Ep 114: 2025 SATs Deep Dive With Sophie B: Great Questions, Ridiculous Mark Schemes & Key Findings

1
00:00:00,120 --> 00:00:02,280
Hello everyone, and welcome back
to another episode of Teach

2
00:00:02,280 --> 00:00:03,600
Sleep Repeat.
My name is Dylan.

3
00:00:03,600 --> 00:00:06,120
And my name is Hayden.
Hayden, how are you feeling this

4
00:00:06,120 --> 00:00:08,160
morning?
I'm fine when.

5
00:00:09,000 --> 00:00:10,800
What do you mean when I'm?
When are you fine?

6
00:00:10,840 --> 00:00:12,600
I'm fine this morning.
Thank you.

7
00:00:12,600 --> 00:00:13,520
Put that into your answer
please.

8
00:00:13,520 --> 00:00:15,760
How am I supposed to know?
Unless you say this morning in

9
00:00:15,760 --> 00:00:16,880
the answer to the question I
will.

10
00:00:16,880 --> 00:00:19,440
Do Dylan, funny enough, you said
this morning in your question.

11
00:00:19,440 --> 00:00:21,360
I don't think that's relevant.
I think I'm separating out the

12
00:00:21,360 --> 00:00:23,400
really good people who can
inference with the people who

13
00:00:23,400 --> 00:00:25,400
can't, actually, because you've
not put it into your answer.

14
00:00:25,560 --> 00:00:26,760
Right.
Are you OK?

15
00:00:26,760 --> 00:00:29,280
Yeah, someone's I just may have
been reading the English Smart

16
00:00:29,280 --> 00:00:30,640
scheme guidance.
Let's try again.

17
00:00:30,720 --> 00:00:31,920
Let's try again.
OK, let's try again.

18
00:00:31,920 --> 00:00:34,920
So, Hayden, what did you have
for breakfast this morning?

19
00:00:35,520 --> 00:00:37,040
This.
Morning I had.

20
00:00:37,040 --> 00:00:38,760
Toast had had what?
Toast for what?

21
00:00:40,120 --> 00:00:41,360
For breakfast?
No of what we're throwing out

22
00:00:41,360 --> 00:00:43,120
the window.
How am I supposed to know what

23
00:00:43,120 --> 00:00:44,960
you did with the toast unless
you put it in being answered to

24
00:00:44,960 --> 00:00:46,840
my question.
Oh, welcome.

25
00:00:46,840 --> 00:00:50,560
Welcome to this for this episode
where we are going to dive into

26
00:00:50,560 --> 00:00:51,960
the sacks with the wonderful
Sophie Barley.

27
00:00:52,320 --> 00:00:54,080
Not in not too long and.
She's so good.

28
00:00:54,400 --> 00:00:56,720
Taking the MIT there, Dylan, are
you out the English mark scheme?

29
00:00:56,720 --> 00:00:59,080
Yeah, just listen, we're going
to, we're going to dive into it.

30
00:00:59,080 --> 00:01:02,480
But just is that not insane?
Is that not insane?

31
00:01:02,560 --> 00:01:05,440
You, you have to reference
what's in the question in order

32
00:01:05,440 --> 00:01:06,520
to show comprehension of
something.

33
00:01:07,560 --> 00:01:10,440
Imagine real life conversations.
If that was how it was, it

34
00:01:10,480 --> 00:01:12,040
wouldn't be like that.
Hey, Hayden.

35
00:01:12,200 --> 00:01:14,880
What did you have for breakfast?
This morning for breakfast this

36
00:01:14,880 --> 00:01:15,960
morning.
Have I got it all right so far,

37
00:01:15,960 --> 00:01:18,000
yes, I think for breakfast, for
breakfast this morning I had

38
00:01:18,000 --> 00:01:20,600
toast with butter with butter.
Oh, sorry, time's up.

39
00:01:20,600 --> 00:01:22,960
That's just too, too long.
No one's listening to you after

40
00:01:22,960 --> 00:01:24,400
that anyway, guys, Oh my
goodness.

41
00:01:24,400 --> 00:01:27,280
We're going to dive into
everything to do with the recent

42
00:01:27,280 --> 00:01:28,600
science papers.
Sophie's written some

43
00:01:28,600 --> 00:01:31,960
unbelievable blogs, analysis
about what the question domains

44
00:01:31,960 --> 00:01:33,760
are that have come up.
And then we're going to dive

45
00:01:33,760 --> 00:01:36,080
into specific questions that
have caused uproar because I

46
00:01:36,080 --> 00:01:37,480
think there's AI think there's a
spectrum.

47
00:01:37,760 --> 00:01:40,440
I think there are a bunch of
questions where the, you know,

48
00:01:41,080 --> 00:01:43,600
the March scheme and the extra
guidance in particular is just

49
00:01:43,600 --> 00:01:46,240
extremely harsh for what we can
say a 10 or 11 year old is

50
00:01:46,240 --> 00:01:48,040
understanding a comprehension
question or not.

51
00:01:48,280 --> 00:01:51,280
But you know, in general, I
think the tests were quite good.

52
00:01:51,440 --> 00:01:53,320
But I don't want to get ahead of
myself here.

53
00:01:53,680 --> 00:01:56,240
You, you can go to our chat
immediately with Sophie B if

54
00:01:56,240 --> 00:01:58,600
that's what you're here for.
But first of all, Hayden, I do

55
00:01:58,600 --> 00:02:00,000
want to know you are a year 6
teacher.

56
00:02:00,280 --> 00:02:02,280
You've gone through the SAT
process with your children.

57
00:02:02,560 --> 00:02:04,520
You are basically doing
absolutely nothing now SAT are

58
00:02:04,520 --> 00:02:06,880
over clearly just spending all
all day, I think, wasn't it?

59
00:02:07,400 --> 00:02:08,800
Yeah, round is all day in the
field.

60
00:02:08,800 --> 00:02:10,240
Oh gosh, that's hard, That's
taxing.

61
00:02:10,479 --> 00:02:12,160
And then the next, next day, I
think you just threw it in the

62
00:02:12,160 --> 00:02:13,280
hall listening to children
saying.

63
00:02:13,440 --> 00:02:15,920
Yeah, Dylan, it is performance
season.

64
00:02:15,920 --> 00:02:18,560
You know, the year 6 is famously
just because you're not in our

65
00:02:18,560 --> 00:02:21,760
world, Dylan, we do do
performance, you know, most

66
00:02:21,760 --> 00:02:23,760
schools these days.
I think it's a good thing.

67
00:02:23,760 --> 00:02:25,600
Jokes aside, I like the
performance aspect.

68
00:02:25,600 --> 00:02:27,360
I just think that you're getting
an easy ride and having to do

69
00:02:27,360 --> 00:02:28,960
any work.
That's that's it guy.

70
00:02:28,960 --> 00:02:29,920
I don't know, look what I'm
saying.

71
00:02:29,920 --> 00:02:33,640
The year 6 narrative is this.
We did 6 terms worth of hard

72
00:02:33,640 --> 00:02:35,680
work in five.
We worked so much harder than

73
00:02:35,680 --> 00:02:38,000
you Dylan, whilst you were doing
nothing in lower school.

74
00:02:38,000 --> 00:02:40,120
What were you doing?
Yeah, just colouring in actually

75
00:02:40,520 --> 00:02:42,520
all day.
Making Mac and cheese to do

76
00:02:42,520 --> 00:02:45,000
that, That's what my uncles
always say.

77
00:02:45,000 --> 00:02:47,680
They always say to me what you
been doing this week at school,

78
00:02:47,680 --> 00:02:49,320
Been making some Mac and cheese
with the kids.

79
00:02:50,640 --> 00:02:53,240
But some string through some
uncooked macaroni, I'm like,

80
00:02:53,240 --> 00:02:54,480
yeah.
Yeah, actually, yeah.

81
00:02:54,840 --> 00:02:56,960
What I did, actually, I did some
artwork with some macaroni.

82
00:02:56,960 --> 00:02:57,800
Was good.
It's fun.

83
00:02:57,880 --> 00:02:58,600
Yeah, it was.
Fair enough.

84
00:02:58,720 --> 00:02:59,600
Why don't you join teaching a
bit?

85
00:02:59,600 --> 00:03:01,800
So easy.
Yeah, I wonder.

86
00:03:02,880 --> 00:03:04,800
The best restaurant.
Anyway, performance, right?

87
00:03:04,800 --> 00:03:06,880
One thing I want to say about
that, obviously we've started

88
00:03:06,880 --> 00:03:08,160
now.
We've done the auditions you

89
00:03:08,160 --> 00:03:09,680
mentioned last week.
You won't fast.

90
00:03:10,080 --> 00:03:12,200
They're all additional.
Yeah, it was fantastic.

91
00:03:12,200 --> 00:03:16,200
Singing and it was It was all
good fun, but we're now at the

92
00:03:16,200 --> 00:03:17,720
bit where we actually have to
cast them.

93
00:03:17,920 --> 00:03:20,520
So famous, like most school
plays by the way, that you kind

94
00:03:20,520 --> 00:03:22,040
of get one that's tailored
towards your sort of size

95
00:03:22,040 --> 00:03:23,720
because obviously you've got a
one form entry school, you've

96
00:03:23,720 --> 00:03:25,760
got 32 kids, you can't have a
play with 65.

97
00:03:25,760 --> 00:03:27,960
Parts in it, no, but it's
probably easier at one form to

98
00:03:27,960 --> 00:03:30,440
kind of give children more, more
larger roles 100.

99
00:03:30,440 --> 00:03:33,040
Percent 100% whereas we're 3
forms we've got, you know,

100
00:03:33,120 --> 00:03:38,160
around 90 odd kids, right?
96 is our Max and and and and

101
00:03:38,160 --> 00:03:39,840
this place, it's done a good
job, right?

102
00:03:39,840 --> 00:03:43,520
It has a, it has a good like 50
roles in it, like actually on on

103
00:03:43,520 --> 00:03:45,120
stage.
I'm just doing some maths quick.

104
00:03:46,600 --> 00:03:47,840
Yeah, yeah, it's a bit of a
shortfall.

105
00:03:48,000 --> 00:03:50,160
Yeah, so, so a lot and a lot of
kids don't want to do it.

106
00:03:50,160 --> 00:03:52,000
They just want they want to make
props or they want to do like

107
00:03:52,000 --> 00:03:53,680
the lighting.
We have computer systems.

108
00:03:53,680 --> 00:03:55,280
So we have other roles that are
not on stage.

109
00:03:55,280 --> 00:03:57,680
So every child has a role.
Every child always has a role

110
00:03:57,680 --> 00:04:00,040
right?
But the the problem comes down

111
00:04:00,040 --> 00:04:02,920
to this part.
In any good show there's only

112
00:04:02,920 --> 00:04:08,600
realistically going to be 456
like main roles that are pushed.

113
00:04:08,640 --> 00:04:11,320
If you're really trying to like
force some like some big roles

114
00:04:11,320 --> 00:04:13,360
into the show and with, with
school players, they normally do

115
00:04:13,360 --> 00:04:16,079
like 456.
But the problem is there's never

116
00:04:16,079 --> 00:04:18,600
six kids that want those roles
and precisely the roles that

117
00:04:18,600 --> 00:04:21,120
you'll give them.
Dylan, what happens is 20

118
00:04:21,120 --> 00:04:25,040
children all want one of the
main 6 roles and 20 children are

119
00:04:25,040 --> 00:04:27,800
probably relatively suitable,
maybe, maybe a few of them not

120
00:04:27,800 --> 00:04:29,640
quite suited and you're down to
14.

121
00:04:29,640 --> 00:04:31,560
Sure.
And you have to pick and what

122
00:04:31,560 --> 00:04:33,800
happens every year.
I'm dreading it now because

123
00:04:33,800 --> 00:04:37,000
we're in this little window now
is, is unfortunately, not every

124
00:04:37,000 --> 00:04:38,440
kid gets the exact role they
want.

125
00:04:38,520 --> 00:04:39,760
Some kids are completely fine
with it.

126
00:04:39,760 --> 00:04:41,360
They get over it because they're
like, that's just, that's just

127
00:04:41,360 --> 00:04:43,200
part of life.
Obviously other kids go home and

128
00:04:43,200 --> 00:04:45,760
obviously a bit get a bit upset.
And then you get some parents

129
00:04:45,760 --> 00:04:48,120
who come in and they complain.
And I was like, I'm just wait,

130
00:04:48,120 --> 00:04:50,800
I'm anticipating now I'm like,
Oh, no, I don't want any upset

131
00:04:50,800 --> 00:04:53,120
parents to come in and be like,
why has my child not got this

132
00:04:53,120 --> 00:04:54,480
role?
Or it's just like but.

133
00:04:54,640 --> 00:04:56,920
Do you so?
But do you not think that's the

134
00:04:56,920 --> 00:05:00,000
way with way that schools do it
in terms of you have to let some

135
00:05:00,000 --> 00:05:03,040
children down, right?
That's a good thing to do, isn't

136
00:05:03,040 --> 00:05:05,000
it?
In terms of, you know, OK, it's

137
00:05:05,000 --> 00:05:07,600
not good to make a child upset.
Before someone clips this and

138
00:05:07,600 --> 00:05:09,240
says, do you think the child
should be upset?

139
00:05:09,440 --> 00:05:12,840
No, I think it's good that child
gets rejection in some aspect

140
00:05:12,840 --> 00:05:14,520
because they're not going to get
everything they want in their

141
00:05:14,520 --> 00:05:15,880
life.
And if they're really super

142
00:05:15,880 --> 00:05:18,520
upset about it, in my opinion,
the problem comes with the

143
00:05:18,520 --> 00:05:20,800
reaction of the parent.
If the reaction of the parent is

144
00:05:20,800 --> 00:05:23,560
to storm into school and say, my
child wanted this, yeah, great,

145
00:05:23,560 --> 00:05:25,240
well done.
So did seven others and five of

146
00:05:25,280 --> 00:05:26,760
them aren't storming in and one
of them gone.

147
00:05:27,280 --> 00:05:29,280
Yeah.
So I think that, you know, from

148
00:05:29,280 --> 00:05:31,840
a school's point of view, what
would what would be your

149
00:05:31,840 --> 00:05:34,360
reaction to that in terms of if
a parent was really unhappy with

150
00:05:34,360 --> 00:05:36,480
something like that?
I mean me for me person.

151
00:05:36,560 --> 00:05:38,000
I can't speak for everyone at
sure.

152
00:05:38,040 --> 00:05:40,480
How do you think I I would?
I would find it really awkward

153
00:05:40,480 --> 00:05:44,280
because I would probably just I
I'd I'd be annoyed by it.

154
00:05:44,560 --> 00:05:46,960
Personally, I'd be a bit like.
Annoyed that they thought they.

155
00:05:46,960 --> 00:05:50,240
Yeah, I'd feel like I'd be like,
come on, I'd want to say it's a

156
00:05:50,240 --> 00:05:52,400
bit entitled, isn't it?
It's a little bit entitled,

157
00:05:52,400 --> 00:05:53,560
isn't it?
Obviously you can't say you've

158
00:05:53,560 --> 00:05:55,920
got to remain professional.
So it's a challenging.

159
00:05:56,160 --> 00:05:58,600
Podcast.
Yeah, but that's ultimately

160
00:05:58,880 --> 00:06:02,080
there's no.
So you wouldn't change it is

161
00:06:02,080 --> 00:06:03,720
what I'm saying.
No, I no, absolutely not.

162
00:06:03,720 --> 00:06:05,480
Like I wouldn't if there was a
legitimate reason.

163
00:06:05,480 --> 00:06:07,040
I can't think of a legitimate
reason right now.

164
00:06:07,280 --> 00:06:10,080
If there was like some obvious
legitimate reason where that

165
00:06:10,080 --> 00:06:11,880
we've just, we've just not
thought of this thing and I'm

166
00:06:11,880 --> 00:06:12,560
like, Oh yeah, of course.
Yeah.

167
00:06:12,560 --> 00:06:14,800
But they have to change it for
this reason, then you just would

168
00:06:14,800 --> 00:06:16,200
like isn't, you know, there's no
pride in this.

169
00:06:16,480 --> 00:06:18,680
But if they're just saying my
kid wanted it as well, I'm like.

170
00:06:18,680 --> 00:06:20,000
OK, I know they did.
Yeah, I know.

171
00:06:20,080 --> 00:06:21,800
Unfortunately, we gave it to
this child.

172
00:06:22,120 --> 00:06:24,120
Do you want me to tell you in
front of you and your child that

173
00:06:24,120 --> 00:06:25,640
that one was that other kid was
better?

174
00:06:25,720 --> 00:06:27,240
Like, do you really want me to
say that like?

175
00:06:27,280 --> 00:06:30,000
But also, if I was a parent of a
child who came home and wasn't

176
00:06:30,000 --> 00:06:32,160
casting something I would say to
my child, well, they were

177
00:06:32,160 --> 00:06:33,520
probably better suited for it.
Yeah.

178
00:06:33,720 --> 00:06:36,160
And, and it's OK for you to
understand that there are other

179
00:06:36,160 --> 00:06:38,080
people who are better at certain
things than you are.

180
00:06:38,240 --> 00:06:39,920
There's something you're better
than them at, probably.

181
00:06:40,400 --> 00:06:42,280
I hope there's no.
Child there hope there's

182
00:06:42,280 --> 00:06:44,000
something you'll be better at.
But then but there will be

183
00:06:44,000 --> 00:06:46,040
Jose's eye, there will be
something they're better at.

184
00:06:46,040 --> 00:06:47,640
It's just not playing the lead
role in this place.

185
00:06:47,720 --> 00:06:50,320
Just imagine you with Rory when
he's older, going that bit

186
00:06:50,320 --> 00:06:53,120
further and saying like this is
unnecessary and actually that

187
00:06:53,120 --> 00:06:57,800
child is probably better than
you at math, English sport in

188
00:06:57,800 --> 00:06:59,360
fact.
Then of course they were pick

189
00:06:59,360 --> 00:07:00,880
son.
Have you said they're better

190
00:07:00,880 --> 00:07:02,880
than you every this thing?
It's just why are you telling me

191
00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:04,520
this, Dad?
Yeah, of course not.

192
00:07:04,600 --> 00:07:06,880
But you know, what you're
alluding to here is the whole

193
00:07:06,880 --> 00:07:09,240
life lesson of yes, you don't
always get what you want all the

194
00:07:09,320 --> 00:07:10,240
time.
And precisely, I know there's

195
00:07:10,240 --> 00:07:13,240
lots of criticisms about how
culture is getting a bit more

196
00:07:14,200 --> 00:07:17,200
participation awards and you
can't or you couldn't possibly

197
00:07:17,200 --> 00:07:18,840
upset anyone.
And I don't know, we're we're

198
00:07:18,840 --> 00:07:22,160
not like steadfast.
We were talking about what the

199
00:07:22,160 --> 00:07:24,120
Michaela School and we were
we're kind of criticising that

200
00:07:24,520 --> 00:07:26,280
recently in in a conversation.
We're going to the whole

201
00:07:26,280 --> 00:07:28,600
conversation about that another
time and saying how there's

202
00:07:28,600 --> 00:07:30,720
probably too far the other way
as well, where you can be

203
00:07:30,720 --> 00:07:32,640
extremely strict and actually
there's not really great for

204
00:07:32,640 --> 00:07:34,320
kids, but you know, there is a
middle.

205
00:07:34,320 --> 00:07:35,680
Ground somewhere.
I just don't even think it's

206
00:07:35,680 --> 00:07:37,120
strict to cast people in the
play.

207
00:07:37,120 --> 00:07:38,800
I just.
I just reject the notion it's on

208
00:07:38,800 --> 00:07:40,880
the spectrum.
It's just a part of life where,

209
00:07:41,080 --> 00:07:42,880
yeah, you, you won't get chosen
for this or you will.

210
00:07:43,120 --> 00:07:44,800
Yeah.
Your participation awards in

211
00:07:44,800 --> 00:07:46,640
sports day.
Yeah, they happen in some

212
00:07:46,640 --> 00:07:49,960
schools, OK, but I don't think
it's like an inherent problem

213
00:07:49,960 --> 00:07:51,600
here where most schools you get
winners and losers.

214
00:07:51,800 --> 00:07:53,560
Yeah, you won the race.
Well done.

