Becky Boo wrote:
I'm just happy that she has something to work on and is not just treading water for all of year 6 (even if we do have to do it at home).
Yu know they ain't treading water just because they don't sit a test. On the contrary, tests of this sort reduce what is taught.
The year six teachers I know get very frustrated at the constraints of SATS (and the pressure to get the school good scores) and are relieved when they are done with so that they can properly expand their pupils knowledge and skills.
Last year there was boycotting of the whole SAT system because of the constraints it puts on educating the pupils properly.
Puzzled that you would think teachers would waste a year of possible learning just because a test is not set. They will actually be teaching new stuff.
Primary teachers are not qualified to teach level 6 and in the past this spoiled some of the fun in Year 7. The level 6s in Y7 already knew about pi so could not do the measurement of circular objects etc and missed out - OK they did do Buffon's needle experiment (not with needles I hasten to add!) but they did miss out as they had just been taught the formula and no background history etc.
Bit of a sweeping assumption there Guest55, my Y6 teacher's Maths degree no good then? Primary teachers come from a vast range of backgrounds.
Would not dream of teaching something without a proper background explanation. Would not either let some very bright pupil tread water for a year just because next year they might go through something in more detail. Why couldn't they do the measurements of circular objects? Particularly since you feel they had not had adequate teaching on it and should have had the extra depth?
My Reception teacher has some pupils who know how to read before they reach school. This does not mean they should be adversely effected when in her class does it? My DD read fluently before school because she showed an interest. School took her on from where she was.
Didn't Lazzarini cheat with his choice of needle length anyway?