SATS Test "too hard"?

[Kermit power]

I don't think there's a thread running on this?

After lots of people were complaining about the English SATS exam being allegedly far too hard last week, further details, including the supposedly hardest questions have been released.

Now, I recognise that I'm not a primary school pupil any more, and neither are my kids, but even so, I'm somewhat surprised, given the amount of fuss, to see some of the actual questions?

For the first one, okay, having "feeding" in there makes it harder, but given the matching verb tense of "eat" and "consume" and the fact that feeding is part of "feeding frenzy", is that really enough to reduce kids to tears?

The second question... does anyone really think wriggling relates to being quiet???

And then we get to the final question - in which American State is the Congress Avenue Bridge found?, which we are asked to believe is too hard "because it was likely children would not be familiar enough with American geography to know that Austin is not a State" which would be fair enough were it not for the fact that the text includes "Congress Avenue Bridge in the city of Austin" and "Austin is the capital city of the State of Texas"!

I am 100% confident my kids would've nailed the first and third, and whilst the second is a bit wooly, I can't see a major issue overall?

[deckster]

I'm with you, none of those seem especially hard or unfair.

But even if they are, that's sort of the point. A test where everybody gets every question right is a waste of time.

[youngsyr]

The first two online dictionary definitions of wriggle are:

Dictionary said:

twist and turn with quick writhing movements.
"the puppy wriggled in his arms"

Similar:
squirm
writhe
wiggle
jiggle
jerk
thresh
flounder
flail
twitch
turn
twist
twist and turn
zigzag
snake
worm
slither
slink
crawl
creep

2.
avoid (something) by devious means.

Similar:
avoid
shirk
dodge
evade
elude
sidestep
circumvent

So, the "wrong" answer (creep) is actually in the first definition and the "right" answer (squeeze) is not in either definition.

And you think the question was fair?

[Biggy Stardust]

My understanding of the education system is that tests are too hard unless 99.9% get a grade of A*****.

All shall have prizes.

[Murph7355]

On the first one they also allowed either answer!

My eldest is exactly at this age. None of those questions were in any way troubling. (He hasn't taken the SATs, but did his 11+, and has been regularly tested since yr3 to the point where "tests" are simply regarded as the norm and not something to freak out about).

Pretty sorry state of affairs that there's so much whining about this from parents and even some teachers.

- they aren't meant to be "easy"
- not everyone will get 100% in any meaningful test
- they are meant to cover a broad range of abilities
- they are meant to be used as progress markers rather than anything "outright"

I await the govt wading to further erode education here...

[Murph7355]

youngsyr said:

So, the "wrong" answer (creep) is actually in the first definition and the "right" answer (squeeze) is not in either definition.

And you think the question was fair?

You have to read the whole passage in context. Kids need to be taught this as well as dictionary definitions of individual words.

If you felt that question was tough, go and have a look at some 11+ papers.

The questions purposefully have subtlety like this... Otherwise everyone gets 100% and a gold star, and the tests have precisely 0% use.

[BoRED S2upid]

Q17 find and copy one word.

By highlighting the word one you are indicating there are more than one but they only want you to copy one. The choice is yours.

Find and copy the word. Indicates there is only one word and they want this one.

[scenario8]

Thanks for the link, OP.

We have children of approximate age to the Year 6 children who sat those tests so have been exposed one way or another to the uproar/furore/chatter about the questions. Not a great deal directly from the children, their parents or the school, incidentally. Must say I’m a little surprised at the level of attention the tests have been given in the media having now seen the questions that are reported to be the worst offenders.

For context our children attend a very ordinary state junior school in a very ordinary outer London borough with more than its fair share of issues one might expect of such a school in such an environment - not some 12 to a class five grand a term private school, for example.

[youngsyr]

Murph7355 said:

youngsyr said:

So, the "wrong" answer (creep) is actually in the first definition and the "right" answer (squeeze) is not in either definition.

And you think the question was fair?

You have to read the whole passage in context. Kids need to be taught this as well as dictionary definitions of individual words.

If you felt that question was tough, go and have a look at some 11+ papers.

The questions purposefully have subtlety like this... Otherwise everyone gets 100% and a gold star, and the tests have precisely 0% use.

????

This was the question:

BBC said:

Question 8

She wriggled back inside the tent...

What does this tell you about how Priya got inside the tent? Tick one.

