old) which found that I was actually quite bright, and was just too shy to answer questions in class. Keep the tests low key, no league tables and let the kids know it's not about finding out who is bright and who is not - it's about finding which areas need more work.
Alison, Leeds, UK If the tests check the level of understanding of the national curriculum then they should not add to the work load of the teacher. If the collation of the tests, I assume by a central body, highlights gaps in teaching or weakness in learning then the results will be useful.
David R, Plymouth UK
Tests for 7 year olds is too stressful for the child, they have no time to enjoy their childhood. Even though schools perform the tests in a low key way, the parents and children are well aware and it becomes competitive, however the 11 year tests should stay as a indicator to as to a child's progress and to ensure the child is on target and not fallen by the wayside not knowing how to get help to improve.
Lynne Powell, Staffs, England
Yes, primary school pupils should be tested. One of the problems with the education in this country is that their is not enough tests.
Nadia Al-Ahmad, UK
I teach 11 year olds who are about to embark on their SATS tests next May. I would like to stress that should they fail dismally, I will not let this impinge on my determination and confidence to educate children. Quite simply, as a teacher I am picking up the pieces of substandard parenting. I am also fighting against the well-hidden government agenda to intentionally dumb children down.
Jerry, London
| If children are used to being tested at a young age, then exams later in life will not cause so much worry |
I was faced with "exams" twice yearly from the age of about 6 as well as weekly spelling tests and numerous other tests. The result of this was that by the time it came to "important" exams (11+, GCSEs), I was so used to being tested that I was not worried or stressed and viewed it was just another test. Surely, if children are used to being tested at a young age, then exams later in life will not cause so much worry and stress.
Nicola, UK
I am one of those NUT members that Doug McAvoy must be really annoyed with. I teach Year 2. After considering long and hard and asking advice from my NUT Regional Representative, I didn't vote. This was a conscious decision not just a can't be bothered attitude. I don't feel they are necessary. Rarely do the children surprise me in their results as I consider myself professional and experienced enough to know what my children can and do achieve.
Chris, Loughborough, Leicestershire
We had weekly spelling and tables tests when I was at primary school - and that was stress enough! Why subject children to this? Teachers should be freed up to teach and class sizes should be small enough so that children can be assessed properly. If the Labour 'education, education, education' government was doing its job properly there would be no need for tests.
Wendy, UK
| What should be removed is the stigma of failure that is imposed on school children |
It is important that our children get the best education possible, and testing in both individual, group, formal and informal environments are the best way of assessing both the child's ability, the teachers competence and the parents willingness to encourage their child's progress. What should be removed is the stigma of failure that is imposed on school children no matter their age. I think if school pupils felt more relaxed about exams they would certainly do better. No that the discipline of the exam should be taken away, only the pupil should be praised on how hard they have tried and how their performance has improved.
John Kirkman, Leeds, UK Unlike GCSE and A-level tests the SATs for 7 and 11 yr olds do not have any benefits for children, they are put under stress in order to provide comfort for Government statisticians.
Richard, UK
Testing at age seven, in the proper sense of the word, cannot be useful or helpful to any involved, all that happens is that certain children will be dubbed as bright or not at such a young age when there is clearly enough time for them to develop intellectually and practically. Tests are a high cause of stress for most students - allowing young pupils to ease into the education system and enjoy it should be a priority, why teach children to feel pressured and stressed, or even encourage negative associations with school life before they really understand the benefits of exams?
Joanne, UK
As a local farmer was heard to comment at a PTA meeting..."Tha dunt fatten pigs by keep weighing em"... Homespun philosophy that Charles Clarke should (but won't) heed. Neither are children standardised 'raw materials'. The current method by which league tables are formulated does not reflect this fact.
Dave Lauder, Barnsley, England
Throughout my entire time at school, barely a week went by when we weren't given a 'test' of some description. These were not official government tests (until the SATs) but rather a tool for ourselves and our teachers to identify where we were having trouble, and adjust our focus accordingly. Perhaps I was fortunate that (most of) my teachers were good. But at the end of the day, the government didn't need to know how well I was doing - I knew well enough for myself.
Richard, Sheffield, UK
The reason that some teachers are against school tests is purely and simply that they fear their shortcomings being exposed by the results. It's time teachers became more accountable in the same way as professional people in the "real world". Why do we never hear of anyone being reprimanded or sacked for being a poor teacher? Until teachers come out of their cocoons and are made to take responsibility for their work (or lack of it) educational standards in the UK will continue to decline.