215
00:07:53,640 --> 00:07:55,280
Like, I just don't.
I think it's a made-up problem.

216
00:07:55,280 --> 00:07:56,520
Yeah.
We make it deeper than it is.

217
00:07:56,520 --> 00:07:59,640
What would you say then if a
year 4 teacher went to maybe SLT

218
00:07:59,640 --> 00:08:01,760
and said it's just not fair?
All of year six are doing hardly

219
00:08:01,760 --> 00:08:03,920
any work now.
They're doing nothing all of

220
00:08:03,920 --> 00:08:05,160
time 6.
They just get to sit on the

221
00:08:05,160 --> 00:08:06,720
field all day.
I'd say year what?

222
00:08:06,760 --> 00:08:08,120
I don't know who year 4 is.
What?

223
00:08:08,120 --> 00:08:10,800
Is this a relevant area of our
school?

224
00:08:10,800 --> 00:08:11,800
What's happening?
Sorry, what?

225
00:08:11,800 --> 00:08:12,880
What's?
The year 4.

226
00:08:13,440 --> 00:08:15,480
I'm joking.
Yeah, I know.

227
00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:18,200
Look, I think it's the right
thing to do to to focus a bit

228
00:08:18,200 --> 00:08:20,320
more on things like this.
Now you can and we're going to

229
00:08:20,320 --> 00:08:23,200
talk about with Sophie later.
For example, what do you do with

230
00:08:23,200 --> 00:08:26,080
the strands where you're not
particularly teaching because it

231
00:08:26,080 --> 00:08:27,280
might not come up on the test
You.

232
00:08:27,680 --> 00:08:29,520
Should still be.
Teaching it right now so you

233
00:08:29,520 --> 00:08:31,600
know, still do some English,
still do some maths, etcetera.

234
00:08:31,880 --> 00:08:35,640
We'll talk all about that in
general, but I just wanted to

235
00:08:35,640 --> 00:08:38,480
talk about one thing before we
go into this deep, deep dive of

236
00:08:38,480 --> 00:08:41,200
the analysis of the SAT papers
because I think it'll be very

237
00:08:41,200 --> 00:08:43,000
easy for anyone clicking on this
for the first time.

238
00:08:43,000 --> 00:08:44,960
Maybe that's you coming here to
listen to Sophie.

239
00:08:44,960 --> 00:08:47,720
Hey, hey, hello.
Maybe they could leave a review,

240
00:08:47,720 --> 00:08:49,200
I don't know, a five star review
somewhere.

241
00:08:49,200 --> 00:08:50,880
Maybe if they enjoyed this chat
or they could follow us,

242
00:08:50,880 --> 00:08:53,640
etcetera.
Either way, I just want to make

243
00:08:53,640 --> 00:08:56,920
it really clear we're going to
dive into the SAT because they

244
00:08:56,920 --> 00:08:58,320
exist.
So we're going to talk about the

245
00:08:58,320 --> 00:09:02,240
pros, the cons, and you know
what the Mart scheme says, etc.

246
00:09:02,520 --> 00:09:05,520
But you were very keen to do
this as well, just to let people

247
00:09:05,520 --> 00:09:06,920
know.
Look, there is a separate

248
00:09:06,920 --> 00:09:09,200
conversation here to be had
about the efficacy of Sats

249
00:09:09,200 --> 00:09:10,360
themselves.
Yeah.

250
00:09:10,360 --> 00:09:12,120
So where do you sit with that?
That's what, you know, all I

251
00:09:12,120 --> 00:09:13,920
want to do is just set the stage
like because a lot of people

252
00:09:13,920 --> 00:09:16,640
like you said, maybe not listen
to our opinions before and maybe

253
00:09:16,640 --> 00:09:19,400
wouldn't know that we have had
whole conversations about sats

254
00:09:19,400 --> 00:09:20,960
overall and how we feel like
this.

255
00:09:21,280 --> 00:09:23,920
You know, we're not sat here as
like super pro Sats.

256
00:09:23,920 --> 00:09:26,760
Basically when you hear us
talking about this, this, these

257
00:09:26,760 --> 00:09:28,880
papers for this year, we're just
making comparisons, talking

258
00:09:28,880 --> 00:09:30,960
about what was good, what was
bad within the constraints.

259
00:09:31,080 --> 00:09:33,160
I don't really think Sats are
the be all and end all.

260
00:09:33,160 --> 00:09:34,480
I don't think they're that
important.

261
00:09:34,480 --> 00:09:36,160
I don't think we should be over
emphasising with the kids.

262
00:09:36,280 --> 00:09:38,080
I don't think they're
necessarily good for kids mental

263
00:09:38,080 --> 00:09:38,920
health.
I think there's a whole

264
00:09:38,920 --> 00:09:40,880
discussion there.
I just want to make that clear

265
00:09:40,880 --> 00:09:42,680
really before we have this
conversation because we're not

266
00:09:42,680 --> 00:09:44,480
really going to talk about that
with Sophie.

267
00:09:44,480 --> 00:09:46,120
We're going to talk about the
2025.

268
00:09:46,120 --> 00:09:47,280
Papers.
OK, yeah.

269
00:09:47,560 --> 00:09:49,880
And what one thing just to add
to that is I think there's a

270
00:09:49,880 --> 00:09:52,360
whole discussion again, that I
don't think there's anything

271
00:09:52,360 --> 00:09:54,560
wrong with testing children in
year 4.

272
00:09:54,560 --> 00:09:57,560
I know year 4 does exist, Hayden
and we do test children in year

273
00:09:57,560 --> 00:09:59,680
4 as well.
But it's it's not a government

274
00:09:59,680 --> 00:10:00,960
kind of roll out.
It's not important.

275
00:10:00,960 --> 00:10:02,640
Hayden Yeah, OK, that's not the
way I bring it anyway.

276
00:10:02,920 --> 00:10:05,160
I do, I do think there's value
in testing children and what

277
00:10:05,160 --> 00:10:07,680
they've understood.
I think there's a big discussion

278
00:10:07,680 --> 00:10:10,160
to be out somewhere about where
that line of difficulty is.

279
00:10:10,160 --> 00:10:12,640
I don't think we necessarily get
too much into that with our chat

280
00:10:12,640 --> 00:10:15,520
with Sophie, but I I do think
maybe in general that line's

281
00:10:15,520 --> 00:10:17,840
quite high.
You know, we are blocking out

282
00:10:17,840 --> 00:10:20,400
maybe some EAL learners, some
children with additional needs,

283
00:10:20,400 --> 00:10:22,640
etcetera.
I don't always think, think that

284
00:10:22,640 --> 00:10:26,560
the extra kind of what was it
called where you apply for

285
00:10:26,560 --> 00:10:28,120
extra, yeah, access
arrangements.

286
00:10:28,120 --> 00:10:31,080
I don't necessarily think they
always hit the nail on the head

287
00:10:31,080 --> 00:10:33,920
for what a child actually needs
in terms of being able to access

288
00:10:33,920 --> 00:10:35,680
these tests.
I think they help to a degree,

289
00:10:35,680 --> 00:10:38,320
but what's an extra 15 minutes
if you just don't understand

290
00:10:38,320 --> 00:10:40,600
what the words mean, You know,
and I get we're judging that as

291
00:10:40,600 --> 00:10:43,280
well, but I, I think there's
lots of drawbacks is what I'm

292
00:10:43,280 --> 00:10:45,080
saying.
There's lots of discussions to

293
00:10:45,080 --> 00:10:48,440
be had, which outside of this
chat we're about to have.

294
00:10:48,440 --> 00:10:50,400
So if you do have any of those
thoughts in general, do get in

295
00:10:50,400 --> 00:10:52,240
touch with us because we're
interested to hear what you

296
00:10:52,320 --> 00:10:53,440
think.
But I think we should.

297
00:10:53,920 --> 00:10:55,840
Yeah, with that in mind, let's
talk to Sophie.

298
00:10:58,560 --> 00:11:00,400
Hello Sophie, how you doing?
Good.

299
00:11:00,400 --> 00:11:01,360
Thank you.
How are you guys?

300
00:11:01,720 --> 00:11:04,480
I'm good, I'm good, I'm
excellent because the Sats are

301
00:11:04,480 --> 00:11:07,120
all over now.
We've had that big kind of.

302
00:11:07,840 --> 00:11:10,680
I get to read Sophie BS blogs
all about these Sats and how

303
00:11:10,680 --> 00:11:11,840
they've gone on.
It's what you live for.

304
00:11:11,840 --> 00:11:12,240
Isn't it?
Yeah.

305
00:11:12,240 --> 00:11:14,680
Can I just say how I love your
blogs?

306
00:11:14,680 --> 00:11:16,600
There are loads of blogs now.
Loads of people do analysis and

307
00:11:16,600 --> 00:11:20,040
stuff but I must say the.
Way you write, he reads all.

308
00:11:20,560 --> 00:11:22,400
Of.
Them.

309
00:11:22,400 --> 00:11:23,680
Yeah, he.
Didn't get through all of them.

310
00:11:23,680 --> 00:11:25,320
He sits there, lots of stuff in
a little room.

311
00:11:25,400 --> 00:11:27,960
Just read the way I do.
But yours are so well written

312
00:11:28,080 --> 00:11:31,200
and they read like a a short
novel and I just love it.

313
00:11:31,200 --> 00:11:33,880
So we're going to whack all the
links and things to that down

314
00:11:33,880 --> 00:11:35,160
there.
But the point today is if you

315
00:11:35,160 --> 00:11:36,800
don't want to do all that
reading forever reason, we're

316
00:11:36,800 --> 00:11:39,960
going to go through all of the
Sats and the analysis and what

317
00:11:39,960 --> 00:11:41,840
was in the papers and all that
good stuff.

318
00:11:41,840 --> 00:11:44,360
So I guess the first question is
just headline.

319
00:11:44,680 --> 00:11:46,760
How did you think they were
written?

320
00:11:46,760 --> 00:11:48,360
Do you think there were good
papers in general?

321
00:11:48,360 --> 00:11:50,880
What was your generic view of
them overall?

322
00:11:51,880 --> 00:11:54,120
I actually feel like it's
controversial opinion that this

323
00:11:54,120 --> 00:11:57,320
has been my favourite set so far
since the new curriculum.

324
00:11:57,640 --> 00:11:59,840
I mean, my opinions changed
slightly since the mark seems to

325
00:11:59,840 --> 00:12:03,000
come out, but not like there's
always frustrations with the

326
00:12:03,000 --> 00:12:04,920
mark scheme.
But actual papers themselves I

327
00:12:05,160 --> 00:12:07,440
kind of quite liked.
I thought they were my favourite

328
00:12:07,440 --> 00:12:08,120
set.
I don't know how you feel,

329
00:12:08,120 --> 00:12:10,640
Hayden.
I I feel exactly the same.

330
00:12:10,640 --> 00:12:13,400
Yeah, I was pleasantly surprised
when I went through all the

331
00:12:13,400 --> 00:12:15,640
papers, obviously, like maths,
English, all of it.

332
00:12:16,640 --> 00:12:19,560
I thought wow, whoever wrote
these did a really good job.

333
00:12:19,760 --> 00:12:22,400
And like you said, then I saw
the Mart schemes and I was like,

334
00:12:22,560 --> 00:12:24,320
wow, whoever wrote these did a
terrible job.

335
00:12:25,400 --> 00:12:27,960
So we'll dive into that as we go
through I think a bit more, but.

336
00:12:28,040 --> 00:12:31,600
Yeah, I think we should probably
let's go through each kind of

337
00:12:31,600 --> 00:12:33,880
individual aspect one at a time.
So we'll go through reading

338
00:12:33,880 --> 00:12:36,200
comprehension, then we'll do
some GPS and then we'll go

339
00:12:36,200 --> 00:12:38,240
through maths just to kind of
break it up a bit.

340
00:12:38,520 --> 00:12:42,800
So starting with English and the
English papers, I just want to

341
00:12:42,800 --> 00:12:45,560
start off with the point you 2
just made that I think both of

342
00:12:45,560 --> 00:12:48,960
you read this and, and initially
when the children were doing it,

343
00:12:48,960 --> 00:12:53,360
both of you thought actually
this is this is quite a good

344
00:12:53,680 --> 00:12:55,240
paper.
It's it's accessible.

345
00:12:55,480 --> 00:12:57,400
And I think the one thing,
Sophie, that jumped out for me

346
00:12:57,400 --> 00:12:59,280
is you actually thought they
were interesting texts.

347
00:13:00,760 --> 00:13:03,080
I know, I don't know whether I
was just that bored that I was

348
00:13:03,080 --> 00:13:04,400
like, oh, this is actually quite
interesting.

349
00:13:04,400 --> 00:13:07,120
But I thought compared to some
of the others and considering as

350
00:13:07,120 --> 00:13:10,440
well that I mean, the second two
came from real life texts.

351
00:13:10,680 --> 00:13:13,360
I mean, the third one arguable
the style was quite archaic, I

352
00:13:13,360 --> 00:13:14,760
guess.
But I actually really enjoyed

353
00:13:14,760 --> 00:13:16,920
the middle one particularly.
I was quite intrigued about that

354
00:13:16,920 --> 00:13:17,960
one.
I thought it was written really

355
00:13:17,960 --> 00:13:21,200
nicely as well and quite
engaging for children and that

356
00:13:21,200 --> 00:13:23,240
there's always been non fiction
and non fiction being

357
00:13:23,240 --> 00:13:24,440
interesting and subjective,
isn't it?

358
00:13:24,440 --> 00:13:27,000
If you're if you're not into
chess or you're not into the

359
00:13:27,000 --> 00:13:29,520
history of someone's success,
then you're not going to find it

360
00:13:29,520 --> 00:13:31,000
interesting.
But I thought they were all

361
00:13:31,040 --> 00:13:33,160
right, to be honest.
Me too.

362
00:13:33,200 --> 00:13:34,760
I genuinely thought the texts
were quite good.

363
00:13:34,760 --> 00:13:36,520
Like some years they're a little
bit boring.

364
00:13:36,840 --> 00:13:39,800
I think they're all, they're
never going to appeal to every

365
00:13:39,800 --> 00:13:42,240
single person, are they?
Like I saw some online

366
00:13:42,240 --> 00:13:44,720
immediately afterwards we're
like, oh, it was boring, wasn't

367
00:13:44,720 --> 00:13:45,880
it?
Boring texts, classic.

368
00:13:45,880 --> 00:13:47,000
We're not getting the kids
engaged.

369
00:13:47,000 --> 00:13:48,800
And I was like, well, I think
they're all right.

370
00:13:48,800 --> 00:13:50,640
I think a lot of my kids quite
enjoyed it actually.

371
00:13:50,880 --> 00:13:54,440
However, I did have, I did have
a bet with my class because they

372
00:13:54,480 --> 00:13:58,640
were, you know, super in the
zone before SAS and they all bet

373
00:13:58,840 --> 00:14:00,000
that poetry was going to come
up.

374
00:14:00,440 --> 00:14:02,960
What did you did you feel the
same way?

375
00:14:04,600 --> 00:14:08,440
Seriously, it's what's it It's
been since 2018 now, but it

376
00:14:08,440 --> 00:14:10,280
hasn't.
And now a few people are saying,

377
00:14:10,280 --> 00:14:12,800
I've seen a few comments on
social saying like they're just

378
00:14:12,800 --> 00:14:14,960
not going to include it because
they can't make up the word

379
00:14:14,960 --> 00:14:16,560
count that they should have with
a poem.

380
00:14:16,560 --> 00:14:18,680
Because if they put a poem, that
means one of the other texts has

381
00:14:18,680 --> 00:14:21,320
got to be really meaty.
But I'm not sure that would be

382
00:14:21,400 --> 00:14:23,040
the case.
And the other one was someone

383
00:14:23,040 --> 00:14:25,560
said, oh, but the Marx scheme
would just be so difficult if

384
00:14:25,560 --> 00:14:26,960
you had a poem.
Hello.

385
00:14:29,040 --> 00:14:31,440
Infiring a poem is really not
that much.

386
00:14:31,440 --> 00:14:34,200
Like there's still the same
variety of answers as when

387
00:14:35,000 --> 00:14:37,760
inferring a fiction text.
So I don't think that's the

388
00:14:37,760 --> 00:14:39,800
reason, I just think they're
just being annoying.

389
00:14:40,480 --> 00:14:43,200
But has there been much I, I, I
remember looking at your blog,

390
00:14:43,200 --> 00:14:46,720
has there been much variation in
like the order of the text in

391
00:14:46,720 --> 00:14:47,760
the years?
I think it what was it this

392
00:14:47,800 --> 00:14:49,440
year?
It was a non fiction, yeah.

393
00:14:49,680 --> 00:14:51,920
Fiction.
I feel like that's been the same

394
00:14:51,920 --> 00:14:52,640
for a few.
Years.

395
00:14:52,640 --> 00:14:55,400
So last year that was the same
and then three years before that

396
00:14:55,400 --> 00:14:57,280
it was fiction.
Non fiction in the middle

397
00:14:57,280 --> 00:14:59,840
fiction.
But the whole time fiction has

398
00:14:59,840 --> 00:15:05,040
been the hardest 1.
So since 2017, 1617 fiction's

399
00:15:05,040 --> 00:15:08,520
been the third text, yeah.
Yeah.

400
00:15:09,040 --> 00:15:11,560
So in general, in terms of
what's actually in the paper,

401
00:15:11,560 --> 00:15:13,480
then if we look at like the
content domains, I think this is

402
00:15:13,480 --> 00:15:16,360
where your analysis really does.
Yeah, do it for me because I

403
00:15:16,360 --> 00:15:18,280
love stats and and numbers and
things like this.

404
00:15:18,560 --> 00:15:21,880
You've kind of broken down what
domains come up and what domains

405
00:15:21,880 --> 00:15:23,280
don't.
I think there are 8 aren't there

406
00:15:23,280 --> 00:15:25,840
in total in terms of 2A2B
retrieval.

407
00:15:26,200 --> 00:15:29,520
And what does strike me is this
year it just just like every

408
00:15:29,520 --> 00:15:32,920
other year, if not, it feels
like even more so They, you,

409
00:15:33,000 --> 00:15:36,200
they just leave out so many
strands and, and so heavily

410
00:15:36,200 --> 00:15:39,560
weight towards retrieval,
inference, word, word meaning,

411
00:15:39,560 --> 00:15:40,320
etcetera.
Yeah.

412
00:15:40,320 --> 00:15:41,760
What's your view on that in
general?

413
00:15:41,760 --> 00:15:43,520
Like did it fit in with previous
years?

414
00:15:43,520 --> 00:15:45,760
And do you think that's a fair
split when you're judging a

415
00:15:45,760 --> 00:15:48,840
child's comprehension level?
Well, so this year, like last

416
00:15:48,840 --> 00:15:50,440
year, they had no prediction
questions.

417
00:15:50,440 --> 00:15:52,600
But then I guess that that kind
of makes sense.

418
00:15:52,600 --> 00:15:54,320
There's not really.
You can't.

419
00:15:54,440 --> 00:15:56,360
Again, prediction is really
subjective, although they've

420
00:15:56,360 --> 00:15:59,200
clearly decided other things are
objective and can be marked.

421
00:16:00,440 --> 00:16:02,800
Prediction question only came up
in 2022.

422
00:16:02,840 --> 00:16:05,160
Literally no other time has a
prediction question come up.

423
00:16:06,280 --> 00:16:08,400
Inference is been is the biggest
it's ever been.

424
00:16:08,400 --> 00:16:11,360
So nearly half the questions,
48% of the marks on inference

425
00:16:11,360 --> 00:16:12,840
this year, that's the biggest
it's ever been.

426
00:16:13,680 --> 00:16:15,160
And retrieval's always quite
chunky.

427
00:16:15,160 --> 00:16:17,400
But to be fair, I was looking
through the test framework, so

428
00:16:17,400 --> 00:16:19,720
the parameters that the test
writers have to stick to.

429
00:16:20,040 --> 00:16:23,440
And inference is always was
always intended to be one of the

430
00:16:23,440 --> 00:16:24,760
biggest ones as well as
retrieval.

431
00:16:24,760 --> 00:16:26,880
And the others were always
supposed to be quite small.