What context is there? The only context is that the subject is a female of uncertain age named Priya and that she wriggled back inside a tent.

We don't know what time it is, if there is anyone in the tent, where the tent is, what state the tent is in, how big the tent and its opening(s) are and whether they are open or shut.

The dictionary says wriggle is a synonym for crept, but not squeeze.

Yet the correct meaning is apparently "squeeze"?

Edited by youngsyr on Thursday 18th May 13:53

[youngsyr]

Murph7355 said:

On the first one they also allowed either answer!

My eldest is exactly at this age. None of those questions were in any way troubling. (He hasn't taken the SATs, but did his 11+, and has been regularly tested since yr3 to the point where "tests" are simply regarded as the norm and not something to freak out about).

Pretty sorry state of affairs that there's so much whining about this from parents and even some teachers.

- they aren't meant to be "easy"
- not everyone will get 100% in any meaningful test
- they are meant to cover a broad range of abilities
- they are meant to be used as progress markers rather than anything "outright"

I await the govt wading to further erode education here...

I'll give you that 2/3 were considered merely difficult by the teacher interviewed. However, the squeeze vs crept one is impossible as the closest answer (per the dictionary) was considered incorrect.

[M1AGM]

deckster said:

I'm with you, none of those seem especially hard or unfair.

But even if they are, that's sort of the point. A test where everybody gets every question right is a waste of time.

From the perspective of a snowflake parent you have to consider the terrible damage not getting the question right might do to your little cherub. How will they cope, will they have mental health issues because they are not ‘amazing’ at everything as they’ve been told by their parents since birth. These children must be protected from the reality of life. The exams must be wrong!

At our school exams are now in-class assessments. There is no pass or fail or %, just a effort mark between 1 and 4. The first real exam my kids will sit, in exam conditions, will be their GCSEs.

As a parent of two kids I find the whole snowflake parenting approach (which is endemic at our school due to the parents) utter madness and a disservice to the kids.

[Mr E]

The boy sat this Sat.
He said it was fine.
He did say he wrote “Austin” originally, but then realised that the state was Texas.

(We have worked quite hard on reading and considering the question before jumping at the obvious answer)

[otolith]

Why are children being made to feel under pressure to do well in these? They are just an assessment, nothing hinges on them for the child. Either the schools, or the parents, need to pack it in. As for making them sit practice papers, it sounds as if the schools have forgotten what the point of these assessments is.

[scenario8]

Honestly I can’t believe many people, even children, who were familiar with the word “wriggled” (and I would suggest the word “wriggled” is one very familiar to a very large number of children indeed!) would believe it most similar to the phrase “crept in quietly”.

I find it mildly interesting that the dictionary quotes creep as a synonym at all (albeit seemingly a rare/unusual/minor synonym).

[youngsyr]

scenario8 said:

Honestly I can’t believe many people, even children, who were familiar with the word “wriggled” (and I would suggest the word “wriggled” is one very familiar to a very large number of children indeed!) would believe it most similar to the phrase “crept in quietly”.

I find it mildly interesting that the dictionary quotes creep as a synonym at all (albeit seemingly a rare/unusual/minor synonym).

The problem with these types of tests is it relies on the pupil's subjective experience and not their reading comprehension.

If a child had been on holiday every year with their family and every time had stayed in a massive tent with great big openings and huge amounts of room, they are very unlikely to consider that

"she wriggled back inside the tent"

means anything like "squeezing in". The only alternative is then creeping in quietly, which the context doesn't support either. Hence it's an impossible question.

However, if the child is the child of a mountaineer and surrounded at home by pictures of their parent in a tiny tent shared tent hanging off the side of the mountain, then they would probably conclude it meant "squeezing in".

And that distinction has nothing to do with reading comprehesion.

I have a degree in languages and I often came upon this issue. One degree level translation I was faced with had a long passage about the peculiarities of Espadrilles, which I deducted from the contex is a type of woman's shoe , but given that exam cohort was 99% female, I, as a male, felt the test was extremely unfair, because I had never come across that word, let alone the physical items in the real world, whereas I bet a good minority of the cohort owned at least one pair and yet we were all being asked to translate a detailed description from a foreign language.

Edited by youngsyr on Thursday 18th May 14:10

[BoRED S2upid]

youngsyr said:

The problem with these types of tests is it relies on the pupil's subjective experience and not their reading comprehension.