Alan Rickards, Holmes Chapel, Cheshire
| Formal testing like this stresses teachers and stresses the children and that must produce some negative effect |
I remember being tested yearly at school, but the difference with this is publication, comparison, certification and all the rest of the over formal paraphernalia that seems to go with these New Labour New Tests. Formal testing like this stresses teachers (and I know a few so I know how true this is) and stresses the children and that must produce some negative effect. When we adults are starting to understand the negative effects of work stress and getting on with the work-life balance is it right that we should introduce this negative effect on 7 year olds?
Katherine, London, UK Of course they should be tested - how else can the teachers monitor children's progress and pass that information on to the next teacher? What should not be done, however, is to publish school league tables - all that does is put the children under undue pressure. The testing should be done steadily throughout the school year to ensure that the children are able firstly, to learn what they are currently being taught and secondly, to remember what they have previously been taught.
John Strang, Switzerland (ex Scotland)
Young children clearly need to be assessed, but this does not have to in the form of a test. Teachers can assess their own pupils in a more detailed and accurate manner, the fact is that the government just doesn't trust teachers.
William, UK
If a 7 year old child receives a bad result in a test, that child may then be labelled as 'average' or 'below average'. The child may then form a very negative opinion of his or her academic abilities. At ages 7 and even 11, teachers have more academic influence over a child than parents do. The teacher is seen (by the child) as the all powerful 'authority figure' and parents may feel powerless.
Elaine, UK
It makes not difference to my children because it all depends on the school and the teacher. My youngest was doing really well a last year (top 5% at his school), this year he has split teachers and has not made any progress. I think it is due to the fact the Government want every child to be in the 'average' learning group, above or below this and the schools can't cope with Government guidelines.
Stuart, Romford, UK
| Shouldn't we be testing the teachers instead to make sure that they are competent enough? |
What is the point of these tests? All they will show is whether the kids have been taught properly, which I already think most of us know the answer to. So all these tests will do is to make the kids feel stupid because they can't read and write properly (as we saw on the recent TV programme where 16 year olds were made to take the old 11 plus exam and failed dismally). Shouldn't we be testing the teachers instead to make sure that they are competent enough to play such a large part in a child's development?
Nik, UK It's enough to know that education standards have collapsed in this country without handing the union a broom with which to sweep the evidence under the carpet. For once, I'm on the government's side!
Patrick V. Staton, Guildford, UK
Why is the NUT so afraid of these tests? Is it that the teachers are afraid their substandard teaching would be caught red-handed? To all parents worried that their child might be a little stressed at the thought of a performance test, do you think twice before you put him through the trauma of his swimming certificates or badge work for his cub awards? These "tests" are pitched at the level your child is at, why should school tests be any more menacing, especially if it gives you and your child a clearer idea of what needs to be worked on?
F Critchley, Switzerland (ex UK)
How else can anyone measure learning progress? What's wrong is the undue importance given to them with the resulting burden on teacher and student to perform comparatively well. The first things that ought to be done are to stop compiling league tables, stop public comparison of schools, stop issuing certificates for tests and, most important of all, stop presenting tests to students as something important. A test should be nothing more than a tool to inform teacher and student of learning progress: there's no educational need for anyone else to know the result.
John M, LyneMeads, UK
Putting pressure on kids at too early an age (and 7 is too early) might simply make them dislike education, which could affect them later on their school career. I don't know how testing at 11 will affect anyone. I failed my 11-plus, went to a comprehensive school, and have just passed a PhD. Little classroom tests are fine, but if the kids get wind that they are under pressure to perform in a major exam, then it will put unnecessary pressure on them, which won't make them think of learning in a fond manner.
Ahmed, London, UK
| We are entitled to know how well our children have been taught |
I always told my children that it was not them being tested but how well their teacher had taught them, and I firmly believe that the pressure is created by teachers who either do not agree with the tests for ideological reasons or who simply don't want to be found out, which is unforgivable. We are entitled to know how well our children have been taught, and if a teacher is doing his/her job properly they will be doing regular testing themselves anyway. Or does that create too much pressure for inadequate teachers as well?
Steve, UK I was tested twice yearly from the age of 8 onwards. Testing is an important tool in gauging the ability of a child and at higher levels is how they will be judged. Surely it is beneficial to make children use to this type of assessment. The issue to me is about what is done with the results of this testing. If they are used to pressurise teachers then teachers become likely to pass this pressure onto their pupils which is not appropriate.
Joe, High Wycombe, UK
I work in special educational needs and it's obvious to me that this testing of young children is pointless and unfair, especially for those with special needs. It causes a great deal of unnecessary stress for children and their families, and at the same time restricts teachers to focussing on getting their pupils through the tests rather than taking a well-rounded and balanced approach. Less testing and more flexibility would give a better chance for children of all levels of ability.