432
00:16:27,320 --> 00:16:30,120
So I mean looking at the like
the underrepresented ones, your

433
00:16:30,120 --> 00:16:33,440
prediction, explaining how
meaning is enhanced through

434
00:16:33,440 --> 00:16:36,480
words, making comparisons within
the text, They're like important

435
00:16:36,480 --> 00:16:39,400
things, but I guess they're
harder to write questions on and

436
00:16:39,400 --> 00:16:40,800
harder to mark.
I don't know it's.

437
00:16:41,720 --> 00:16:43,920
The same every year, isn't it?
Like you said, I just find that

438
00:16:43,920 --> 00:16:47,280
they're so underrepresented.
Like underrepresented.

439
00:16:47,320 --> 00:16:48,280
Oh, should we have another
strand?

440
00:16:48,280 --> 00:16:49,360
How to pronounce words?
Probably.

441
00:16:50,000 --> 00:16:51,600
No, get rid of that strand.
Get rid of that strand.

442
00:16:52,040 --> 00:16:55,880
I find that that like it, it
almost it almost discourages you

443
00:16:55,880 --> 00:16:57,640
from even like bothering.
And that sounds really silly.

444
00:16:57,920 --> 00:16:59,600
Obviously as a teacher you're
going to teach everything, but

445
00:16:59,600 --> 00:17:01,880
like there it does like
massively encourage you to be

446
00:17:01,880 --> 00:17:05,079
like, let's just look at
retrieval word mean inference

447
00:17:05,079 --> 00:17:07,400
like nothing else really matters
according to the test.

448
00:17:07,800 --> 00:17:08,920
I think the other thing it
forced.

449
00:17:08,960 --> 00:17:10,200
Sorry, Dylan.
You've.

450
00:17:10,800 --> 00:17:13,440
Been doing is, is doing like,
well, I'm just going to do loads

451
00:17:13,440 --> 00:17:16,200
of lessons on inference and
loads of lessons on retrieval as

452
00:17:16,200 --> 00:17:19,599
if you can each inference as a
like discrete stand alone thing,

453
00:17:19,800 --> 00:17:22,960
which obviously isn't great kind
of a pedagogical approach to it.

454
00:17:23,359 --> 00:17:26,920
But yeah, I was surprised by how
huge the chunk.

455
00:17:26,920 --> 00:17:28,800
And then I think a lot of people
kind of noticed it without

456
00:17:28,800 --> 00:17:30,520
knowing the analysis that there
were loads of inference

457
00:17:30,520 --> 00:17:33,400
questions this year.
You see it straight away.

458
00:17:33,400 --> 00:17:35,040
The thing I was going to say on
that, what both of you are

459
00:17:35,040 --> 00:17:37,000
saying is absolutely right and
it kind of bleeds into how

460
00:17:37,000 --> 00:17:40,400
people end up teaching.
But do you also find that it's

461
00:17:40,400 --> 00:17:43,080
still worth teaching things like
prediction and summary,

462
00:17:43,080 --> 00:17:45,360
etcetera?
Not only because of the pure

463
00:17:45,360 --> 00:17:47,440
kind of skill of doing that to
build a someone who's better at

464
00:17:47,440 --> 00:17:50,120
comprehension, but also because
I feel like those strands really

465
00:17:50,120 --> 00:17:51,680
do bleed into each other quite a
lot.

466
00:17:52,000 --> 00:17:54,240
Like if you're predicting
things, then you inherently have

467
00:17:54,240 --> 00:17:56,280
to know what words mean because
if you're making a prediction

468
00:17:56,280 --> 00:17:58,600
based on the text, it's because
you understand what the authors

469
00:17:58,600 --> 00:18:00,320
describe someone's personality
like.

470
00:18:00,600 --> 00:18:03,760
And I think a big thing for me
maybe as we move into now

471
00:18:03,760 --> 00:18:05,800
looking at the questions that
kind of jumped out and the mark

472
00:18:05,800 --> 00:18:11,960
schemes in particular, I found
that what you mentioned in terms

473
00:18:11,960 --> 00:18:15,520
of retrieval and word meaning,
for example, there were so many

474
00:18:15,520 --> 00:18:18,520
questions where, yeah, maybe it
was categorised as straight up

475
00:18:18,520 --> 00:18:22,480
retrieval, but you had to have
an understanding of what the

476
00:18:22,480 --> 00:18:25,360
word meant in order to know that
that's the information you need

477
00:18:25,360 --> 00:18:27,960
to retrieve.
So I think it's useful looking

478
00:18:27,960 --> 00:18:31,120
at these percentages, etcetera.
But I do find in general and

479
00:18:31,120 --> 00:18:34,360
maybe in your opinion, was it
more so this year that you did

480
00:18:34,360 --> 00:18:36,600
need to have kind of an
overarching, you know,

481
00:18:36,680 --> 00:18:39,280
comprehension skill set in able
to answer even the most simple

482
00:18:39,280 --> 00:18:41,840
questions?
Yeah, I think because I mean,

483
00:18:41,840 --> 00:18:45,640
and I've fall into this, into
this pitfall pit before in that

484
00:18:45,640 --> 00:18:48,360
teacher retrieval, you're kind
of just looking for exactly that

485
00:18:48,360 --> 00:18:51,560
word or that fact in the text.
And I think it was even was it

486
00:18:51,560 --> 00:18:53,280
question one?
I'm just looking now at my blog.

487
00:18:53,280 --> 00:18:55,120
It was question one, yeah.
Yeah, question one was a

488
00:18:55,120 --> 00:18:57,680
retriever question, but it
wasn't a straightforward.

489
00:18:57,680 --> 00:19:01,480
So the word in the question is
how did Oh, the question is how

490
00:19:01,480 --> 00:19:03,240
did Fiona make money for her
family?

491
00:19:03,480 --> 00:19:06,400
And in the text, the answer,
you'd find the answer in the

492
00:19:06,400 --> 00:19:08,800
sentence that said her family
could no longer afford to send

493
00:19:08,800 --> 00:19:10,880
her, so she had to support her
family.

494
00:19:10,880 --> 00:19:13,240
So apart from the Word family,
which is actually throughout

495
00:19:13,240 --> 00:19:16,320
quite a lot of the text, you had
to look at basically synonyms of

496
00:19:16,320 --> 00:19:18,680
the word.
So I thought I'd actually don't

497
00:19:18,680 --> 00:19:20,360
know if that's a retrieval
question until I see the mark

498
00:19:20,360 --> 00:19:21,600
scheme.
It might be a word choice

499
00:19:21,600 --> 00:19:23,600
question or something, but it
was a retrieval 1.

500
00:19:23,600 --> 00:19:26,160
But it's not retrieval as maybe
a lot of us know it to be.

501
00:19:27,080 --> 00:19:29,440
Yeah, it probably honed in on
that idea that you you mentioned

502
00:19:29,440 --> 00:19:33,040
to a minute ago of like maybe
teaching retrieval as an

503
00:19:33,080 --> 00:19:35,480
explicit thing by itself and
then teaching infants explicitly

504
00:19:35,480 --> 00:19:37,040
by itself.
It's probably like probably not

505
00:19:37,040 --> 00:19:39,720
the best way to do it because
like Dylan was alluding to, it

506
00:19:39,720 --> 00:19:42,560
is really just a whole skill set
and everything bleeds into each

507
00:19:42,560 --> 00:19:44,480
other all the time.
Like ultimately we're reading,

508
00:19:44,480 --> 00:19:45,880
right?
It's can you read these words?

509
00:19:46,480 --> 00:19:48,720
Like it does all boil down to
can you read these words?

510
00:19:48,720 --> 00:19:49,960
And do you know, do you know
what they mean?

511
00:19:49,960 --> 00:19:52,400
Even at the most simplest level,
like could be a really simple

512
00:19:52,400 --> 00:19:55,200
retrieval question.
But if a child literally doesn't

513
00:19:55,200 --> 00:19:58,080
know what one of the words mean
in the question, yeah, then then

514
00:19:58,080 --> 00:19:59,880
it's still a hard, it's still a
hard question.

515
00:19:59,880 --> 00:20:02,840
I think we fall into the trap of
thinking that retrieval

516
00:20:02,840 --> 00:20:05,160
questions are the easy ones.
That's definitely a thing that

517
00:20:05,160 --> 00:20:07,480
we as teachers do.
Retrieval ones are the easy

518
00:20:07,480 --> 00:20:10,560
ones, guys, or inference ones,
they're the tricky ones.

519
00:20:10,760 --> 00:20:12,720
And vocab ones, well, you just
got to read more books because

520
00:20:12,720 --> 00:20:14,000
if you don't know the words, you
can't do them.

521
00:20:14,600 --> 00:20:16,000
I feel like that's it.
That's the narrative.

522
00:20:16,320 --> 00:20:18,680
I'm sure you've both taught like
skimming and scanning, right?

523
00:20:18,680 --> 00:20:20,040
Maybe it's like part of
retrieval.

524
00:20:20,040 --> 00:20:22,040
But you can't skim and scan for
this question because if I was

525
00:20:22,040 --> 00:20:24,440
going to teach how to find the
answer, I might say, right, Look

526
00:20:24,440 --> 00:20:27,120
for the word money.
But the word money isn't even in

527
00:20:27,120 --> 00:20:28,120
the sentence where the answer
is.

528
00:20:28,120 --> 00:20:30,680
So you've got to not what are
you actually looking for?

529
00:20:30,680 --> 00:20:33,800
So it's it's like you can't even
teach the skill of retrieval for

530
00:20:33,800 --> 00:20:35,320
this one.
That's why kind of teaching a

531
00:20:35,560 --> 00:20:37,360
specific content domain doesn't
really work.

532
00:20:38,040 --> 00:20:39,240
Yeah, yeah, that's such a good
point.

533
00:20:39,240 --> 00:20:42,240
I'm looking at the text now and
it literally just says she

534
00:20:42,240 --> 00:20:44,680
started selling May.
So I guess the word selling was

535
00:20:44,680 --> 00:20:47,120
like the only clue that kids
have to go.

536
00:20:47,120 --> 00:20:49,160
Well, selling means you make
money from it.

537
00:20:49,600 --> 00:20:51,640
But like you said, there is
still inherent like inference

538
00:20:51,640 --> 00:20:52,880
from that.
Like you have to know.

539
00:20:53,240 --> 00:20:54,960
You have to know what they mean.
You can't just give and scan.

540
00:20:54,960 --> 00:20:57,880
You're absolutely right.
I think what this is a really

541
00:20:57,880 --> 00:21:00,800
good time now moving on from
this whole idea of I think

542
00:21:00,800 --> 00:21:03,280
throughout the text it was a
theme and with the questions

543
00:21:03,280 --> 00:21:06,440
that you had to be able to kind
of switch between those synonyms

544
00:21:06,440 --> 00:21:08,320
in order to even do the most
basic of retrieval.

545
00:21:08,520 --> 00:21:12,040
You mentioned in your blog a few
examples like left school

546
00:21:12,120 --> 00:21:14,920
dropped out of school did well
with success.

547
00:21:14,920 --> 00:21:17,480
This idea of just there was a
base level of understanding

548
00:21:17,480 --> 00:21:20,360
vocab that the children were
expected to have even just to

549
00:21:20,360 --> 00:21:22,640
access those basic retrieval
questions.

550
00:21:23,040 --> 00:21:26,880
But what I think was really,
really a big sticking point

551
00:21:26,880 --> 00:21:28,600
here, and I think a lot of
people are listening to this for

552
00:21:28,600 --> 00:21:32,680
us to chat about this and not
right now was this big chasm, I

553
00:21:32,680 --> 00:21:35,760
thought between the inference
that we expect the children to

554
00:21:35,760 --> 00:21:37,880
be able to have to answer the
questions themselves.

555
00:21:38,160 --> 00:21:40,160
So we're we're talking about
what we just said there and

556
00:21:40,160 --> 00:21:41,720
being able to understand the
text as a whole.

557
00:21:42,040 --> 00:21:44,680
And then the level of inference
given the people who were

558
00:21:44,680 --> 00:21:47,240
literally paid to mark these
texts for the children.

559
00:21:47,520 --> 00:21:50,080
Because let me let me just read
this question out.

560
00:21:50,080 --> 00:21:51,800
This is the one that's caused a
lot of controversy.

561
00:21:52,680 --> 00:21:54,320
Question five of the reading
paper.

562
00:21:55,240 --> 00:21:59,040
According to the text, what is
it important to have when

563
00:21:59,040 --> 00:22:02,200
learning something new?
Seems like a straightforward

564
00:22:02,200 --> 00:22:04,240
question.
You know, you can go to the text

565
00:22:04,240 --> 00:22:07,520
and find out.
Sophie, what was the big issue

566
00:22:07,520 --> 00:22:09,960
with this question and the mark
scheme and the extra guidance in

567
00:22:09,960 --> 00:22:12,240
particular?
Well, I feel like I actually

568
00:22:12,240 --> 00:22:13,840
wrote about this one because
Hayden brought it to my

569
00:22:13,840 --> 00:22:15,840
attention.
So I will share the response

570
00:22:15,840 --> 00:22:17,200
then I want Hayden to go off on
it because.

571
00:22:18,200 --> 00:22:20,120
No, I will.
Not your rage inspired me.

572
00:22:20,120 --> 00:22:22,960
Really.
So an accepted answer was

573
00:22:22,960 --> 00:22:27,120
someone to help you learn, but
an unacceptable answer was just

574
00:22:27,120 --> 00:22:29,400
someone to help you.
So you're missing the word learn

575
00:22:29,400 --> 00:22:32,920
off the end.
That wasn't allowed, Hayden.

576
00:22:33,680 --> 00:22:36,240
Thoughts.
So the reason, yeah, the reason

577
00:22:36,240 --> 00:22:38,480
this question, I know it angered
all of us because we spoke about

578
00:22:38,480 --> 00:22:42,440
it, is that the question itself
gives the context.

579
00:22:42,440 --> 00:22:45,520
It says what is important to
have when learning something

580
00:22:45,520 --> 00:22:47,000
new.
If I asked you that question,

581
00:22:47,000 --> 00:22:49,440
what is important to have when
learning something new, I

582
00:22:49,440 --> 00:22:52,880
wouldn't expect you then 3
seconds later to give me an

583
00:22:52,880 --> 00:22:55,080
answer and then finish it with
when learning something new.

584
00:22:55,080 --> 00:22:57,160
In case you'd forgotten the
question you just asked me,

585
00:22:57,200 --> 00:22:59,560
Yeah, it doesn't make any sense.
So someone to help you, it's

586
00:22:59,560 --> 00:23:02,440
obviously talking about someone
to help you when learning

587
00:23:02,440 --> 00:23:04,080
something new because the
question says that.

588
00:23:04,320 --> 00:23:06,560
So I think it is completely
reasonable.

589
00:23:06,560 --> 00:23:09,880
And as an adult, I probably put
or someone to help you because I

590
00:23:09,880 --> 00:23:12,840
am going to expect a very, very,
very basic level of inference

591
00:23:12,840 --> 00:23:15,720
from the person who's listening
to understand I'm obviously

592
00:23:15,720 --> 00:23:17,640
referencing the question they
just asked.

593
00:23:17,640 --> 00:23:19,040
Me.
I mean, the irony is it almost

594
00:23:19,040 --> 00:23:21,840
assumes a higher level of
inference on the answerers part

595
00:23:21,960 --> 00:23:23,800
because you're saying, Oh yeah,
someone to help you because

596
00:23:23,800 --> 00:23:26,440
you're assuming they can infer
that you mean someone to those.

597
00:23:26,440 --> 00:23:28,640
It's in the question.
Yeah, that's apparently wrong

598
00:23:28,640 --> 00:23:31,280
and it's an inference question.
But yes, bizarre.

599
00:23:31,720 --> 00:23:34,240
One of the because I did a
TikTok video about this again,

600
00:23:34,240 --> 00:23:36,120
because he said it to me, I
think he said it to all of us

601
00:23:36,120 --> 00:23:38,680
and said, look, I'm ridiculous.
This is so I did a TikTok video

602
00:23:38,680 --> 00:23:41,960
talking about it and 98% of the
comments were kind of a line

603
00:23:41,960 --> 00:23:43,920
what we're saying, which is nice
when you see that because it

604
00:23:43,920 --> 00:23:45,880
feels like it feels like it is
an actual issue.

605
00:23:46,480 --> 00:23:48,680
But a few of the pushbacks that
I were given, I kind of want to

606
00:23:48,680 --> 00:23:51,160
give to you 2 now to see how you
would, how you would kind of

607
00:23:51,160 --> 00:23:53,120
react to that and what your
thoughts are.

608
00:23:53,120 --> 00:23:56,360
Because someone said to me to
me, for example, that, OK, this

609
00:23:56,360 --> 00:23:59,440
is this is what we need from the
mark scheme, though, in able to

610
00:23:59,760 --> 00:24:02,120
in order for us to be able to
kind of differentiate between

611
00:24:02,120 --> 00:24:04,240
the highest of people of highest
of learners.

612
00:24:04,480 --> 00:24:08,040
So if we don't have this kind of
really intricate way of marking,

613
00:24:08,160 --> 00:24:10,280
how on earth can we separate
someone who's really, really

614
00:24:10,280 --> 00:24:12,920
good at comprehension with
someone who's just OK.

615
00:24:12,920 --> 00:24:14,320
And therefore this is.
Accepted.

616
00:24:14,320 --> 00:24:15,840
And maybe just guessing it a
bit, yeah.

617
00:24:15,840 --> 00:24:19,360
How would you push back to that?
Well, well, I like for me.

618
00:24:19,360 --> 00:24:20,720
Sorry, Soph, I know.
You know, no, no go.

619
00:24:21,200 --> 00:24:25,000
For me it's just obvious, like
the the the the higher infant

620
00:24:25,000 --> 00:24:27,920
skills you have, I think the
more likely you are to miss some

621
00:24:27,920 --> 00:24:30,320
information because you assume
high infant skills on the other

622
00:24:30,320 --> 00:24:30,960
people.
I don't know.

623
00:24:31,120 --> 00:24:33,840
Does that make any sense?
No, it does because I I kind of

624
00:24:33,840 --> 00:24:37,040
equate it to like when I'm
teaching maths for example.

625
00:24:37,040 --> 00:24:39,120
So I'm personally really
confident at maths.

626
00:24:39,600 --> 00:24:42,480
So when I teach maths I think I
miss a lot of the like

627
00:24:42,480 --> 00:24:45,320
fundamental stuff because it
comes so fluently to me.

628
00:24:45,640 --> 00:24:48,240
But, and so kind of see that
with reading, if you're so

629
00:24:48,240 --> 00:24:50,920
fluent with reading, you're not
gonna think, oh, I'd better add

630
00:24:50,920 --> 00:24:53,080
in all this extra information in
case the person reading my

631
00:24:53,120 --> 00:24:55,400
answer isn't good at reading
'cause you're assuming that.

632
00:24:55,520 --> 00:24:56,560
They are, yeah.
That's it.

633
00:24:57,120 --> 00:25:00,040
And then like just kind of
anecdotally, like my friend

634
00:25:00,160 --> 00:25:03,200
Mark's English GCSE papers and
she was going through this and

635
00:25:03,200 --> 00:25:06,200
she was going that they would,
they would no way be as picky as

636
00:25:06,200 --> 00:25:08,720
this, that this is insane that
they're actually breaking it

637
00:25:08,720 --> 00:25:11,520
down to this level.
I think what annoys me the most

638
00:25:11,520 --> 00:25:12,920
is how much it can cost
children.

639
00:25:12,920 --> 00:25:15,200
Like one lost Mark is 2% of the
paper.

640
00:25:15,600 --> 00:25:17,600
And we all know that can mean
the difference between pass and

641
00:25:17,600 --> 00:25:18,760
fail.
And that could mean the if

642
00:25:18,880 --> 00:25:21,440
you've got a small cohort that
could be a difference in like 7%

643
00:25:21,440 --> 00:25:24,160
for your results, if not more.
So it's just the the

644
00:25:24,160 --> 00:25:26,520
accountability of this is has to
come hand in hand.

645
00:25:26,520 --> 00:25:28,360
Yeah, it needs to be right.
It needs to be right.

646
00:25:28,360 --> 00:25:29,680
And they're spending millions on
this as well.

