What’s the point of primary school?

If the sole purpose of KS1 and KS2 is to ensure children in Y6 can score 85 per cent on a maths and literacy test – that they are ‘secondary ready’ – what is it that we’re missing, asks Michael Tidd...

The Department for Education has decreed that not enough of the students leaving our primary schools are ‘secondary ready’.
  Now, I have a few opinions on what it means to be secondary ready. Having spent some years teaching Year 7 students in a middle school, I can identify exactly what characteristics students need to be ready for my classroom, but I suspect that it isn’t quite what the DfE has in mind.
  To me, a student who is ready for secondary school is one who can get to school on time,  with the right equipment for the day, having completed his homework. I’d like students who are able to work independently, can collaborate with their peers and will engage in their learning. Yet the DfE seems to value none of these attributes. Rather, it supposes that what a student needs to succeed in life can be summed up by a number. Or, at least, what used to be a number.
  For years now we have been told that striving for that all important Level 4 is what matters at primary school. But from 2016 that will not be enough. The previously semi-mythical sub-level is to be our new goal. All schools should aim for at least 85 per cent of students to reach the level currently known as 4b.
  There’s a lot to take in there. Firstly, sub-levels, which have been entirely unofficial for years, are suddenly being used as an official marking point. This news,  though, comes alongside the official announcement that levels are to be no more. So 85 per cent of students will need to meet the standard set by an unofficial sub-level, which will anyway cease to exist. That’s quite a leap from the current floor standards of 60 per cent at Level 4.
  And what’s more, after several years of concerns about plateaus in attainment at the end of primary school, the department has decided that when it raises the expected standard, somehow more students will meet it. It remains to be seen how that matter will resolve itself in the coming years.
  Those of us who work frequently and closely with our secondary colleagues can quickly see how this presents us with something of a Catch-22 situation. Already we hear constant remarks about the costs of boosting, the reliability of KS2 testing,  and the dependence on spoon-feeding – for which primary teachers are blamed. As with most such arguments, there is truth and untruth on both sides, but the reality is certain: some secondary school teachers think that some primary school teachers are teaching to the test to the detriment of their students. It seems that demanding ever higher standards of ever more students is only going to exacerbate this problem.
  Year 6 teachers across the country this year will have celebrated those students who managed to “scrape a 4” on the tests this summer. In smaller schools where just one child can make a huge difference to league table outcomes, not to mention Ofsted visits, those handful of students who get lucky results can be a matter of great relief. But how often do these students then struggle to demonstrate that same ability after the long summer break? How many mums, dads and carers find themselves being told at the Y7 autumn term parents’ evening that primary school levels are “different” or “unreliable”?
  With stakes high, how many teachers will be under pressure to focus increasingly on the tested subjects at the cost of the broad and balanced curriculum? How many music or art lessons will be squeezed out to be replaced by another maths booster? And how many of those children who receive boosters and coaching up until May will find themselves entirely unready for the challenges of secondary school independence?
  This summer we saw the concerns raised in the press from many quarters about the impact of early entry testing and the like on GCSE results. As the CBI said, “employers don’t want exam robots – they want young people who are academically stretched,  rounded and grounded.” I’d argue that the same could be said of secondary schools receiving our students. To be secondary ready means a lot more than a score on a test and we forget that at our peril, teachers and governments alike.