If a child had been on holiday every year with their family and every time had stayed in a massive tent with great big openings and huge amounts of room, they are very unlikely to consider that

"she wriggled back inside the tent"

means anything like "squeezing in". The only alternative is then creeping in quietly, which the context doesn't support either. Hence it's an impossible question.

However, if the child is the child of a mountaineer and surrounded at home by pictures of their parent in a tiny tent shared tent hanging off the side of the mountain, then they would probably conclude it meant "squeezing in".

And that distinction has nothing to do with reading comprehesion.

I have a degree in languages and I often came upon this issue. One degree level translation I was faced with had a long passage about the peculiarities of Espadrilles, which I deducted from the contex is a type of woman's shoe , but given that exam cohort was 99% female, I, as a male, felt the test was extremely unfair, because I had never come across that word, let alone the physical items in the real world, whereas I bet a good minority of the cohort owned at least one pair and yet we were all being asked to translate a detailed description from a foreign language.

Edited by youngsyr on Thursday 18th May 14:10

I will ask my 6 year old that question tonight she’s never slept in a tent so won’t have any experience to draw upon it will just be her understanding of the question.

[deckster]

youngsyr said:

The problem with these types of tests is it relies on the pupil's subjective experience and not their reading comprehension.

If a child had been on holiday every year with their family and every time had stayed in a massive tent with great big openings and huge amounts of room, they are very unlikely to consider that

"she wriggled back inside the tent"

means anything like "squeezing in". The only alternative is then creeping in quietly, which the context doesn't support either. Hence it's an impossible question.

Cobblers. Experience of camping is entirely irrelevant.

Any child will know what a tent is. Any child will know what "wriggling" means, as in you move about in a wriggly kind of way. In no way could you ever equate "wriggling" in this context with "creeping".

Which is the whole point. It's not about whether a word is a synonym for another. It's about interpreting the text and fitting the best answer. And yes, sometimes tests are ambiguous. Which again, is the point. Both answers might be correct, but which is the best answer.

Remember that some questions have to be discriminators, i.e. those which you would only expect some to get right. Because otherwise there's no point in testing at all.

[scenario8]

I suspect most children will have come across the word “wriggle” in the context of squeezing without any association with tents.

Irrespective of tent experiences why should we be concerned some/many children were potentially upset in some way by not instantly recognising the answer the examiners were looking for? Is the purpose of these SATS for all children to answer all questions correctly and without experiencing any discomfort?

I, like many of us, come across confusing questions in exams, papers or just in life generally from time to time. Is it right for children not to be exposed to mildly challenging questions at all?

Glad you were able to figure out what an espadrille is from a large body of text about espadrilles. Not a fan of them myself. The sort of thing you see quite commonly on camp sites, incidentally.

[vaud]

youngsyr said:

The problem with these types of tests is it relies on the pupil's subjective experience and not their reading comprehension.

If a child had been on holiday every year with their family and every time had stayed in a massive tent with great big openings and huge amounts of room, they are very unlikely to consider that

"she wriggled back inside the tent"

means anything like "squeezing in". The only alternative is then creeping in quietly, which the context doesn't support either. Hence it's an impossible question.

However, if the child is the child of a mountaineer and surrounded at home by pictures of their parent in a tiny tent shared tent hanging off the side of the mountain, then they would probably conclude it meant "squeezing in".

And that distinction has nothing to do with reading comprehesion.

I have a degree in languages and I often came upon this issue. One degree level translation I was faced with had a long passage about the peculiarities of Espadrilles, which I deducted from the contex is a type of woman's shoe , but given that exam cohort was 99% female, I, as a male, felt the test was extremely unfair, because I had never come across that word, let alone the physical items in the real world, whereas I bet a good minority of the cohort owned at least one pair and yet we were all being asked to translate a detailed description from a foreign language.

Quite.

The one that annoys me at KS1 level is "nonsense words". Child has a page of words, some in the dictionary, some made up (but sound plausible). Child has to identify the real word. Okay, I understand this. Only in lockdown they were sending out incorrect panels where some of the nonsense words were actually real, if obscure.

Then lessons reading Roald Dahl, encouraging the children to use "Snozzberry", "Gobblefunk", etc...

[768]

Based on that article and those questions, I'm more worried about the teachers than the kids.