647
00:25:29,680 --> 00:25:31,360
Let's not forget that there are
millions and millions and

648
00:25:31,360 --> 00:25:33,840
millions of pounds spent on this
entire process, including making

649
00:25:33,840 --> 00:25:35,480
the March game well.
There were there were a bunch of

650
00:25:35,480 --> 00:25:37,200
people again, this is this is
the other kind of pushback that

651
00:25:37,200 --> 00:25:38,400
we had.
And I'd love to know your

652
00:25:38,400 --> 00:25:41,160
thoughts having, you know, I
think you 2, in my opinion, are

653
00:25:41,160 --> 00:25:43,720
the expert here in terms of the
breaking down of the SAT.

654
00:25:44,280 --> 00:25:46,800
I'm just a lowly low key stage 2
teacher.

655
00:25:47,360 --> 00:25:49,880
But what I found really
interesting was, again, there's

656
00:25:49,880 --> 00:25:52,480
still this mindset from people.
And again, a lot of the comments

657
00:25:52,480 --> 00:25:54,640
were saying something like,
yeah, well, when I was in

658
00:25:54,640 --> 00:25:57,200
school, I was taught to use the
question in my answer so that

659
00:25:57,200 --> 00:25:59,680
there was no, no equivocation of
what I mean.

660
00:25:59,880 --> 00:26:02,240
So for example, what did you
have for breakfast today?

661
00:26:02,400 --> 00:26:03,920
You should be answering for
breakfast.

662
00:26:03,920 --> 00:26:05,480
I had blah, blah, blah.
Yeah.

663
00:26:05,480 --> 00:26:07,840
And I feel like I kind of
remember being sat in school, in

664
00:26:07,840 --> 00:26:09,560
primary school and being told
that.

665
00:26:09,760 --> 00:26:13,080
So just is there any leg to
stand on there or is it again,

666
00:26:13,080 --> 00:26:15,880
just we're kind of marking the
wrong thing?

667
00:26:15,880 --> 00:26:18,200
Are we marking comprehension
skills or we're marking your

668
00:26:18,200 --> 00:26:21,000
ability to regurgitate what
you're told is needed to go for

669
00:26:21,000 --> 00:26:21,760
a mark scheme?
What?

670
00:26:21,760 --> 00:26:23,120
What's your opinion?
On I think that's different,

671
00:26:23,120 --> 00:26:25,200
'cause I'm just like looking at
another one of the questions.

672
00:26:25,440 --> 00:26:27,760
Why did Fiona play play
carelessly when she started

673
00:26:27,760 --> 00:26:30,000
playing chess?
They didn't have to put Fiona

674
00:26:30,000 --> 00:26:32,320
started playing carelessly when
she started playing chess

675
00:26:32,320 --> 00:26:34,120
because 'cause that's what we
were taught to do.

676
00:26:34,120 --> 00:26:37,080
Include the question your answer
which wastes so much time

677
00:26:37,080 --> 00:26:39,080
because of the timed aspects of
these tests.

678
00:26:39,520 --> 00:26:41,160
The whole point is they don't
need to answer in full

679
00:26:41,160 --> 00:26:43,040
sentences.
They're just answering phrases

680
00:26:43,240 --> 00:26:45,280
so nowhere else in them asking
do they have an actual.

681
00:26:45,480 --> 00:26:47,480
Like none of the accepted
answers have a capital letter in

682
00:26:47,480 --> 00:26:50,800
full stop at the end phrases and
chosen words.

683
00:26:50,800 --> 00:26:53,000
So I just think that one is
wild.

684
00:26:53,000 --> 00:26:55,280
I can't accept any defence to
that question 5 I'm sorry.

685
00:26:55,480 --> 00:26:58,840
Even in question 5, right, the
one of the accepted answers is

686
00:26:58,840 --> 00:27:02,000
just a coach.
You're allowed to put a coach.

687
00:27:02,000 --> 00:27:03,360
You have to put no ones going.
All.

688
00:27:03,360 --> 00:27:05,880
A coach to do what?
A coach to help you learn.

689
00:27:05,880 --> 00:27:07,560
What, though?
You've not clarified what the

690
00:27:07,560 --> 00:27:09,600
coach is there for?
Well, yeah, 'cause we all know

691
00:27:09,600 --> 00:27:10,960
it's for us.
Right.

692
00:27:10,960 --> 00:27:12,920
Yeah.
Yeah, yeah.

693
00:27:14,560 --> 00:27:15,680
You need a coach to get you
there.

694
00:27:16,480 --> 00:27:18,000
So.
True, I just find it mad.

695
00:27:18,000 --> 00:27:20,000
But when does it stop?
Because someone said, yeah, I

696
00:27:20,000 --> 00:27:22,840
was, it's a retrieval question,
so you just take from the text.

697
00:27:22,840 --> 00:27:25,520
I was like, yeah, I've just
decided to stop a word earlier.

698
00:27:25,520 --> 00:27:27,960
Then you decided to stop
arbitrarily because there's

699
00:27:27,960 --> 00:27:31,320
inference in the question.
I just for an 11 year old look,

700
00:27:31,320 --> 00:27:34,320
I can understand what the text,
I can understand what the mark

701
00:27:34,320 --> 00:27:35,840
scheme is saying.
I think that's a that's a push

702
00:27:35,840 --> 00:27:37,640
back as well.
Don't you understand though?

703
00:27:37,640 --> 00:27:40,640
There's clearly a difference
between someone to help you in

704
00:27:40,640 --> 00:27:42,800
general and someone to help you
specifically to get better at

705
00:27:42,800 --> 00:27:44,400
something.
I'm like I understand all of

706
00:27:44,400 --> 00:27:46,120
that, but that's not what the
question.

707
00:27:46,200 --> 00:27:49,800
Said no, it's no.
It'd be like saying what is just

708
00:27:49,800 --> 00:27:51,760
a slight change on it because it
feels it feels more ridiculous

709
00:27:51,760 --> 00:27:52,760
when you do it about something
else.

710
00:27:52,880 --> 00:27:55,480
What is it important to have
when learning to play the piano

711
00:27:55,800 --> 00:27:58,360
and someone says piano or a
piano?

712
00:27:58,360 --> 00:28:00,960
To do what?
Obviously to play the piano.

713
00:28:01,000 --> 00:28:03,000
OK, Someone to help, someone to
help you.

714
00:28:03,000 --> 00:28:05,400
For someone to help you do what?
Well, obviously learn the piano.

715
00:28:05,440 --> 00:28:06,760
You've just asked me what I need
for Diana.

716
00:28:06,800 --> 00:28:08,320
Tie my shoelaces.
What do you think?

717
00:28:08,320 --> 00:28:10,400
I mean, what do you think I'm
thinking of right?

718
00:28:10,960 --> 00:28:12,080
I think they.
Just made a mistake.

719
00:28:12,400 --> 00:28:13,680
It seems ridiculous.
Isn't it breaking?

720
00:28:13,720 --> 00:28:16,000
I mean, this is 1 mark out of
50.

721
00:28:16,080 --> 00:28:18,560
Yeah, but then there's gonna be
a headline at some point.

722
00:28:18,560 --> 00:28:21,360
Like 28% of children leave
primary school not being able to

723
00:28:21,360 --> 00:28:25,720
read because of something like
this, which is just ludicrous.

724
00:28:25,720 --> 00:28:28,160
And that's why it, well,
frustrates all of us so much

725
00:28:28,160 --> 00:28:30,640
because if you're outside of
this and you don't see it

726
00:28:30,640 --> 00:28:32,640
inside, you're just going, wow,
they can't teach them to read at

727
00:28:32,640 --> 00:28:34,560
primary school.
And yet this is what is actually

728
00:28:34,560 --> 00:28:35,840
happening.
This is what.

729
00:28:36,000 --> 00:28:37,400
Yeah.
Nothing to do with it, but there

730
00:28:37,400 --> 00:28:39,960
you go.
Question 5 made in my life, but

731
00:28:39,960 --> 00:28:42,960
we'll move on.
Yeah, I think kind of moving on

732
00:28:42,960 --> 00:28:45,400
to the second text briefly
because what I liked in your

733
00:28:45,400 --> 00:28:48,280
blog, you mentioned, what I like
about it is balanced in terms

734
00:28:48,280 --> 00:28:50,640
of, you know what, as teachers,
we are expecting certain things

735
00:28:50,640 --> 00:28:53,440
to come up.
And I think in reading, one of

736
00:28:53,440 --> 00:28:56,400
the kind of size of relief that
a lot of teachers had was when

737
00:28:56,400 --> 00:28:59,240
they saw that classic 3 marker.
Appear in that second text.

738
00:28:59,480 --> 00:29:03,000
Where it was an impression and
some evidence so that that came

739
00:29:03,000 --> 00:29:05,760
up.
Do you think it's inherently a

740
00:29:05,760 --> 00:29:08,560
good thing that we can almost
predict exactly the type of

741
00:29:08,560 --> 00:29:11,080
question and that will come up
under comprehension or do and

742
00:29:11,200 --> 00:29:14,840
and therefore we're kind of
teaching children to answer it

743
00:29:14,880 --> 00:29:17,000
based on the mark scheme like
we've just been talking about is

744
00:29:17,000 --> 00:29:19,960
not necessarily a good thing.
Do you think in this situation

745
00:29:19,960 --> 00:29:22,840
that's OK or do you think still
maybe they should mix up a bit

746
00:29:22,840 --> 00:29:25,240
in the future?
I don't know, I think I do think

747
00:29:25,240 --> 00:29:27,480
it's OK because this is actually
something we can cling on to

748
00:29:27,480 --> 00:29:29,720
because you can't predict
clearly, you can't predict

749
00:29:29,720 --> 00:29:30,800
anything else they're going to
do.

750
00:29:31,080 --> 00:29:33,160
And it's what's quite clear from
the mark scheme is that you kind

751
00:29:33,160 --> 00:29:34,800
of need to be a mind reader half
the time.

752
00:29:35,080 --> 00:29:37,520
So when something does come up
that you can cling on to, like

753
00:29:37,520 --> 00:29:40,480
yes, we taught this, we taught
them how to do it, but, and

754
00:29:40,480 --> 00:29:42,680
actually I think it gives the
children so much more confidence

755
00:29:42,680 --> 00:29:43,560
going on.
I've seen a grid like this

756
00:29:43,560 --> 00:29:45,040
before or I've seen words like
this before.

757
00:29:45,040 --> 00:29:47,440
I know exactly what I'm doing.
And it doesn't change the fact

758
00:29:47,440 --> 00:29:49,920
that it's still quite a tricky
inference question.

759
00:29:50,160 --> 00:29:52,600
Like you have to work out what
kind of character they are and

760
00:29:52,600 --> 00:29:53,800
fight.
There's loads of different

761
00:29:53,880 --> 00:29:56,560
accepted answers for this.
It's still tricky, but just

762
00:29:56,560 --> 00:29:59,000
because they've given them the
kind of scaffold there to be

763
00:29:59,000 --> 00:30:00,840
able to help them answer.
That's why I loved that

764
00:30:00,840 --> 00:30:02,720
question.
It was helping to the kids and

765
00:30:02,720 --> 00:30:05,000
all the answers were perfectly
acceptable and reasonable.

766
00:30:05,000 --> 00:30:07,360
So.
I, I, I personally thought this

767
00:30:07,360 --> 00:30:09,200
was a great question, like just
to give the Mark team some

768
00:30:09,200 --> 00:30:11,720
credit now, I suppose, and, and
the just the test in general.

769
00:30:11,720 --> 00:30:13,560
I'll tell you what, I'm going to
preface this with just a

770
00:30:13,560 --> 00:30:15,680
reminder that I think these
tests were really good.

771
00:30:15,960 --> 00:30:19,280
I think the actual question
booklet and the reading texts

772
00:30:19,280 --> 00:30:20,760
are really good.
It's, it's some of the mark

773
00:30:20,760 --> 00:30:23,200
scheme we've got a problem with.
But this question was fantastic

774
00:30:23,200 --> 00:30:26,040
because what I found in previous
years is I, I get a bit

775
00:30:26,040 --> 00:30:28,040
frustrated with the with the
three mark.

776
00:30:28,040 --> 00:30:30,360
Like what impression do you get
of this character kind of

777
00:30:30,360 --> 00:30:32,800
questions when there's not
actually that many impressions

778
00:30:32,800 --> 00:30:34,800
to have?
Sometimes it's like, you know,

779
00:30:35,520 --> 00:30:37,600
there's only like 2 acceptable
answers and ethic one of them.

780
00:30:37,600 --> 00:30:40,280
And I'm always like, I just,
they feel like they need more.

781
00:30:40,280 --> 00:30:42,680
I just want to see can the kids
justify something?

782
00:30:42,680 --> 00:30:44,360
That's what I want.
So give them as much chance as

783
00:30:44,360 --> 00:30:46,000
possible.
And this year they did it so

784
00:30:46,000 --> 00:30:47,120
well.
They definitely have the most

785
00:30:47,400 --> 00:30:49,800
answers I've ever seen.
So for example, for Tom, there

786
00:30:49,800 --> 00:30:52,880
are four different four
different descriptors of of

787
00:30:52,880 --> 00:30:55,440
Tom's, what impression you got
of him and there were 6 for the

788
00:30:55,440 --> 00:30:57,480
other character.
For Jeff, there were loads.

789
00:30:57,480 --> 00:31:00,840
It was almost like properly
letting them just if you can, if

790
00:31:00,840 --> 00:31:03,520
you can do this skill, there's,
there's loads of ways for you to

791
00:31:03,520 --> 00:31:04,960
do it.
So that's not a barrier, just,

792
00:31:05,200 --> 00:31:06,480
you know, write down what you
think.

793
00:31:06,640 --> 00:31:09,560
Yeah, quite often they do this
with one character.

794
00:31:09,560 --> 00:31:11,480
So give me two impressions of 1
character.

795
00:31:11,640 --> 00:31:13,320
So you've got to find 2
adjectives that are actually

796
00:31:13,320 --> 00:31:16,200
different and then two ways of
supporting those adjectives.

797
00:31:16,200 --> 00:31:18,440
But there's 2 characters here I
don't have.

798
00:31:18,440 --> 00:31:20,360
We actually read the question.
It's basically what impressions

799
00:31:20,360 --> 00:31:21,600
do you get of the two
characters?

800
00:31:23,120 --> 00:31:25,480
But yeah, it was lovely.
I mean, in contrast, I'm sure

801
00:31:25,480 --> 00:31:27,840
content the three mark question.
The third text I thought was

802
00:31:27,840 --> 00:31:31,720
actually really tricky, but this
one I let's.

803
00:31:31,720 --> 00:31:33,680
Talk about that.
What, what, what do you think

804
00:31:33,680 --> 00:31:34,520
the main difference as well
then?

805
00:31:34,520 --> 00:31:37,880
Because again, in traditionally,
I think you mentioned in the, in

806
00:31:37,880 --> 00:31:40,360
the kind of guidance that was
given about the test, you can

807
00:31:40,360 --> 00:31:43,440
have up to 4 Freemark questions.
But yeah, traditionally it's

808
00:31:43,440 --> 00:31:45,840
always basically 2.
We can kind of nail our hat on.

809
00:31:46,200 --> 00:31:49,040
So what, what did you find in
terms of saying, look at that

810
00:31:49,040 --> 00:31:50,240
first Freemark question was
good.

811
00:31:50,240 --> 00:31:51,320
It was fair.
There was a scaffold.

812
00:31:51,320 --> 00:31:53,400
There were lots of options.
Fill your boots, kids.

813
00:31:54,040 --> 00:31:56,400
What made this trickier, and do
you think that's necessarily a

814
00:31:56,400 --> 00:31:57,760
bad thing towards the end of the
test?

815
00:31:57,800 --> 00:32:00,440
Yeah, no, I don't think so.
Because obviously, firstly, the

816
00:32:00,440 --> 00:32:01,960
third text is supposed to be the
most difficult.

817
00:32:01,960 --> 00:32:03,920
It's aimed at our greater depth
readers, isn't it?

818
00:32:04,600 --> 00:32:06,440
And there's got to be questions
that you found tricky.

819
00:32:06,640 --> 00:32:09,160
Honestly, I, I thought it was
tricky because when I sat and

820
00:32:09,160 --> 00:32:12,400
did it myself, I struggled a
bit, like it didn't come easily

821
00:32:12,400 --> 00:32:14,680
to me to find both.
And when I went through the mark

822
00:32:14,680 --> 00:32:17,240
scheme, I wouldn't have got full
marks from what I wrote on it.

823
00:32:17,240 --> 00:32:19,000
And it gave me answers.
I thought, oh, I hadn't

824
00:32:19,000 --> 00:32:21,960
considered that, but I didn't
think they're really rubbish

825
00:32:21,960 --> 00:32:23,560
answers.
I think they are acceptable

826
00:32:23,560 --> 00:32:25,000
answers, I just didn't think of
them.

827
00:32:25,000 --> 00:32:28,080
So I was like, wow, it kind of
does really stretch all your

828
00:32:28,080 --> 00:32:30,560
readers.
But it because I think because

829
00:32:30,560 --> 00:32:32,160
it's about 1 character again,
you have to find two

830
00:32:32,160 --> 00:32:33,840
impressions.
And obviously the language is a

831
00:32:33,840 --> 00:32:37,440
bit more complex in that text,
so it was more challenging,

832
00:32:37,920 --> 00:32:40,600
yeah.
So this this was about an Archer

833
00:32:40,600 --> 00:32:42,640
being experienced, right?
And you, yeah, was it?

834
00:32:42,640 --> 00:32:47,000
Was it specifically you had to
find evidence as to what made it

835
00:32:47,000 --> 00:32:49,240
obvious she was experienced?
Yeah, and I think because I

836
00:32:49,240 --> 00:32:51,600
didn't put this one in my blog,
they'd given an example already.

837
00:32:51,600 --> 00:32:53,200
So that kind of took one of us
I'll.

838
00:32:53,840 --> 00:32:55,720
Read it to you.
The example was she had the

839
00:32:55,720 --> 00:32:58,040
strength to do it.
So that's how you know, how you

840
00:32:58,040 --> 00:33:00,120
can say she's experienced.
And the evidence was she was

841
00:33:00,120 --> 00:33:02,920
able to pull the bow back to its
fullest extension.

842
00:33:03,160 --> 00:33:04,040
Yeah.
That was it.

843
00:33:04,600 --> 00:33:06,600
So you've taken, you've taken an
option away from the child,

844
00:33:06,600 --> 00:33:07,680
basically.
Yeah, yeah, yeah, you.

845
00:33:07,680 --> 00:33:08,720
Have.
So instead of building a

846
00:33:08,720 --> 00:33:10,960
scaffold where it's a table and
you can kind of have your free

847
00:33:10,960 --> 00:33:13,080
choice.
The scaffold here is almost more

848
00:33:13,080 --> 00:33:14,520
abstract.
Here's an answer you could have

849
00:33:14,520 --> 00:33:16,840
given, and then that's harder
for you to find.

850
00:33:16,840 --> 00:33:18,760
You can't do it now what kids
classically do as well is they

851
00:33:18,760 --> 00:33:20,840
don't read that example.
It's it's often quite small in

852
00:33:20,840 --> 00:33:23,360
grey and I like I even skimmed
over it at 1st and then they'll

853
00:33:23,360 --> 00:33:25,320
put that answer as their own and
lose out even though they

854
00:33:25,320 --> 00:33:26,360
actually.
Thought I think as well, because

855
00:33:26,600 --> 00:33:28,800
that was one of the most obvious
answers, that she was strong.

856
00:33:29,040 --> 00:33:30,880
The one that came in to lead to
me after that was, oh, she was

857
00:33:30,880 --> 00:33:32,720
quite accurate because she
obviously hit in the middle.

858
00:33:33,160 --> 00:33:35,920
And then I don't think I came up
with a what would have been

859
00:33:35,920 --> 00:33:37,560
accepted by the mark scheme.
A second one.

860
00:33:37,560 --> 00:33:38,960
What were they hiding out of
interest?

861
00:33:39,320 --> 00:33:42,480
Yeah, composure, her focus.
Yeah, see the her confidence

862
00:33:43,000 --> 00:33:44,880
that's quite abstract, isn't?
It it is, isn't it?

