Schools have been using last summer’s widely criticised “unreliable” Sats results to trigger formal disciplinary proceedings against teachers and deny them pay rises, TES has learned.
Primary heads have been accused of treating teachers “with contempt” by deciding to use the “discredited” test figures against staff.
Ofsted and the Department for Education have both acknowledged concerns over the results and pledged not to use them in isolation to judge schools.
The figures were branded “unreliable and meaningless” by the NAHT headteachers’ union. In evidence to Parliament, the union - which represents most primary heads - called for government to suspend use of the Sats results to judge schools.
But some primary heads are prepared to use these results to judge their own teachers for performance-related pay and capability proceedings, according to teaching unions. They say the practice has occurred in schools across the country.
ATL general secretary Mary Bousted said she was aware of a number of such cases, but insisted the 2016 results were “not valid metrics to judge someone’s performance”.
‘These tests are discredited’
“To hold teachers to account for a test that was not very reliable is to treat them with contempt,” she said. “No school leader worth their salt would treat staff this way. These tests and results are discredited.”
Her concerns were echoed by NUT senior policy officer Ken Jones at a Westminster Education Forum seminar last week. “Data from 2016 is being used as a performance measure in relation to teacher pay progression, and in some cases, their competence,” he said. “Everyone seems to recognise [the data is] a little bit flaky, but in practice, in terms of the conversations going on day-to-day in schools, the data is still being treated as significant.”
No school leader worth their salt would treat staff this way
Some teachers who were originally denied a pay increment on the basis of the results have managed to overturn the decision.
Scott Lyons, joint division secretary for Norfolk NUT, said he had successfully argued with one headteacher against using the data: “We said, ‘Where’s the evidence that this teacher is not a good teacher?’ She said, ‘Look at the grades at the end of Year 6.’ I said, ‘This year was a one-off year. Schools are not being judged on this year.’ They did not have a leg to stand on and she withdrew.”
Mr Lyons said headteachers had told him they were under pressure to hold teachers to account because last year’s figures looked “horrendous” and they had chairs of governors “breathing down their necks”. He added: “They have got to be seen to be rigorous, instead of fighting the corner of the teachers, and saying, ‘This was a freak year’.”
Only 53 per cent of pupils reached the expected standard in reading, writing and maths in last summer’s tougher key stage 2 assessments, compared with 80 per cent the year before.
‘More than we know about’
Ofsted has cautioned its inspectors that “performance information for 2016 must be considered alongside earlier historic published data and other evidence gathered during the inspection”.
The DfE said no school would face intervention on the basis of 2016 results alone.
But Ian Murch, NUT national treasurer, said he had heard of cases across the country where teachers were denied pay progression because of Sats results and the issue had been highlighted in the union’s latest pay survey. “We only know about those who think the decision is so unfair they will come to their union to help them with it,” he added.
“But sometimes I go into a school and have a meeting and several cases come up, so that suggests there are more than we know about.”
Russell Hobby, general secretary of the NAHT, also spoke out against the practice, although he said he not been informed of any cases. “We have been clear that the 2016 data is not reliable for intervening at a school level, and I think that would have the same implication at the individual classroom level as well,” he told TES.
A DfE spokesperson said pay was a matter for schools, but added: “In setting pay, schools should assess teachers against a range of variables, not just exam results.”