Ben Drake, York, UK
| Childhood is short enough as it is without placing unnecessary stress on 7 year-olds |
It's not the tests themselves I object to - it's the league tables. Tests should be precisely that - a way of measuring a child's progress. The league tables mean that teachers are under pressure to produce good results. Therefore, they teach to the test and put undue pressure on the children. Childhood is short enough as it is without placing unnecessary stress on 7 year-olds.
Simon, UK As a parent I believe testing is vital. Poor results will show up poor teachers. The NUT has always been against increasing classroom standards to protect useless teachers and has always had a left wing, doctrinaire agenda.
John, UK
As a member of the first year to start testing at 7, I have taken government exams at 7, 11, 13, 16, 17, 18 and now into higher education. The positive result is, I am good at exams. The negative result is the time I lost out from getting the most out of inspiring teachers and having freedom of learning, to the rigid and dare I say dull curriculum in order that I could achieve high targets.
Ruth T, Frimley, Surrey
Basic adult literacy has dropped from 95% to 75% in the last 100 years and now stands lower than any Western European nation and yet the NUT does not want children to be tested at 11! We should sack the incompetent 50% of primary school teachers, double the size of classes and ensure that there is disciplined structured learning for all children with national written test at 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11.
David MacDonald, Essex, UK
I will be pulling my child out of the tests. If you want to know how your child is getting on at school, ask them.
Karen, London, England
| I'm for anything that makes education more challenging and brings out the best in Children |
I'm for anything that makes education more challenging and brings out the best in Children, I found school dull and therefore I don't believe I reached my full potential as I was never challenged in any way until possibly A level. Testing should be used to identify potential, problems and therefore individual learning plans which assist children to reach their full potential in whatever field. We need to loose this one size fits all education that is aimed at the least academically able child in the class, but doesn't really do anything to reach the potential of any child.
Helen, UK This is a matter of principle, tests inevitably narrow the curriculum, particularly when so much depends on the results. Let's bring breadth back to the Primary school so our young children get an all round education.
Mike, Telford UK
I think SATs were important. It made primary school teachers aware of the need for high standards and focused teaching on developing and improving key skills. The results have now reached a plateau and so they naturally will. We cannot change the IQ of children and there will always be those that find literacy and numeracy difficult. The task for us teachers is to enable each and every child to reach their own potential, however high or low it may be. Assessment now needs to develop to empower the learner and enable them to set clear achievable goals for the so they can reach their full potential. SATs no longer allow for this.
Neil Woollcott, Essex
Testing at the age of seven? I hope not for my boy who is four now. This is a joke right? I took the eleven plus test as a kid, that's the right age to start the exam process. I don't want my boy to end up worrying about performance until he can spell it.
Rick Hough, Knutsford, Cheshire
Teachers can confound quality checks by teaching pupils to pass tests rather than educating children. When I was at university, we were told what questions were going to come up in the final exams, so the university had a better pass rate. Do you think my education is better or worse off because of that?
Anon
Testing at such a young age is diabolical. This is the time when they should be enjoying childhood and enjoying learning, not stressing out about upcoming exams. Of course I agree that a small test every now and again should be taken to spot any students struggling but too much emphasis has been placed on these exams. Give these poor children their childhood back!
Stephen, Cardiff, Wales
In Sweden we don't even have to start school until we are seven. It's fantastic as it allows children to be children for as long as possible. And somehow we seem to catch up with you later because apparently Swedish children are the best readers in the world.
Suzana, Swedish in the UK
| Formal national testing of 7 and 11 year olds is an educational travesty |
Formal national testing of 7 and 11 year olds is an educational travesty - and it's rooted in this government's obsession with league tables. In primary school teachers should be free to educate, to inspire children, and to build into them a joy for learning - not to be hamstrung by the demand for a good league table position.
Peter, UK We should not be subjecting children of 7 years old to academic testing. Many countries do not begin to formally educate children until this age with no shortfall in skills in later years. Perhaps smaller class sizes, properly structured and disciplined lessons coupled with observant teaching methods could spot any areas of weakness sooner and with more chance for correction than these purely 'for statistics' tests.
Jan, UK
How do you know whether a child is learning anything if you do not test them? This sounds like another case of unions trying to lower workloads for their lazy members without any regard for the consequences or degradation of a professional service, if being a teacher is too hard, do something else then.
Simon, Wales, UK
School tests for children that young are a waste of time, the first official tests should be at the age of 13 where a child begins to understand the concept of learning and education properly. Tests for seven and eleven year olds represent nothing except extra pressure on schools to perform.
Manuel, London, England
I think it's a shame that Charles Clarke has to use such emotive language in what should be a clear and honest debate. Remember, this isn't a game of political points scoring but rather it's the future of our children's education that needs genuine consideration and debate.
Richard, Sheffield, England
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