863
00:33:44,880 --> 00:33:47,120
Yeah.
There are quite a few more that

864
00:33:47,120 --> 00:33:49,080
was like her knowledge of
strategies and techniques,

865
00:33:49,120 --> 00:33:51,120
abstract again, like her
knowledge of her bow.

866
00:33:51,120 --> 00:33:53,720
So just like obviously knowing
how the fullest extension and

867
00:33:53,720 --> 00:33:55,840
all that sort of stuff.
And her knowledge of past

868
00:33:55,840 --> 00:33:57,400
learning, Which I thought was
funny because it did mention

869
00:33:57,400 --> 00:33:59,960
that one bit in the text.
Remember, it said like she heard

870
00:33:59,960 --> 00:34:02,760
the ancient commands in her
head, in her body, and somewhere

871
00:34:02,760 --> 00:34:04,520
deep inside her, that must have
been her soul.

872
00:34:04,520 --> 00:34:06,000
I'd love to know how many
children got that.

873
00:34:06,080 --> 00:34:07,920
But no way anyone put that
that's that to me.

874
00:34:08,120 --> 00:34:10,679
And you know what that kind of
highlights one thing I, I wanted

875
00:34:10,679 --> 00:34:13,800
to pick your brains on both of
you on this is when I, I was the

876
00:34:13,800 --> 00:34:16,239
same Sophie, I had a look at
this test like, you know, during

877
00:34:16,239 --> 00:34:17,800
that week and I was sort of
flicking through it.

878
00:34:18,280 --> 00:34:21,800
And, and I also found that were
a few of those questions that

879
00:34:21,800 --> 00:34:25,120
last in that last text.
I genuinely was not 100% sure on

880
00:34:25,120 --> 00:34:27,280
my answer.
And the reason I think for that

881
00:34:27,280 --> 00:34:31,600
is we've become so obsessed
with, you have to be able to

882
00:34:31,600 --> 00:34:33,840
give clear evidence for your
answers, right?

883
00:34:34,000 --> 00:34:36,600
It's got to be super clear.
You've inferred this because

884
00:34:36,600 --> 00:34:40,600
this is undeniably why.
And I found maybe for the first

885
00:34:40,600 --> 00:34:42,480
time, maybe it's happened
before, that a lot of the

886
00:34:42,480 --> 00:34:45,639
questions in that third text,
the inferences was like a little

887
00:34:45,639 --> 00:34:47,719
bit wishy washy.
I thought it was a little bit

888
00:34:47,719 --> 00:34:51,199
like you, you couldn't really
prove it.

889
00:34:51,199 --> 00:34:53,920
You know, there was like the
evidence was a little bit, it

890
00:34:53,920 --> 00:34:55,840
wasn't as strong.
Maybe in the text I was like,

891
00:34:55,840 --> 00:34:58,480
OK, well that could imply this.
So I won't put that as my answer

892
00:34:58,480 --> 00:35:00,000
because they're going to want
something more secure.

893
00:35:00,000 --> 00:35:02,160
And then after the mark scheme,
I was like, oh, they absolutely

894
00:35:02,160 --> 00:35:03,280
did accept that.
That's weird.

895
00:35:04,320 --> 00:35:07,320
Yeah, I think I'm just looking
at another one that I know

896
00:35:07,320 --> 00:35:09,960
caused a bit of fuss and I can
kind of see why some people

897
00:35:09,960 --> 00:35:12,120
would agree that it's not
acceptable.

898
00:35:12,320 --> 00:35:15,520
But it was the one about why
were the rule question 35?

899
00:35:15,520 --> 00:35:18,200
Why were the rules changed after
the first round?

900
00:35:18,240 --> 00:35:19,080
Right.
Yeah.

901
00:35:19,960 --> 00:35:22,520
And it was basically all about
had to be something about the

902
00:35:22,520 --> 00:35:25,040
increased enjoyment of the crowd
or the increased challenge or

903
00:35:25,040 --> 00:35:29,080
something of it being more.
But I think what people found so

904
00:35:29,080 --> 00:35:31,800
frustrating was that you could
write to make it more

905
00:35:31,800 --> 00:35:34,720
interesting to watch, but you
couldn't write to make it

906
00:35:34,720 --> 00:35:37,600
interesting to watch.
Yeah, So there's such a minute

907
00:35:37,600 --> 00:35:39,000
difference.
And yes, there was a difference.

908
00:35:39,000 --> 00:35:42,160
But I feel like if someone put
that second answer, is that not

909
00:35:42,160 --> 00:35:44,200
them understanding?
I agree because it because it's

910
00:35:44,200 --> 00:35:45,680
like saying, oh, I can imagine
what they'll do.

911
00:35:45,680 --> 00:35:47,680
They'll be like, oh, but it's
it's implying if they don't put

912
00:35:47,680 --> 00:35:49,640
more, it's implying that they
didn't already think it was

913
00:35:49,640 --> 00:35:51,160
interesting to watch already.
Yeah.

914
00:35:51,280 --> 00:35:53,920
Does it honestly doesn't really
matter that much.

915
00:35:53,960 --> 00:35:55,280
Want to understanding this
question.

916
00:35:55,400 --> 00:35:57,920
It's interesting now they moved
it back, isn't it's interesting

917
00:35:57,920 --> 00:35:59,280
and like we're going for quick
answers.

918
00:35:59,600 --> 00:36:01,520
Why did they put them back?
I want to show their skills.

919
00:36:01,960 --> 00:36:03,840
No, it has to be to better show
their skills.

920
00:36:04,160 --> 00:36:07,080
OK, We like come on.
Do we really think kids put in

921
00:36:07,080 --> 00:36:10,080
to show their skills didn't
didn't pick up in the text that

922
00:36:10,080 --> 00:36:11,760
they already have skills through
the whole thing?

923
00:36:11,760 --> 00:36:13,320
Like, come on.
Yeah.

924
00:36:13,560 --> 00:36:16,160
And if you're putting to make it
interesting to watch, so you're

925
00:36:16,160 --> 00:36:19,160
assuming that it was boring
before, that's still then more

926
00:36:19,160 --> 00:36:20,520
interesting, isn't it?
Because it's boring to

927
00:36:20,520 --> 00:36:23,080
interesting as opposed to
interesting to more interesting.

928
00:36:23,600 --> 00:36:25,520
The amount of interest is still
increased.

929
00:36:25,920 --> 00:36:28,600
So I just I think it's another
case of like if you're that

930
00:36:28,600 --> 00:36:31,640
fluent inferring you, you might
not bother to put like little

931
00:36:32,360 --> 00:36:35,440
what is more an adverb like
little words in because you just

932
00:36:35,440 --> 00:36:37,360
assume a level inference on the
marker as well like you're

933
00:36:37,360 --> 00:36:40,240
saying.
And there was a third answer for

934
00:36:40,240 --> 00:36:42,360
that one, which just kind of
wraps it up.

935
00:36:42,360 --> 00:36:45,320
They did accept to make it more
challenging for The Archers or

936
00:36:45,320 --> 00:36:48,120
for example, it makes it harder
for the competitors, but they

937
00:36:48,120 --> 00:36:50,520
didn't set, they didn't accept
to make it hard.

938
00:36:50,680 --> 00:36:52,880
So it's this idea of increased?
Yeah, all of them are about

939
00:36:52,880 --> 00:36:53,440
increasing.
Yeah.

940
00:36:53,440 --> 00:36:56,400
To, to better show their skills,
to make it harder, you know,

941
00:36:56,400 --> 00:36:59,080
needed those extra 2 letters on
that to get the mark and to make

942
00:36:59,080 --> 00:37:01,560
it more interesting to watch.
I don't know, I just just

943
00:37:01,560 --> 00:37:04,760
thought it was a bit.
Well, on that note, can we go to

944
00:37:04,760 --> 00:37:06,000
question 36 then?
Are you?

945
00:37:06,320 --> 00:37:11,080
Because it's in a similar theme?
Is what made Mary worry that her

946
00:37:11,080 --> 00:37:13,280
bow, Mary being the name of the
Archer, if anyone's listening,

947
00:37:13,440 --> 00:37:16,800
what made Mary worry that her
bow might be close to breaking?

948
00:37:17,160 --> 00:37:20,240
So you could say she pulled it
back as far as it could go, but

949
00:37:20,240 --> 00:37:22,080
you couldn't say she pulled it
back hard.

950
00:37:23,320 --> 00:37:27,200
Yeah, yeah.
I mean this, this, this to me is

951
00:37:27,200 --> 00:37:29,800
a different.
So I, I, I completely agree what

952
00:37:29,800 --> 00:37:32,000
both of you are saying here.
But I, I want to make the

953
00:37:32,000 --> 00:37:34,560
distinction that I do think this
is different to what we talked

954
00:37:34,560 --> 00:37:36,600
about earlier in terms of
learning being in a question.

955
00:37:37,160 --> 00:37:40,080
I think that is just wrong
because I think it's literally

956
00:37:40,080 --> 00:37:42,040
baked into the question that
we're obviously talking about

957
00:37:42,040 --> 00:37:43,920
learning.
And I think that assumption is

958
00:37:43,920 --> 00:37:46,880
completely fair for all children
to say it's in the question.

959
00:37:46,880 --> 00:37:48,360
It's obviously what we're
talking about.

960
00:37:48,800 --> 00:37:52,080
I do think here there is wiggle
room for someone to kind of have

961
00:37:52,080 --> 00:37:53,320
a different opinion to what
we're saying.

962
00:37:53,520 --> 00:37:56,520
I think there's wiggle room for
people to say, look, the the

963
00:37:56,520 --> 00:38:00,680
literal point of why it was
changed isn't was was literally

964
00:38:00,680 --> 00:38:03,960
to make it more of something.
Now I don't want to say I don't

965
00:38:03,960 --> 00:38:06,480
disagree of what you're saying
at all, but I think this falls

966
00:38:06,480 --> 00:38:09,800
into a category of a debate
about how harsh we are marking

967
00:38:09,800 --> 00:38:12,840
these children on what they
understand to it being literally

968
00:38:12,840 --> 00:38:15,000
wrong.
So I just wanted to lay that

969
00:38:15,000 --> 00:38:16,120
down first.
Basically, and I think this

970
00:38:16,120 --> 00:38:20,000
falls into it, if a child said
she was worried about the bow

971
00:38:20,080 --> 00:38:23,400
being close to breaking because
she pulled it back hard, I'm

972
00:38:23,400 --> 00:38:26,120
completely happy with the
inference level of an 11 year

973
00:38:26,120 --> 00:38:27,920
old.
Yeah, yeah, same.

974
00:38:28,040 --> 00:38:29,360
The line's wrong.
That's what it is.

975
00:38:29,360 --> 00:38:31,200
You're absolutely right, Dylan.
I get that.

976
00:38:31,240 --> 00:38:34,000
You know, you can argue the
discrepancies, but the line is

977
00:38:34,000 --> 00:38:35,120
just wrong.
That is fine.

978
00:38:35,160 --> 00:38:38,960
They have passed that question.
Yeah, it's mad.

979
00:38:40,880 --> 00:38:42,880
Especially considering the
conditions they're under, It's

980
00:38:42,880 --> 00:38:45,840
timed, it's pressure.
Like, you know your good readers

981
00:38:45,840 --> 00:38:47,080
are going to make some slight
mistakes.

982
00:38:47,080 --> 00:38:49,200
That doesn't mean they're not
good readers just because

983
00:38:49,200 --> 00:38:50,760
they've missed that one word or
two words.

984
00:38:50,760 --> 00:38:52,880
I mean, I know that's a bigger
issue with Saturn itself, but

985
00:38:53,120 --> 00:38:55,520
that's why the reading marks
scheme in particular I think has

986
00:38:55,520 --> 00:38:58,440
caused a lot of uproar because
it's just so it's just so harsh

987
00:38:58,440 --> 00:39:00,120
on these kids.
And it really makes a

988
00:39:00,120 --> 00:39:01,960
distinction between you can't
read and you can read.

989
00:39:01,960 --> 00:39:03,360
And that's just not what it's
like.

990
00:39:05,440 --> 00:39:07,560
Yeah, there's a wider issue,
isn't there, with how SAT's

991
00:39:07,560 --> 00:39:10,320
results were interpreted.
And I think looking at the mark

992
00:39:10,320 --> 00:39:12,920
scheme, kind of if someone had a
really good understanding of

993
00:39:12,920 --> 00:39:15,200
this mark scheme, I think
hopefully it would give more

994
00:39:15,200 --> 00:39:17,320
nuance in how we treat the
results coming out of it.

995
00:39:17,320 --> 00:39:21,200
Because if we are really picking
up at this level and then saying

996
00:39:21,360 --> 00:39:24,720
28% of kids can't read, I'm
like, OK, these clearly don't go

997
00:39:24,720 --> 00:39:26,600
together so let's just have an
understanding of what this

998
00:39:26,600 --> 00:39:30,320
actually is and maybe a debate,
but don't have a headline on BBC

999
00:39:30,320 --> 00:39:31,520
saying this many people can't
read it.

1000
00:39:31,520 --> 00:39:33,360
Anymore, that's just nonsense,
yeah.

1001
00:39:34,120 --> 00:39:36,240
Yeah, nice.
Should we move on to the GPS

1002
00:39:36,240 --> 00:39:37,520
paper?
Should we talk a bit about that

1003
00:39:37,520 --> 00:39:41,040
so maybe we can dive into some
sort of key key findings from

1004
00:39:41,040 --> 00:39:42,400
your blog.
I don't think there's GPS was

1005
00:39:42,400 --> 00:39:44,440
quite as juicy as the reading,
but I'm sure there's a few bits

1006
00:39:44,440 --> 00:39:49,160
we can talk about so.
Yeah, I'm, I'm, I'm sorry, Kane,

1007
00:39:49,200 --> 00:39:49,480
go.
No.

1008
00:39:50,200 --> 00:39:51,240
No, I was going to say over to
you.

1009
00:39:51,240 --> 00:39:53,680
So if you go and start us off
with some some interesting bits.

1010
00:39:53,680 --> 00:39:56,600
Yeah, I mean, there's never I, I
quite like the GPS again.

1011
00:39:56,640 --> 00:39:58,440
I mean, there's one question,
we'll come on to you later that

1012
00:39:58,440 --> 00:40:00,400
I thought was, well, there's a
couple that I thought were a bit

1013
00:40:00,400 --> 00:40:02,440
like, you know, a few things to
say about it, but.

1014
00:40:02,800 --> 00:40:05,160
Nothing hugely controversial
like the the reading paper.

1015
00:40:05,160 --> 00:40:08,000
So if you break them down by the
content domains against there

1016
00:40:08,000 --> 00:40:12,880
are 7 content domains.
So things like punctuation is G5

1017
00:40:12,880 --> 00:40:16,920
and vocabulary is G6 and so
they're broken down into 7 and

1018
00:40:16,920 --> 00:40:21,320
the biggest represented ones are
always G5 and G1.

1019
00:40:21,320 --> 00:40:25,000
So G1's like word classes and
G5's punctuation.

1020
00:40:25,840 --> 00:40:27,080
And then this year it was very
similar.

1021
00:40:27,080 --> 00:40:30,000
So the two content domains
together made-up 56%.

1022
00:40:30,000 --> 00:40:33,640
So over half of the paper, which
again, it makes sense because

1023
00:40:33,640 --> 00:40:36,000
there's lots of substrands
within those where the others

1024
00:40:36,000 --> 00:40:38,160
are a little bit smaller.
So one, I can't remember which

1025
00:40:38,160 --> 00:40:40,560
one it is, one of them's about
function of sentences, which

1026
00:40:40,560 --> 00:40:42,960
isn't huge.
So it does make sense that they

1027
00:40:42,960 --> 00:40:46,520
make up most of the paper.
But yeah, there's been nothing,

1028
00:40:46,720 --> 00:40:49,280
nothing wildly different this
year in terms of the types of

1029
00:40:49,280 --> 00:40:53,320
questions that are in the paper.
And again, the most popular ones

1030
00:40:53,320 --> 00:40:56,840
seem to be across all papers.
The most popular substrands that

1031
00:40:56,840 --> 00:41:00,360
appear are punctuation for
parenthesis, synonyms and

1032
00:41:00,360 --> 00:41:02,320
antonyms, and apostrophes and
verbs.

1033
00:41:02,360 --> 00:41:04,800
They come up a lot, which you
might have thought when you're

1034
00:41:04,800 --> 00:41:07,400
reading the paper in a lot of
different questions.

1035
00:41:07,720 --> 00:41:10,120
But yeah, I don't.
There wasn't anything that

1036
00:41:10,120 --> 00:41:12,720
hugely inspired me to moan about
this paper.

1037
00:41:12,720 --> 00:41:16,240
No, it's kind of like the meta.
The meta level of moaning about

1038
00:41:16,240 --> 00:41:17,840
GPS kind of just remains,
doesn't it?

1039
00:41:17,840 --> 00:41:20,600
Like there's lots of reasons why
we think the GPS paper in

1040
00:41:20,600 --> 00:41:23,480
general over the over all the
years is just ridiculous thing

1041
00:41:23,480 --> 00:41:25,280
to be doing.
But yeah, this wasn't, but it

1042
00:41:25,280 --> 00:41:27,240
didn't stand out particularly
differently amongst the rest.

1043
00:41:27,240 --> 00:41:29,120
The only one I thought that was
just a bit interesting because

1044
00:41:29,120 --> 00:41:31,360
it hasn't been up in a while,
was the question on the

1045
00:41:31,360 --> 00:41:33,400
subjunctive form, the
subjunctive verb.

1046
00:41:33,400 --> 00:41:35,280
That's a circle, the verb that
was in the subjunctive.

1047
00:41:35,280 --> 00:41:36,120
I think that's the.
Question.

1048
00:41:36,480 --> 00:41:37,880
Well, that's interesting because
it's not come up.

1049
00:41:38,560 --> 00:41:40,200
No, I think it's about a couple
of years hasn't come up.

1050
00:41:40,200 --> 00:41:42,000
And to be honest, sometimes I
just don't even teach it because

1051
00:41:42,000 --> 00:41:44,320
I'm like, either it's not gonna
come up or it's literally 1

1052
00:41:44,320 --> 00:41:45,480
mark.
And so there's no point in

1053
00:41:45,480 --> 00:41:48,280
wasting my breath on it because
it's just, and the way I'm going

1054
00:41:48,280 --> 00:41:50,680
to teach it to get you to get
that one mark is a really

1055
00:41:50,680 --> 00:41:53,040
rudimentary, actually bad way of
teaching it.

1056
00:41:53,040 --> 00:41:55,080
So I just may as well just miss
out altogether.

1057
00:41:55,440 --> 00:41:59,200
There is one question that I
commented on quite a bit that so

1058
00:41:59,200 --> 00:42:01,720
did a few other people.
It was question 22 about fronted

1059
00:42:01,720 --> 00:42:05,680
adverbials and a discussion
about a subordinate clause being

1060
00:42:05,680 --> 00:42:10,200
an adverbial, which in the in
the DfE glossary of gramme

1061
00:42:10,200 --> 00:42:14,000
grammatical terms it is.
But I think because we kind of

1062
00:42:14,040 --> 00:42:16,840
assume adverbial phrase, right,
you should say adverbial phrase.

1063
00:42:16,840 --> 00:42:19,440
And a phrase doesn't have a verb
in it, but a subordinate clause

1064
00:42:19,440 --> 00:42:22,120
does have a verb in it.
So when you see a subordinate

1065
00:42:22,120 --> 00:42:24,960
clause, you don't instantly
think, oh phrase, oh adverbial

1066
00:42:24,960 --> 00:42:27,960
phrase.
So to now kind of again, it's

1067
00:42:27,960 --> 00:42:30,000
just so complex for children.
Yes, that's a subordinate

1068
00:42:30,000 --> 00:42:31,880
clause.
It's also front adverbial, which

1069
00:42:31,880 --> 00:42:33,600
could also be this, which could
also be that.

1070
00:42:33,600 --> 00:42:36,400
And it's just I only achieved
that and I noticed other

1071
00:42:36,400 --> 00:42:40,040
children, other people's kids
did from matter of a process of

1072
00:42:40,040 --> 00:42:41,440
elimination.
It can't be that, can't be that,

1073
00:42:41,440 --> 00:42:43,480
it can't be that, it must be
that, but I just don't know that

1074
00:42:43,480 --> 00:42:44,680
it is.
But I'm going to take it anyway.

