History of Sats
Why are they called ‘Sats’?
Officially they aren't - though that has become the almost universal name for them.
In 1991 the Conservatives had a trial run of Standard Assessment Tasks (hence the acronym "Sats") for six and seven-year-olds in infant schools across England and Wales.
Originally they were practical "tasks" rather than pencil-and-paper tests. In science, for example, groups had to experiment with rocks, feathers, and plastic to see whether they would float or sink in water.
The then education secretary, Kenneth Clarke, changed them to written tests which all pupils could take simultaneously.
So national curriculum testing was born, but the old acronym stuck.
They started out as a gleam in the eye of former Tory leader Margaret Thatcher in 1987 as the Conservatives were looking for something exciting to put into their election manifesto.
With her Education Secretary, Ken Baker, she concluded it was time England and Wales had a national curriculum with accompanying tests.
The idea was that the tests would handcuff teachers to the new official curriculum whilst also offering a guide to parents of relative school performance.
Mrs Thatcher (as she then was) was adamant that she did not want anything too complex. As she wrote in her memoirs, all that was needed was "a basic syllabus for English, mathematics and science with simple tests to show what pupils knew".
But she got rather more than she bargained for: a 10-subject national curriculum, complete with detailed programmes of study, attainment targets and formal tests at the ages of seven, 11 and 14.
The first national curriculum tests were introduced at age seven in 1991 and at age 11 in 1994.
Before that primary school pupils took no national tests.
Indeed, after the 11-plus tests for grammar school selection were phased out in most parts of England, Wales and Scotland, there were no externally set and marked tests at all for primary schools.
The argument for the introduction of national testing was that it would drive up standards.
Reasons for Sats
Tests would serve several purposes: provide teachers with information on pupils' progress, bring public accountability for teachers and schools, and offer governments essential data on national standards.
However, there is now growing doubt about the wisdom of using one set of tests for so many different measures.
Because of their use as an accountability measure, the tests have taken on high stakes.
Teachers feel pressurised into spending a lot of time on test preparation to keep their schools performing to resultant league tables that the tests are fed into.
The recent Schools Select Committee report on testing concluded that the current national tests served "too many purposes".
'Teaching to the test'
In particular, the MPs' committee argued that the use of test results for league tables often distorted teaching and prevented a rounded education.
We have just seen the response of the schools' inspectorate, Ofsted, and the government to this report.
Ofsted has confirmed there is a strong element of "teaching to the test".
It agreed that in some schools the emphasis on the tests in English, mathematics and science "limits the range of work" in these subjects.
However, neither Ofsted nor the government accept the argument that the tests are serving too many purposes.
The government argues that the problem of "teaching to the test" can be dealt with through guidance to schools.
The down turn
Before long, whole subjects and batteries of tests were being chucked overboard from the good ship SS National Curriculum, which was at risk of sinking under its own weight.
The externally set and marked tests at age seven were scrapped and subjects like history and geography became optional for older pupils.
And so it has gone on, with Wales opting out of the "English" tests (Scotland never had them) and, last year, the government dropping the compulsory tests at age 14 altogether.
Most recently the government has also announced that from next year there will not be any science tests for key stage 2 tests at year 11.
It was against this background that head teachers and teachers sensed victory was close. The National Association of Head Teachers (NAHT) felt it needed to make just one more push to get rid of the tests at age 11.
They were encouraged in this view by mixed messages coming from government, including the comment from Schools Secretary, Ed Balls, that nothing was "set in stone" as he contemplated the introduction of school report cards as a possible replacement for league tables.
That was how we reached the current impasse, with the National Union of Teachers and the NAHT threatening to boycott next year's tests.