1075
00:42:45,200 --> 00:42:47,600
Yeah, yeah, I agree.
Because yeah, the only way you

1076
00:42:47,600 --> 00:42:50,240
could really do that is knowing
the other three didn't have

1077
00:42:50,240 --> 00:42:53,600
fronted clauses really at all.
I didn't have sport.

1078
00:42:53,600 --> 00:42:57,320
Slight, slight push back a
little bit here in terms of I'm

1079
00:42:57,320 --> 00:42:59,080
hearing you talk about this.
It's really interesting.

1080
00:42:59,280 --> 00:43:02,160
And I think at the forefront of
what both of you are saying here

1081
00:43:02,160 --> 00:43:05,080
is kind of in test technique
almost of identifying something

1082
00:43:05,080 --> 00:43:07,080
quickly and because we're going
to have to tick it.

1083
00:43:07,200 --> 00:43:10,720
I do think if this was put in
front of my Year 4 class, I

1084
00:43:10,720 --> 00:43:12,320
think nearly all of them would
get it right?

1085
00:43:12,640 --> 00:43:15,040
Because to them, a front of the
verbial tells you how or when

1086
00:43:15,080 --> 00:43:17,840
something happens, right?
So like, do you think it's a

1087
00:43:17,840 --> 00:43:20,280
problem of how we're teaching
mainly because we're thinking,

1088
00:43:20,520 --> 00:43:23,440
oh gosh, this, this is a way of
teaching it because it's simple

1089
00:43:23,440 --> 00:43:25,280
for a child to identify.
Therefore it's going to come up

1090
00:43:25,440 --> 00:43:27,000
almost like you're saying with
subjunctive.

1091
00:43:27,320 --> 00:43:30,000
Are we falling a little bit into
that trap with things like this

1092
00:43:30,000 --> 00:43:32,520
in terms of a front of the
verbial and not teaching it

1093
00:43:32,520 --> 00:43:34,680
broadly enough for children to
have a good understanding of

1094
00:43:34,680 --> 00:43:36,360
what it is?
Rather teaching it quite

1095
00:43:36,360 --> 00:43:39,360
narrowly in order to identify
things between differences in

1096
00:43:39,360 --> 00:43:42,720
GPS that is so subjective, where
one word can have three

1097
00:43:42,720 --> 00:43:44,960
different word classes in
different ways and aspects.

1098
00:43:45,240 --> 00:43:46,760
What do you think about where
where that line is?

1099
00:43:46,760 --> 00:43:48,120
Maybe where we're teaching the
kids?

1100
00:43:48,760 --> 00:43:51,920
I think, I think for me it's
become because being year six,

1101
00:43:51,920 --> 00:43:54,640
I've been so set on in general
writing, teaching loads of

1102
00:43:54,640 --> 00:43:55,800
different sentence structures,
right.

1103
00:43:55,800 --> 00:43:58,080
So you've got support complex
sentence, subordinate clause,

1104
00:43:58,080 --> 00:44:00,680
main clause.
We do reverse complex sentence.

1105
00:44:00,680 --> 00:44:02,880
So main clause, subordinate
clause, the way round.

1106
00:44:03,040 --> 00:44:05,000
Or what about an embedded what?
So I'm teaching all these

1107
00:44:05,000 --> 00:44:07,440
sentence types and I'm using
subordinate clause, main clause,

1108
00:44:07,440 --> 00:44:09,480
subordinate clause.
Then I'm saying, right, well, we

1109
00:44:09,480 --> 00:44:11,360
can do Trump sentences.
I don't know if you use that

1110
00:44:11,360 --> 00:44:13,520
terminology.
So trump being adverbial.

1111
00:44:13,520 --> 00:44:16,240
So time, reason, manner and
place.

1112
00:44:16,600 --> 00:44:21,040
So for telling you when, it
might be at 3:00 or after lunch.

1113
00:44:21,400 --> 00:44:24,520
So because we're drilling that
for me in year 6, drilling that

1114
00:44:24,520 --> 00:44:28,200
terminology all the time, An
adverbial telling you when would

1115
00:44:28,200 --> 00:44:30,880
be a phrase with no verb.
So after lunch, Comet did a

1116
00:44:30,880 --> 00:44:33,720
legend, whereas a complex
sentence that starts with a

1117
00:44:33,720 --> 00:44:38,240
subordinate clause.
After we had lunch, it's like, I

1118
00:44:38,240 --> 00:44:41,040
would teach that because that's
a complex sentence, but the one

1119
00:44:41,040 --> 00:44:43,600
where it doesn't have a verb in
the adverb isn't a complex

1120
00:44:43,600 --> 00:44:44,920
sentence.
So I think that's maybe a

1121
00:44:44,920 --> 00:44:48,600
downfall of like teaching all of
that stuff together.

1122
00:44:48,600 --> 00:44:50,240
It just the lines.
Yeah, yeah.

1123
00:44:50,680 --> 00:44:52,920
So I'm not saying it's, I'm just
saying the way we're teaching,

1124
00:44:52,920 --> 00:44:54,920
it's definitely blurring things.
Yeah.

1125
00:44:54,920 --> 00:44:57,240
And I think, but I guess the
point I'm making here is

1126
00:44:57,280 --> 00:44:59,480
inherently it is going to be
blurry.

1127
00:44:59,480 --> 00:45:01,960
So when it comes to writing a
test to test children, all these

1128
00:45:01,960 --> 00:45:04,040
different types of things, we're
always going to have these

1129
00:45:04,040 --> 00:45:06,920
discussions because baked into
it is the fact that.

1130
00:45:07,160 --> 00:45:08,920
OK, yeah, I guess OK.
Like you're saying that is a

1131
00:45:08,920 --> 00:45:10,960
subordinate clause, but it is
also a front of the verb,

1132
00:45:11,000 --> 00:45:13,880
etcetera.
I think that's a more of an

1133
00:45:13,880 --> 00:45:17,160
issue with trying to test very
strictly GPS in general when it

1134
00:45:17,160 --> 00:45:19,680
comes to ticking a box, we're
always going to have these kind

1135
00:45:19,680 --> 00:45:22,080
of like, well, yeah, OK, I guess
that kind of does fall into that

1136
00:45:22,080 --> 00:45:22,880
box.
Yeah.

1137
00:45:22,880 --> 00:45:26,040
And I just think we kind of, I
don't know not, we're not

1138
00:45:26,040 --> 00:45:28,400
setting the kids up to fail at
all in terms of US teaching

1139
00:45:28,400 --> 00:45:31,000
because I think we teach it the
way we have to for writing as

1140
00:45:31,000 --> 00:45:32,600
well As for identifying it in a
test.

1141
00:45:33,000 --> 00:45:36,480
I would weight it more that it's
more beneficial the way you 2

1142
00:45:36,480 --> 00:45:39,040
are describing you do it in your
class with their writing,

1143
00:45:39,040 --> 00:45:40,760
etcetera.
That's more beneficial for the

1144
00:45:40,760 --> 00:45:42,920
child.
I just think that will set up

1145
00:45:42,920 --> 00:45:45,440
the children when it comes to a
question like this to find it

1146
00:45:45,440 --> 00:45:47,200
tricky and a bit like, oh, I'm
not sure.

1147
00:45:47,560 --> 00:45:50,080
Yeah, it kind of almost, I think
I'm on Sophie's side in terms of

1148
00:45:50,080 --> 00:45:51,760
it.
It does kind of just punish you

1149
00:45:51,760 --> 00:45:53,440
for teaching genuinely, like
quite properly.

1150
00:45:53,520 --> 00:45:57,000
Yeah, if like Sophie is teaching
it genuinely by the book.

1151
00:45:57,040 --> 00:45:58,560
Yeah.
Like this is what affronted

1152
00:45:58,560 --> 00:45:59,680
verbal is.
This is what subordinate

1153
00:45:59,680 --> 00:46:01,160
clauses, and there are subtle
differences.

1154
00:46:01,160 --> 00:46:03,360
And this genuinely blurs it to
the point where I think people

1155
00:46:03,360 --> 00:46:05,800
are saying it's just wrong.
It's just, it's just not even

1156
00:46:05,800 --> 00:46:06,880
affronted.
I don't think.

1157
00:46:07,120 --> 00:46:09,040
I think it is.
I think the point here is that

1158
00:46:09,040 --> 00:46:11,000
something can be both.
That's the point I'm saying.

1159
00:46:11,320 --> 00:46:14,080
And if we're teaching that it
can't be both because it's

1160
00:46:14,080 --> 00:46:16,880
easier when it comes to putting
together some writing that has

1161
00:46:16,880 --> 00:46:19,040
its use for writing, and I'm
saying that's probably a better

1162
00:46:19,040 --> 00:46:23,080
use, but it is wrong to say that
it can't be both because in this

1163
00:46:23,080 --> 00:46:26,200
situation, correct me if I'm
wrong, Sophie, is this here when

1164
00:46:26,200 --> 00:46:29,840
the waitress comes over, that is
both a subordinate clause and

1165
00:46:29,840 --> 00:46:31,240
the front adverbial.
Is that right?

1166
00:46:32,240 --> 00:46:34,160
Yeah, of course.
I mean, yes, apparently

1167
00:46:34,160 --> 00:46:36,040
technically correct.
And according to the glossary of

1168
00:46:36,040 --> 00:46:39,960
terms, that is both, because an
adverbial can be a subordinate

1169
00:46:39,960 --> 00:46:42,080
clause as well.
Yeah, right.

1170
00:46:42,080 --> 00:46:43,840
So it's not wrong.
Yeah, that's what.

1171
00:46:43,960 --> 00:46:45,240
I mean, yeah, it's it's almost
like early.

1172
00:46:45,240 --> 00:46:46,400
It's not wrong, but it's
annoying.

1173
00:46:47,040 --> 00:46:48,920
I got the impression that people
were arguing that it was just

1174
00:46:48,920 --> 00:46:50,040
straight up wrong.
Right, that's what.

1175
00:46:50,040 --> 00:46:52,360
Well, there are some people that
are, but then I guess that's the

1176
00:46:52,360 --> 00:46:55,200
issue with the they're going,
the DfE are going by their

1177
00:46:55,200 --> 00:46:57,120
glossary of terms.
Whether that's right or not,

1178
00:46:57,120 --> 00:46:58,400
it's a whole different thing.
But they've.

1179
00:46:58,400 --> 00:47:01,080
Yeah, true.
I never read that definition.

1180
00:47:01,200 --> 00:47:03,560
I think The thing is I've never
taught this as wrong, but I

1181
00:47:03,560 --> 00:47:06,000
haven't taught it that it can
also be the same.

1182
00:47:06,000 --> 00:47:08,320
So I've not said a subordinate
clause isn't an adverbial.

1183
00:47:08,600 --> 00:47:11,360
I've just never personally said,
and that's my own downfall, that

1184
00:47:11,360 --> 00:47:13,200
a subordinate clause is a type
of adverbial.

1185
00:47:13,360 --> 00:47:16,360
Never said that.
So it's just, yeah, for me.

1186
00:47:16,360 --> 00:47:19,440
I was just confused by that.
I mean I got it myself because

1187
00:47:19,440 --> 00:47:21,280
of like I said before, but.
Yeah, yeah.

1188
00:47:21,440 --> 00:47:23,440
Luckily, the elimination process
was actually quite simple,

1189
00:47:23,440 --> 00:47:24,840
straightforward.
To make it easier, because the

1190
00:47:24,840 --> 00:47:26,320
rest are lists, right?
Yeah, exactly.

1191
00:47:26,360 --> 00:47:27,640
Yeah.
The rest are just very obviously

1192
00:47:27,640 --> 00:47:30,240
not that thing, I think.
I think Michael Rosen would be

1193
00:47:30,240 --> 00:47:30,600
his.
Ears.

1194
00:47:30,640 --> 00:47:33,000
Would be let's say he absolutely
hates this stuff.

1195
00:47:33,520 --> 00:47:35,480
I want to say that now because I
feel like I'm being the bad guy

1196
00:47:35,480 --> 00:47:36,880
here.
And then I will actually, if you

1197
00:47:36,880 --> 00:47:39,680
look at the definitions, if you
just met her, kind of put this

1198
00:47:39,680 --> 00:47:41,840
conversation into a part and
said what on earth are you

1199
00:47:41,840 --> 00:47:43,160
talking about?
I think would be the fair thing.

1200
00:47:43,440 --> 00:47:43,880
Wouldn't.
Yeah.

1201
00:47:44,480 --> 00:47:47,120
Why do we care realistically?
Yeah, None of this everything is

1202
00:47:47,120 --> 00:47:48,480
nonsense.
We're just talking within the

1203
00:47:48,480 --> 00:47:49,560
constraints of nonsense.
I am.

1204
00:47:49,800 --> 00:47:52,000
Can I ask you both one question
in general about GPS maybe

1205
00:47:52,000 --> 00:47:53,320
before we move on?
And so if you might have

1206
00:47:53,320 --> 00:47:54,280
something you want to talk
about.

1207
00:47:54,280 --> 00:47:57,160
But the generic feeling I
thought of GPS and something

1208
00:47:57,160 --> 00:47:59,880
that jumped at me from your
blogs, again, Sophie, was this

1209
00:47:59,880 --> 00:48:02,520
idea of tricks being embedded
into questions.

1210
00:48:03,120 --> 00:48:07,280
And my view is that it's not an
inherently bad thing to do, and

1211
00:48:07,280 --> 00:48:08,480
I think a lot of people don't
like it.

1212
00:48:08,480 --> 00:48:09,880
So I'm wondering what your
opinion is.

1213
00:48:09,880 --> 00:48:14,760
For example, you talked about
this idea of testing children's

1214
00:48:14,760 --> 00:48:17,120
true understanding of a concept
rather than just using those

1215
00:48:17,120 --> 00:48:18,960
kind of quick shortcuts we've
talked about here.

1216
00:48:18,960 --> 00:48:21,200
I think what you've just said is
kind of an example of that in

1217
00:48:21,200 --> 00:48:23,840
the most extreme way.
But you also had some examples

1218
00:48:23,840 --> 00:48:27,080
in your blog, Question 12, which
sentence starts with an

1219
00:48:27,080 --> 00:48:30,320
adverbial, so talking about just
adverbial in general, and then

1220
00:48:30,320 --> 00:48:32,520
went on to question 34.
But just like looking into

1221
00:48:32,520 --> 00:48:37,280
question 12 for a second, what
do you think is is it doing here

1222
00:48:37,280 --> 00:48:39,400
that's kind of going over the
surface level or let's just

1223
00:48:39,400 --> 00:48:42,520
quickly do a trick in terms of
the use of a comma as well with

1224
00:48:42,520 --> 00:48:45,600
the adverbial?
Yeah, I mean, I think because we

1225
00:48:45,600 --> 00:48:48,400
all kind of drill into them
after a front adverbial, you use

1226
00:48:48,400 --> 00:48:51,120
a comma because obviously that's
what we're told to do.

1227
00:48:51,520 --> 00:48:55,440
But here there's two sentences
of commas, and one of them is a

1228
00:48:55,440 --> 00:48:57,440
compound sentence.
And again, we teach them, oh,

1229
00:48:57,440 --> 00:48:59,560
and a compound sentence before a
conjunction, you put a comma.

1230
00:48:59,920 --> 00:49:03,080
So if children don't actually
understand what adverbial is,

1231
00:49:03,080 --> 00:49:05,520
like I clearly didn't in the
question before, they're going

1232
00:49:05,520 --> 00:49:10,360
to see those two with a comma
and then just think I'm just

1233
00:49:10,360 --> 00:49:12,160
going to take a random one
because I don't really know.

1234
00:49:12,160 --> 00:49:14,960
Because I think they'd assume
that they're just going to have

1235
00:49:14,960 --> 00:49:16,880
one sentence with a comma
because a comma always comes

1236
00:49:16,880 --> 00:49:18,720
after adverbials.
They might just think both of

1237
00:49:18,720 --> 00:49:21,560
those are adverbials then.
So actually until you truly

1238
00:49:21,560 --> 00:49:23,440
know, and I don't, I like that
question.

1239
00:49:23,440 --> 00:49:27,480
My point was that really tests
children actual understanding a

1240
00:49:27,800 --> 00:49:30,200
bit like the other one I
mentioned about the relative

1241
00:49:30,200 --> 00:49:32,840
clause.
So relative clauses are usually

1242
00:49:32,840 --> 00:49:34,440
I guess, in the middle of a
sentence, right?

1243
00:49:34,440 --> 00:49:37,120
With parenthesis around them
more common like that.

1244
00:49:37,440 --> 00:49:41,520
And this one has, so it says
after her dance class, Jamila

1245
00:49:41,520 --> 00:49:43,480
has a strawberry milkshake,
which she buys from the local

1246
00:49:43,480 --> 00:49:46,040
cafe.
So the main clause in the middle

1247
00:49:46,040 --> 00:49:48,560
has commas around it.
So if you're yeah, yeah, yeah,

1248
00:49:48,560 --> 00:49:50,160
relative clause must be that.
But it's in the middle.

1249
00:49:50,160 --> 00:49:52,400
It's got parenthesis around it,
when actually it's the bit at

1250
00:49:52,400 --> 00:49:53,840
the end.
And I did quite like that

1251
00:49:53,840 --> 00:49:56,080
because I thought unless you
actually know a relative clause

1252
00:49:56,080 --> 00:49:58,600
starts with relative pronoun, it
adds information to the noun,

1253
00:49:59,000 --> 00:50:00,560
you're not going to fully
understand that.

1254
00:50:00,560 --> 00:50:03,400
So I don't see those as trick,
like tricking the children.

1255
00:50:03,400 --> 00:50:06,840
I just see them as like, don't
fall for like the easy way out

1256
00:50:06,840 --> 00:50:08,240
because that's not the true
understanding.

1257
00:50:08,360 --> 00:50:10,000
But I kind of see them as as the
opposite.

1258
00:50:10,000 --> 00:50:12,760
I think I'm more on online with
sort of Dylan's head here, what

1259
00:50:12,760 --> 00:50:14,360
you were saying a minute ago.
I think they're the great

1260
00:50:14,360 --> 00:50:16,320
questions because they're
actually saying the kids that

1261
00:50:16,320 --> 00:50:19,440
have just learned tricks like
surface level understanding of

1262
00:50:19,440 --> 00:50:21,320
these things will actually get
them wrong because they haven't

1263
00:50:21,320 --> 00:50:22,560
truly understood it.
And I think that's good.

1264
00:50:22,560 --> 00:50:24,840
I think we should probably not
be encouraging teachers to be

1265
00:50:24,840 --> 00:50:27,880
like, oh, every single relative
clause in every test in between

1266
00:50:27,880 --> 00:50:30,400
two commas.
So, you know, yeah, that's just

1267
00:50:30,400 --> 00:50:31,640
teach them it's between two
commas.

1268
00:50:31,640 --> 00:50:33,400
No, we should actually teach
them what relative clauses are.

1269
00:50:33,400 --> 00:50:34,640
And then they can find them even
in.

1270
00:50:34,720 --> 00:50:37,040
Yeah.
So based on what you just said

1271
00:50:37,040 --> 00:50:39,440
in terms of these are questions
are actually good because we're

1272
00:50:39,440 --> 00:50:40,880
not doing surface level stuff.
Yeah.

1273
00:50:40,880 --> 00:50:42,760
Why does that not apply to that
question we just spoke about

1274
00:50:42,760 --> 00:50:45,320
earlier with the adverbial and
it being a subordinate clause as

1275
00:50:45,320 --> 00:50:47,240
well?
Is, is the is the argument here

1276
00:50:47,240 --> 00:50:49,520
that the line's just too far for
11 year olds?

1277
00:50:49,520 --> 00:50:51,280
Come on.
Or are we just saying, yeah,

1278
00:50:51,280 --> 00:50:53,320
fair game?
Actually, that's just testing a

1279
00:50:53,320 --> 00:50:55,240
wrong bit of knowledge that is
just incorrect?

1280
00:50:56,960 --> 00:51:01,880
I think things like relative
clauses, the kind of parameters

1281
00:51:01,880 --> 00:51:04,840
of that are a relative clause.
It has to start with a relative

1282
00:51:04,840 --> 00:51:07,160
pronoun and it has to add
information to the now.

1283
00:51:07,160 --> 00:51:09,160
There's only like 2 rules really
that define that.

1284
00:51:09,160 --> 00:51:11,800
Whereas looking at the adverb is
when I think it's a lot more

1285
00:51:11,800 --> 00:51:13,520
vague or there's a lot more
wiggle room.

1286
00:51:13,520 --> 00:51:16,240
So an adverbial can be this and
that and that, and that can also

1287
00:51:16,240 --> 00:51:19,160
be that just feels like there's
a lot more space for children to

1288
00:51:19,160 --> 00:51:20,640
go wrong.
So I get we were saying it's

1289
00:51:20,640 --> 00:51:22,720
not, it's not wrong.
Technically it's not.

1290
00:51:23,000 --> 00:51:26,080
But because of so much all the
content we've got to teach and

1291
00:51:26,080 --> 00:51:28,320
then all the little rules that
children have to remember about

1292
00:51:28,320 --> 00:51:31,200
each bit when it doesn't help
them with their writing, really,

1293
00:51:31,200 --> 00:51:33,840
as we know most of this and they
don't use it in secondary school

1294
00:51:33,840 --> 00:51:36,280
and most adults don't know it.
I think it's just all that

1295
00:51:36,280 --> 00:51:39,800
frustration we have about it
influencing our thought on that

1296
00:51:39,840 --> 00:51:42,400
question being that question.
That's it, isn't it?

1297
00:51:42,400 --> 00:51:43,960
It's it's, I think it's just an
eye roll.

1298
00:51:43,960 --> 00:51:46,040
And honestly, I look at that,
I'm like, we've spent all these

1299
00:51:46,040 --> 00:51:48,480
year, the government are saying
we, the children must know what

1300
00:51:48,480 --> 00:51:50,880
front of the verbals are.
They must know what subordinate

1301
00:51:50,880 --> 00:51:52,720
clauses are.
We're gonna test them one time

1302
00:51:52,720 --> 00:51:55,000
on it and we're gonna give them
one where it's either we're

1303
00:51:55,000 --> 00:51:57,160
gonna give a subordinate clause
and see, it's like, come on,

1304
00:51:57,160 --> 00:51:59,000
like really?
So I could have really just said

1305
00:51:59,000 --> 00:52:01,960
to the kids all along just
anything that goes before our

1306
00:52:01,960 --> 00:52:04,320
main clause doesn't make sense.
It's a subordinate clause or

1307
00:52:04,320 --> 00:52:05,720
front of the verbal.
Don't worry about learning the

1308
00:52:05,720 --> 00:52:07,880
difference.
Yeah, matter in the test, Yeah,

1309
00:52:07,880 --> 00:52:08,840
it's just a bit annoying, isn't
it?

1310
00:52:08,840 --> 00:52:11,160
It's just like, why would be
bothered with all this?

1311
00:52:11,240 --> 00:52:13,960
Distinctive kids only get
confused by that if they've had

1312
00:52:13,960 --> 00:52:16,120
really good implicit teaching on
what both things are.

1313
00:52:16,320 --> 00:52:17,080
Yeah.
Exactly.

1314
00:52:17,080 --> 00:52:19,120
Yeah, if we've just, if we'd
just been lazy, they would have

1315
00:52:19,120 --> 00:52:20,160
been fine.
Right?

1316
00:52:20,240 --> 00:52:22,000
There we go.
Anyway, that's that's the GPS.

1317
00:52:22,200 --> 00:52:23,640
Well, I think we should move on
to maths.

1318
00:52:23,640 --> 00:52:26,920
So in terms of the test, again,
I feel like this is much more at

1319
00:52:26,920 --> 00:52:28,720
home for me because I know
you've got you guys have a lot

1320
00:52:28,760 --> 00:52:31,200
of experience with tests, but as
maths lead, I do feel like I've

1321
00:52:31,200 --> 00:52:34,400
got a good understanding of
previous SAT papers in general.

1322
00:52:34,480 --> 00:52:36,920
These maths papers, I've got to
say, having gone through all of

1323
00:52:36,920 --> 00:52:40,120
them, I really quite liked them.
What about you, Sophie?

1324
00:52:40,240 --> 00:52:41,680
I liked them too.
I did.

1325
00:52:41,760 --> 00:52:43,480
I did really like them.
There wasn't really anything

1326
00:52:43,480 --> 00:52:46,200
that written raged me.
I do like to be enraged 'cause

1327
00:52:46,200 --> 00:52:48,880
it's quite perfect.
Yeah.

1328
00:52:48,880 --> 00:52:51,480
First, if I look at the OR we
look at the breakdown of year

1329
00:52:51,480 --> 00:52:53,600
group contents.
So you can't do this in the

1330
00:52:53,600 --> 00:52:55,400
region on the GPS, but you can
do this really easy.

1331
00:52:55,400 --> 00:52:57,480
And the maths is which questions
came from which year, group

1332
00:52:57,480 --> 00:52:59,960
curriculum.
So across all three papers,

1333
00:53:01,000 --> 00:53:04,480
historically year 6 has had the
heaviest representation.

1334
00:53:04,880 --> 00:53:08,280
Although saying that, years 3-4
and five collectively make up

1335
00:53:08,280 --> 00:53:11,400
the majority of questions.
So always over half right from

1336
00:53:11,400 --> 00:53:14,040
years 3-4 and five, which is,
I'm sure lots of people heard

1337
00:53:14,040 --> 00:53:15,640
that before, but especially if
you're new to year 6, it's

1338
00:53:15,640 --> 00:53:17,920
really important to note 'cause
it just shows how important the

1339
00:53:17,920 --> 00:53:21,800
foundations are in maths.
And because the past mark has

1340
00:53:21,800 --> 00:53:25,120
generally been lower than the
combination of questions from

1341
00:53:25,120 --> 00:53:28,080
the years 3-4 and five.
There's that whole theoretically

1342
00:53:28,080 --> 00:53:31,960
you don't even have to teach any
of the year 6 and so past SATS.

1343
00:53:32,200 --> 00:53:33,880
And it just shows it's a key
stage 2 paper.

1344
00:53:33,880 --> 00:53:36,000
It's not a year 6 paper, it's a
key stage 2 paper.

1345
00:53:36,240 --> 00:53:39,080
And I know some teachers have
asked me before, which I haven't

1346
00:53:39,080 --> 00:53:41,480
done yet because for various
reasons, whether I can make a

1347
00:53:41,480 --> 00:53:44,280
make one of the SATS paper and
take the year 6 questions out.

1348
00:53:44,720 --> 00:53:47,400
And so like give it to year five
with just the year 345 questions

1349
00:53:47,400 --> 00:53:49,800
to see how they would do.
I think there's pros and cons to

1350
00:53:49,800 --> 00:53:53,640
that, but this year the year 6
content dropped a bit, so it was

1351
00:53:53,720 --> 00:53:56,280
44%.
Last year of the papers were

1352
00:53:56,280 --> 00:54:00,960
year 6 content, this year 38%,
which means the years 3-4 to

1353
00:54:00,960 --> 00:54:05,280
five content was 62%, which is
massive when you think about it.

1354
00:54:05,520 --> 00:54:07,040
Do you reckon that means the
path map will go up?

1355
00:54:09,800 --> 00:54:12,400
I don't know because it's not
obviously it's not just about

1356
00:54:12,520 --> 00:54:14,480
the year group it comes from,
it's about the complexity of the

1357
00:54:14,480 --> 00:54:15,680
question.
It's a bit like the grammar

1358
00:54:15,680 --> 00:54:17,200
stuff.
So you know, you might get a

1359
00:54:17,200 --> 00:54:18,840
noun question.
Obviously nouns are covered in

1360
00:54:18,840 --> 00:54:21,120
key stage one, but the
complexity of that question a

1361
00:54:21,120 --> 00:54:24,000
year one child couldn't answer.
So it's similar to this like

1362
00:54:24,000 --> 00:54:27,360
there were, it's like a year 4
question come from the year 4

1363
00:54:27,360 --> 00:54:29,040
curriculum.
But the way it was presented,

1364
00:54:29,040 --> 00:54:31,320
maybe some year fours would
really struggle with it because

1365
00:54:31,320 --> 00:54:33,160
of they're just not experienced
enough at maths.

1366
00:54:33,640 --> 00:54:35,680
But I don't know.
So the past mark has, what was

1367
00:54:35,680 --> 00:54:39,000
it last year, 49% last year,
which was the lowest it's been.

1368
00:54:40,400 --> 00:54:41,960
So I don't know.
I don't know what they'll do

1369
00:54:41,960 --> 00:54:43,480
this year.
I feel like it might, it should

1370
00:54:43,480 --> 00:54:47,360
be higher because in my opinion,
this was one of the easiest

1371
00:54:47,440 --> 00:54:49,360
papers that we've had.
What do you think, Adam?

1372
00:54:49,960 --> 00:54:52,920
Well, I, I, yeah, I mean,
firstly, I, I think after the

1373
00:54:52,920 --> 00:54:56,280
first reasoning paper I saw, I
saw a lot of people, a lot of

1374
00:54:56,280 --> 00:54:58,640
teachers being like, Oh my God,
that was horrendous.

1375
00:54:58,640 --> 00:55:00,400
And we can have a really good
conversation in a bit, I think,

1376
00:55:00,400 --> 00:55:02,280
about, about reasoning and
problem solving.

1377
00:55:02,280 --> 00:55:04,080
I know Dylan's got some really
good thoughts on that.

1378
00:55:04,680 --> 00:55:06,720
I thought overall, yeah, I I
really, really like these

1379
00:55:06,720 --> 00:55:08,120
papers.
I thought they were absolutely

1380
00:55:08,120 --> 00:55:11,080
by far the best SAT papers ever,
ever been written in terms of

1381
00:55:11,080 --> 00:55:14,320
the quality of questions, the
variation of questioning, like

1382
00:55:14,320 --> 00:55:16,200
styles and and even like the
visuals.

1383
00:55:16,200 --> 00:55:18,920
I found a lot of the visual
questions in the reasoning paper

1384
00:55:18,920 --> 00:55:21,640
were like genuinely like
superbly written questions.

1385
00:55:21,720 --> 00:55:23,200
No in awe, I.
Agree, very.

1386
00:55:23,800 --> 00:55:26,240
I just want to talk about the
content domains quickly as well.

1387
00:55:26,240 --> 00:55:30,680
So there are 9, I think 9
content domains in maths.

1388
00:55:30,800 --> 00:55:33,320
So range ranging from the first
one's number and place value and

1389
00:55:33,320 --> 00:55:35,680
then you've got statistics at
the, I say at the end it's just

1390
00:55:35,680 --> 00:55:38,000
the 9th 1.
So again, historically, the

1391
00:55:38,000 --> 00:55:40,280
biggest proportion of questions
has always come from

1392
00:55:40,280 --> 00:55:43,920
calculations, SO4 operations.
And then the second most

1393
00:55:43,920 --> 00:55:46,120
represented is FTPS.
So fractions, decimals and

1394
00:55:46,120 --> 00:55:49,080
percentages, same again, this
year calculations took a bit of

1395
00:55:49,080 --> 00:55:51,360
a drop.
So last year it was 41% of all

1396
00:55:51,360 --> 00:55:53,960
three papers and this year it
was 35%.

1397
00:55:53,960 --> 00:55:58,040
So that's still high, just not
as high as it was before FTPS,

1398
00:55:58,040 --> 00:56:00,920
similar 24%.
So it's a quarter of all three

1399
00:56:00,920 --> 00:56:02,800
papers on fractions, decimals,
percentages.

1400
00:56:03,960 --> 00:56:06,840
The other's a very similar
representation, really low in

1401
00:56:06,840 --> 00:56:10,640
things like statistics, 2%,
position direction, 3%.

1402
00:56:10,640 --> 00:56:12,160
There's a bit of a hike in
measurement this year.

1403
00:56:12,160 --> 00:56:16,560
There's 11% of questions, which
is amongst one of the highest

1404
00:56:16,560 --> 00:56:18,320
it's been.
But generally the kind of

1405
00:56:18,320 --> 00:56:20,600
representation has been similar
across the years.

1406
00:56:20,600 --> 00:56:22,760
And again, it has to do with the
sub strands in each one.

1407
00:56:22,760 --> 00:56:25,120
So there are loads of objectives
and calculations.

1408
00:56:25,120 --> 00:56:28,480
So obviously it's going to have
a heavier weighting in the

1409
00:56:28,480 --> 00:56:31,200
papers.
But yeah, so I think the

1410
00:56:31,360 --> 00:56:35,240
combined calculations have to be
combined was 59%.

1411
00:56:35,920 --> 00:56:37,960
So that is huge just on those
two content domains.

1412
00:56:37,960 --> 00:56:40,640
So I think whenever I'm thinking
about, I'm planning my year for

1413
00:56:40,640 --> 00:56:42,800
year six, if I think I'm not
going to get the curriculum for

1414
00:56:42,800 --> 00:56:46,840
May, which often is the case, I
just won't teach to statistics

1415
00:56:46,840 --> 00:56:49,600
because it's 2% of the paper and
we can cover that afterwards.

1416
00:56:49,600 --> 00:56:52,440
I think if you're a good
mathematician, you might be able

1417
00:56:52,440 --> 00:56:54,840
to answer a bar graph question
or a line graph question without

1418
00:56:54,840 --> 00:56:56,240
me teaching it.
So if I'm really going to

1419
00:56:56,240 --> 00:56:57,960
prioritise, I'll just bang that
in afterwards.

1420
00:56:57,960 --> 00:57:01,000
But yeah, in terms of the data,
that's how this paper stood.

1421
00:57:02,360 --> 00:57:04,320
Do you think it's important?
Because I mean, a lot of people

1422
00:57:04,320 --> 00:57:06,640
would probably say, yeah, I just
don't teach this bit because it

1423
00:57:06,640 --> 00:57:08,520
doesn't come up much in the SAT
and then they don't teach you

1424
00:57:08,520 --> 00:57:10,480
full stop.
Do you think it's important to

1425
00:57:10,480 --> 00:57:12,840
do the bit you kind of very
quickly said then, which is bung

1426
00:57:12,840 --> 00:57:14,840
it in afterwards?
Like what's the value?

1427
00:57:14,840 --> 00:57:16,280
Well, yeah, I mean this is
probably a different

1428
00:57:16,280 --> 00:57:18,280
conversation, but I've seen
recently someone go what are you

1429
00:57:18,280 --> 00:57:21,720
teaching in maths now?
Now SAT has done and my, before

1430
00:57:21,720 --> 00:57:25,080
I even read the comments, I was
like, well, if I there's loads

1431
00:57:25,080 --> 00:57:27,720
of stuff I wouldn't usually have
taught before SAT, so I would

1432
00:57:27,720 --> 00:57:29,520
just be teaching them what they
haven't learnt yet.

1433
00:57:29,520 --> 00:57:31,640
And unless it were your
children, all of them will have

1434
00:57:31,640 --> 00:57:34,480
scored 100% on SAT's papers.
Then let's go over the stuff

1435
00:57:34,480 --> 00:57:36,520
that they still didn't know very
well because there's still loads

1436
00:57:36,520 --> 00:57:38,600
of curriculum to cover.
And then all the comments were

1437
00:57:38,600 --> 00:57:40,160
like, oh, we're doing this
project, we're doing that

1438
00:57:40,160 --> 00:57:42,240
project, we're making a roller
coaster park.

1439
00:57:42,240 --> 00:57:45,280
And I was like, OK, making a
roller.

1440
00:57:45,640 --> 00:57:48,440
Coaster Park, what everyone
does, everyone does that.

1441
00:57:48,480 --> 00:57:51,080
Yeah, such a thing.
Because it's a free project on a

1442
00:57:51,080 --> 00:57:54,400
very big educational platform
that people like to use that.

1443
00:57:54,800 --> 00:57:57,000
Is probably the.
Answer Yeah, that's just my

1444
00:57:57,200 --> 00:57:59,160
personal gripe.
There's no right or wrong to

1445
00:57:59,160 --> 00:58:01,040
that.
I just think there's definitely

1446
00:58:01,040 --> 00:58:03,400
content that your children still
don't understand because you'll

1447
00:58:03,400 --> 00:58:05,880
have raced through it before SAT
or not covered it at all.

1448
00:58:06,040 --> 00:58:08,080
So you still need to cover that
to the end of the curriculum,

1449
00:58:08,080 --> 00:58:11,240
but that's different from Pixel.
Math Math Math's end in May in

1450
00:58:11,400 --> 00:58:14,240
DSX actually, yeah, I.
Think it's a good point I want

1451
00:58:14,240 --> 00:58:16,520
to clarify because I I hate
opening up the idea that people

1452
00:58:16,520 --> 00:58:19,320
would be like, oh Sophie thinks
that there's some objectives we

1453
00:58:19,320 --> 00:58:21,600
shouldn't teach just because
they're not in the test and

1454
00:58:21,600 --> 00:58:23,760
actually you're saying well, no,
I'll just teach them afterwards

1455
00:58:23,760 --> 00:58:25,440
because they're.
Not yeah, yeah, because I want

1456
00:58:25,440 --> 00:58:26,720
to do it.
It's a bit like the subject.

1457
00:58:26,720 --> 00:58:28,680
Well, no, it's not a subjunctive
because I just have to put this

1458
00:58:28,680 --> 00:58:30,280
anyway.
I just would hate to kind of

1459
00:58:30,280 --> 00:58:32,920
skim over it and not teach it
properly and then never do it

1460
00:58:32,920 --> 00:58:34,680
properly.
So yeah, yeah, yeah.

1461
00:58:34,720 --> 00:58:36,320
Sure.
Because you'd like to think

1462
00:58:36,320 --> 00:58:37,920
we're not doing everything for
the test.

1463
00:58:37,920 --> 00:58:40,680
So the test is a weak
interruption in our curriculum

1464
00:58:40,920 --> 00:58:43,280
and then we just return to what
we're doing properly with a

1465
00:58:43,280 --> 00:58:46,120
little bit of, you know,
structuring towards the tests

1466
00:58:46,120 --> 00:58:47,920
beforehand.
But it's not an ideal world.

1467
00:58:47,920 --> 00:58:48,960
I get it.
So you know.

1468
00:58:49,280 --> 00:58:52,400
Were there any areas of the
maths papers where I could have

1469
00:58:52,400 --> 00:58:53,840
got away with not teaching
anything at all?

1470
00:58:53,840 --> 00:58:56,240
Like they didn't come up in the
tests at all where they weren't

1471
00:58:56,240 --> 00:58:58,480
represented.
No, annoyingly so.

1472
00:58:58,480 --> 00:59:01,920
I think I said before the papers
came out, there were three like

1473
00:59:01,920 --> 00:59:05,880
sub strands that hadn't appeared
since before COVID, so they must

1474
00:59:05,880 --> 00:59:09,200
appear this year.
That was volume, scale factors

1475
00:59:09,200 --> 00:59:12,600
and then reading scales, volume
appeared.

1476
00:59:12,600 --> 00:59:14,560
So we had a volume question, but
there's still 2 that haven't

1477
00:59:14,560 --> 00:59:16,240
come up.
So now that's like four years or

1478
00:59:16,240 --> 00:59:17,680
something.
So scale factors and reading

1479
00:59:17,680 --> 00:59:20,960
scales still haven't appeared.
So, you know, a bit like I've

1480
00:59:20,960 --> 00:59:22,920
been saying about the poem,
maybe next year, but maybe they

1481
00:59:22,920 --> 00:59:25,000
just won't ever appear now, just
to spite me.

1482
00:59:26,000 --> 00:59:28,560
Yeah, pure scaleism.
That's what I call it.

1483
00:59:29,040 --> 00:59:31,240
No scales whatsoever.
That's just horrible.

1484
00:59:32,320 --> 00:59:35,240
So in terms, in terms of the
papers, obviously maths is split

1485
00:59:35,240 --> 00:59:36,520
into paper one, paper 2, paper
three.

1486
00:59:36,920 --> 00:59:39,520
I don't think personally we need
to spend very long talking about

1487
00:59:39,520 --> 00:59:41,760
the arithmetic.
I think the arithmetic was very

1488
00:59:41,760 --> 00:59:43,240
fair.
I think it's very predictable.

1489
00:59:43,440 --> 00:59:45,520
And I think what I just want to
do now is preface what we're

1490
00:59:45,520 --> 00:59:48,040
about to talk about with
reasoning, with my thoughts on

1491
00:59:48,120 --> 00:59:50,600
arithmetic very quickly.
Because I think it's super

1492
00:59:50,600 --> 00:59:53,720
important to have a chunk of the
test which is simply seeing if

1493
00:59:53,720 --> 00:59:56,560
children can do the maths.
And I think that is vital.

1494
00:59:56,560 --> 00:59:58,200
And I think that's where the
arithmetic comes in really

1495
00:59:58,200 --> 01:00:01,400
nicely because you can pretty
much predict what's going to

1496
01:00:01,400 --> 01:00:03,480
come up in that.
Arithmetic paper, I think that's

1497
01:00:03,480 --> 01:00:05,440
a good thing because if we're
not testing reasoning and

1498
01:00:05,440 --> 01:00:07,680
problem solving, we're just
seeing if children can add some

1499
01:00:07,680 --> 01:00:10,280
numbers together, multiply
fractions together, do long

1500
01:00:10,280 --> 01:00:13,000
division, etcetera.
So I think that was for fair for

1501
01:00:13,160 --> 01:00:15,240
in my opinion.
And now if we talk about

1502
01:00:15,320 --> 01:00:18,120
reasoning and problem solving,
one thing I want to put to you

1503
01:00:18,120 --> 01:00:22,320
both straight away is I think we
all really valued the quality of

1504
01:00:22,320 --> 01:00:25,560
the questions.
What would be your push back to

1505
01:00:25,560 --> 01:00:28,920
people who, particularly after
paper 2, which was the first

1506
01:00:28,920 --> 01:00:32,560
reasoning paper, said, my
goodness me, the kids have never

1507
01:00:32,560 --> 01:00:35,840
seen anything like this before.
That's so irrelevant to the life

1508
01:00:35,840 --> 01:00:38,200
of a child.
Why is why are we testing kids

1509
01:00:38,200 --> 01:00:39,720
on this?
It didn't look anything like

1510
01:00:39,720 --> 01:00:42,480
previous SAT papers when I've
done time and time again for

1511
01:00:42,480 --> 01:00:45,440
problem solving.
Is that inherently a bad thing

1512
01:00:45,440 --> 01:00:47,840
that it's not the same looking
as previous papers?

1513
01:00:47,840 --> 01:00:49,760
Or do you think that's actually
something we should be doing?

1514
01:00:51,000 --> 01:00:53,000
Well, I don't, I just wanna come
back to arithmetic quickly

1515
01:00:53,000 --> 01:00:55,040
because no, I, I agree with you.
I don't think so.

1516
01:00:55,040 --> 01:00:58,840
And in contrast that the
arithmetic, I don't accept any.

1517
01:00:59,160 --> 01:01:01,680
Also, it's really hard this year
because genuinely from analysing

1518
01:01:01,680 --> 01:01:05,560
them, they are exactly the same.
Every single year apart, there's

1519
01:01:05,560 --> 01:01:06,920
one question.
This year, just quickly, there's

1520
01:01:06,920 --> 01:01:10,040
always 36 questions, 32 of them
are always 1.

1521
01:01:10,040 --> 01:01:13,120
Mark, you've got 2 long
multiplication, which is a three

1522
01:01:13,120 --> 01:01:16,000
digit by two digit and a four
digit by two digit, 2 long

1523
01:01:16,000 --> 01:01:19,640
division, 2 long division, a
three by two, a four by two, and

1524
01:01:19,640 --> 01:01:22,000
then pretty much everything else
is the same and the numbers are

1525
01:01:22,000 --> 01:01:23,920
different.
So, oh, this question appeared

1526
01:01:23,920 --> 01:01:25,160
earlier.
Oh, this has this.

1527
01:01:25,160 --> 01:01:27,480
It's like, no, they're the same.
It's basically an algorithm.

1528
01:01:27,480 --> 01:01:30,160
I'm sure they just put it into
AI and just regurgitate it.

1529
01:01:30,480 --> 01:01:32,400
So the arithmetic is
predictable.

1530
01:01:32,400 --> 01:01:35,080
You cannot say it's harder.
The Bidmus one, fine, there's an

1531
01:01:35,080 --> 01:01:37,040
extra number, but if your kids
know Bidmus, it's fine.

1532
01:01:37,040 --> 01:01:39,600
So don't accept that either.
So the fact that the reasoning

1533
01:01:39,600 --> 01:01:42,760
is like presented in different
contexts, I think is exactly the

1534
01:01:42,760 --> 01:01:45,640
whole point of reasoning.
And when I thought, I sat the

1535
01:01:45,640 --> 01:01:47,160
paper and thought, oh, this is
great.

1536
01:01:47,160 --> 01:01:49,560
I really like the questions.
Went on social media and saw

1537
01:01:49,600 --> 01:01:52,520
things like vile, awful.
This was so hard.

1538
01:01:52,520 --> 01:01:56,320
I just thought, But I think the
actual like content behind the

1539
01:01:56,320 --> 01:01:58,600
question, if the kids knew it,
they should be able to apply it

1540
01:01:58,600 --> 01:02:00,440
to this different context.
And if they can't, that just

1541
01:02:00,440 --> 01:02:01,840
means they don't understand the
content.

1542
01:02:02,120 --> 01:02:05,240
So, Haiden, I know you've got
extra opinions on this too,

1543
01:02:05,280 --> 01:02:06,520
yeah.
There's not not much more.

1544
01:02:06,680 --> 01:02:09,720
There's 22 lines of four.
One is agreeing and saying that

1545
01:02:10,120 --> 01:02:12,840
I do think sometimes maybe maybe
it's a trap of your 6.

1546
01:02:12,840 --> 01:02:14,360
I don't know.
But we lose the whole point.

1547
01:02:14,600 --> 01:02:16,360
We lose what we do.
What are we even doing?

1548
01:02:16,360 --> 01:02:18,840
Like what we teaching these kids
for what is problem solving

1549
01:02:18,880 --> 01:02:22,640
like, what is it it?
Well, unless there's unfamiliar

1550
01:02:22,640 --> 01:02:25,040
context, you can't actually
truly problem solve, right.

1551
01:02:25,040 --> 01:02:27,320
If you've trained a child to
solve a problem, then you give

1552
01:02:27,320 --> 01:02:29,160
them the exact same problem with
different numbers.

1553
01:02:29,280 --> 01:02:30,680
Yeah.
And not problem solving.

1554
01:02:30,680 --> 01:02:31,920
They're just doing arithmetic
now.

1555
01:02:32,080 --> 01:02:33,640
Yeah, because they already know
how to solve the problem.

1556
01:02:33,840 --> 01:02:35,440
So I think the they tested that
really well.

1557
01:02:35,440 --> 01:02:37,320
I think some teachers got a bit
annoyed about the fact that

1558
01:02:37,320 --> 01:02:39,120
there was real problem solving
in it and they couldn't prep

1559
01:02:39,120 --> 01:02:41,280
their kids for it by showing
them the exact questions.

1560
01:02:41,280 --> 01:02:43,360
And I think that's probably not
a good thing to moan about.

1561
01:02:43,760 --> 01:02:46,360
But I do think there was another
line of thought which came from

1562
01:02:46,360 --> 01:02:48,560
teachers, which is just the
accessibility in general.

1563
01:02:48,560 --> 01:02:50,880
I think a lot of them are saying
my kids actually have learned

1564
01:02:50,880 --> 01:02:53,080
this and they've done loads of
problem solving, but they just,

1565
01:02:53,080 --> 01:02:55,400
it was just a little bit out of
reach with too many questions.

1566
01:02:55,400 --> 01:02:58,680
Like it was a bit too worded in
a, in a complex way.

1567
01:02:58,840 --> 01:03:00,280
Well, I just maybe didn't
understand this bit of

1568
01:03:00,280 --> 01:03:02,200
vocabulary in it and then it
just kind of threw them off.

1569
01:03:02,200 --> 01:03:04,400
I think that's a legitimate
discussion that that people can

1570
01:03:04,400 --> 01:03:08,320
have about whether like how how
much comprehension comes into

1571
01:03:08,320 --> 01:03:10,000
into reasoning and problem
solving, but.

1572
01:03:10,400 --> 01:03:12,320
Some has to, yeah.
There is a point in.

1573
01:03:12,440 --> 01:03:15,280
This book, I'm gonna say is that
not kind of the and like to me

1574
01:03:15,280 --> 01:03:18,360
is that you can draw parallels,
right, with teaching inference.

1575
01:03:18,640 --> 01:03:20,560
So some people might think I'm
going to teach inference.

1576
01:03:20,560 --> 01:03:23,680
I'm going to just expose them to
loads of inference questions and

1577
01:03:23,680 --> 01:03:28,120
I hope that they by osmosis
absorb how to infer something,

1578
01:03:28,320 --> 01:03:29,560
which to me is like problem
solving.

1579
01:03:29,560 --> 01:03:31,400
Give them loads of different
problem solving questions and

1580
01:03:31,400 --> 01:03:34,560
then they'll just learn how to
problem solve rather than I I.

1581
01:03:34,640 --> 01:03:36,880
I suppose I'm not allowed to
name it, but there's a resource

1582
01:03:37,160 --> 01:03:40,560
that someone makes that teaches
children how to problem solve.

1583
01:03:40,560 --> 01:03:43,320
And different skills can be
applied to any question.

1584
01:03:44,120 --> 01:03:46,800
And if you teach them a bit
like, you know, exposing to

1585
01:03:46,800 --> 01:03:49,800
loads of texts and how you can
infer exposing to loads of maths

1586
01:03:50,000 --> 01:03:52,840
problem solve questions and how
you can problem solve, that's

1587
01:03:52,840 --> 01:03:55,760
gonna carry them a lot further
because they can apply that to

1588
01:03:55,760 --> 01:03:57,960
loads of other questions.
You can't just problem solve

1589
01:03:57,960 --> 01:03:59,680
well by answering loads of
different problem solving

1590
01:03:59,680 --> 01:04:00,840
questions and hoping for the
best.

1591
01:04:00,840 --> 01:04:02,760
Yeah.
Yeah, exactly.

1592
01:04:03,040 --> 01:04:05,440
I gave them this and I changed
the numbers in the question as I

1593
01:04:05,480 --> 01:04:07,720
called.
That's so then they already know

1594
01:04:07,720 --> 01:04:09,840
what they know to add and then
subtract, but you're not

1595
01:04:09,840 --> 01:04:12,920
actually doing anything.
I think some a point I wanted to

1596
01:04:12,920 --> 01:04:16,800
make is there is a, there is a
bit of predictability I find in

1597
01:04:16,800 --> 01:04:19,080
reasoning and having gone
through all of the papers over

1598
01:04:19,080 --> 01:04:21,680
the years, there is a, for
example, a structure of a

1599
01:04:21,680 --> 01:04:23,840
question that I see come up all
the time.

1600
01:04:24,120 --> 01:04:26,840
And this structure of a question
is where you essentially have

1601
01:04:26,880 --> 01:04:29,200
three parts.
It could be a measurement, could

1602
01:04:29,200 --> 01:04:31,920
be a distance, could be just a
number of things, an amount of

1603
01:04:31,920 --> 01:04:35,280
money, you have a whole amount
that it costs and you need to

1604
01:04:35,280 --> 01:04:37,760
figure out one of the parts.
So for example, in this one,

1605
01:04:37,960 --> 01:04:41,560
there was a map and there was a
road on the map between 4 cities

1606
01:04:41,960 --> 01:04:43,880
and it said the distance to city
one to City 2.

1607
01:04:43,880 --> 01:04:47,440
Is this City 2 to city 3?
Is that what is the distance to

1608
01:04:47,440 --> 01:04:51,280
city 4 if the total distance is
800 and something?

1609
01:04:51,480 --> 01:04:54,320
Now this comes up honestly
nearly every year where you're

1610
01:04:54,320 --> 01:04:57,040
given those two parts and you
find out what's left and you can

1611
01:04:57,040 --> 01:05:01,200
teach children how to figure out
a missing number when you're

1612
01:05:01,200 --> 01:05:02,920
given two parts out of three in
total.

1613
01:05:02,920 --> 01:05:04,200
And that's fine and we can do
that.

1614
01:05:04,440 --> 01:05:07,520
What I think the test always
does really well is what we're

1615
01:05:07,520 --> 01:05:10,760
discussing here is actually
making it different and tricky

1616
01:05:10,760 --> 01:05:13,680
for the children to identify.
That's what they've got to do

1617
01:05:13,880 --> 01:05:15,640
and that's where the problem
solving comes in.

1618
01:05:15,840 --> 01:05:19,280
And even in this test you had
that simpler version there where

1619
01:05:19,280 --> 01:05:21,800
there was a nice visual of a map
and it was almost like a number

1620
01:05:21,800 --> 01:05:24,040
line and you could kind of draw
the bar underneath it if you

1621
01:05:24,040 --> 01:05:26,680
wanted to.
But then understanding that's

1622
01:05:26,680 --> 01:05:29,360
what you had to do, it was
probably OK, relatively simple

1623
01:05:29,520 --> 01:05:31,120
do smelling and some tracking
like you said, which is

1624
01:05:31,120 --> 01:05:33,840
genuinely year 4 maths, which
maybe that came under a year 4

1625
01:05:34,280 --> 01:05:37,520
domain there, which is fine.
But then later in in the same

1626
01:05:37,520 --> 01:05:41,560
kind of group of tests, we had
that structure come up again and

1627
01:05:41,560 --> 01:05:44,120
this time it was about the cost
of a trip for children.

1628
01:05:44,520 --> 01:05:47,080
But the way that it was made
harder this time was that

1629
01:05:47,200 --> 01:05:49,880
instead of being given the total
straight up and then you just

1630
01:05:49,880 --> 01:05:52,520
work out what's missing, you
were given the amount it cost

1631
01:05:52,520 --> 01:05:54,960
for 12 children.
So there was an extra step

1632
01:05:54,960 --> 01:05:57,640
involved where you had to divide
by 12 to get for per child.

1633
01:05:57,880 --> 01:06:00,040
That was then your total.
And then you had the classic

1634
01:06:00,040 --> 01:06:03,040
structure of three parts.
And the point I'm making here is

1635
01:06:03,280 --> 01:06:05,880
I'm not against that.
We're allowed a modicum of

1636
01:06:05,880 --> 01:06:08,320
predictability because at the
end of the day the children are

1637
01:06:08,320 --> 01:06:10,800
working out that they've got to
add 2 numbers together, but we

1638
01:06:10,800 --> 01:06:13,560
can't change that, whatever.
But I think the way this test

1639
01:06:13,560 --> 01:06:17,680
was written was good in that it
gave different ways of getting

1640
01:06:17,680 --> 01:06:19,200
there for the children to
actually figure out.

1641
01:06:19,200 --> 01:06:21,960
And to me, that's what we're
assessing and it's why

1642
01:06:21,960 --> 01:06:24,080
arithmetic's so important to
keep them preserved.

1643
01:06:24,280 --> 01:06:26,320
I've already assessed if they
can do the maths that's done in

1644
01:06:26,320 --> 01:06:28,400
the arithmetic, we can't then
complain.

1645
01:06:28,400 --> 01:06:31,360
I don't think that it's tricky
to figure out what to do in the

1646
01:06:31,360 --> 01:06:33,600
reasoning.
That is what reasoning is.

1647
01:06:34,400 --> 01:06:37,200
Yeah, definitely, definitely.
Sophie, did you have any

1648
01:06:37,320 --> 01:06:38,760
particular?
OK.

1649
01:06:38,760 --> 01:06:40,920
Did you have a favourite
question that sounds really

1650
01:06:40,920 --> 01:06:42,800
that's very.
I had two favourites.

1651
01:06:43,480 --> 01:06:45,360
I had two favourites, but
they're under the same theme.

1652
01:06:45,360 --> 01:06:50,280
So in paper two, question 15,
the hexagon one that was shade.

1653
01:06:50,280 --> 01:06:52,240
Yeah, so good percentage is
shaded.

1654
01:06:52,280 --> 01:06:55,440
Oh, that's just so satisfying.
And then in a simmer theme,

1655
01:06:55,440 --> 01:06:58,760
paper three, question 20, the
triangle one shapes, making the

1656
01:06:58,840 --> 01:06:59,720
triangles.
Sorry, great minds.

1657
01:06:59,720 --> 01:07:01,160
Do you want to talk about that
one then?

1658
01:07:01,160 --> 01:07:02,760
Because I've just talked about
the hexagon.

1659
01:07:02,760 --> 01:07:04,880
Well, do the.
Hexagon one first and I'll talk

1660
01:07:05,080 --> 01:07:07,280
about the triangles.
Well, I don't know exactly why I

1661
01:07:07,280 --> 01:07:08,560
loved it.
I think I just love.

1662
01:07:08,720 --> 01:07:11,040
The diagram was obviously so
helpful.

1663
01:07:12,080 --> 01:07:14,600
I think the fact 123-4567, just
check it.

1664
01:07:14,600 --> 01:07:16,680
Yeah, there are 10.
So it's really nice for kids.

1665
01:07:16,680 --> 01:07:19,400
It's a it's a percentage and
it's a fraction over 10 like

1666
01:07:19,560 --> 01:07:22,720
well, pretty much.
And then 1234.

1667
01:07:22,800 --> 01:07:26,200
So it's 5 1/2 of them shaded.
Was it, Although I've miscounted

1668
01:07:26,200 --> 01:07:28,800
1-2, Yeah, 4 1/2, Four and a
half of them shaded.

1669
01:07:29,240 --> 01:07:31,400
Yeah, 4 1/2 out of 10.
I mean, it's a fraction of a

1670
01:07:31,400 --> 01:07:33,960
fraction, but again, if you're
confident with percentages and

1671
01:07:33,960 --> 01:07:37,440
fractions, that's not hard to
turn into a percentage at all.

1672
01:07:38,320 --> 01:07:40,160
And I just think the visual
really helped and they were

1673
01:07:40,160 --> 01:07:41,800
exact heart.
I don't know, it's just really

1674
01:07:41,800 --> 01:07:44,320
aesthetically satisfying and
mathematically satisfying.

1675
01:07:44,320 --> 01:07:46,400
I.
Agree, being in the room with

1676
01:07:46,400 --> 01:07:49,600
children, I saw all of the
different things happen that

1677
01:07:49,600 --> 01:07:51,440
that question is designed for
and I was like, that's a perfect

1678
01:07:51,440 --> 01:07:53,560
question.
I saw the Russia, I saw the one

1679
01:07:53,560 --> 01:07:56,000
that looked at that and thought
that looks like 1/2 done 50%

1680
01:07:56,000 --> 01:07:57,200
moved on.
They spent one second.

1681
01:07:57,200 --> 01:07:59,720
You know that question.
I saw the kids who who looked at

1682
01:07:59,720 --> 01:08:01,000
that and thought I'm going to
take my time.

1683
01:08:01,000 --> 01:08:03,440
How can I be systematic?
I know I can do I can count how

1684
01:08:03,440 --> 01:08:05,280
many are shaded out of how many
parts classic.

1685
01:08:05,280 --> 01:08:07,360
I learned that in year 3.
You know, when you're when

1686
01:08:07,360 --> 01:08:10,320
you're writing what a fraction
is and they wrote down 4.5 out

1687
01:08:10,320 --> 01:08:11,600
of 10.
And I could see them being like,

1688
01:08:13,040 --> 01:08:14,560
I'm pretty sure there's a rule
against this.

1689
01:08:14,560 --> 01:08:16,120
I don't think I can write like
4.5.

1690
01:08:16,240 --> 01:08:19,160
I saw some kids write 4.5%.
That's as far as they got.

1691
01:08:19,160 --> 01:08:20,840
They were they were nearly there
the problem, but they didn't

1692
01:08:20,840 --> 01:08:23,160
have the last step.
And I saw the kids who just saw

1693
01:08:23,160 --> 01:08:27,160
that and thought, oh, OK, yeah,
4.5 out of 1045 out of 145%

1694
01:08:27,160 --> 01:08:28,560
done.
And I was like, cool, that's the

1695
01:08:28,560 --> 01:08:30,560
perfect problem solving because
that just differentiated and all

1696
01:08:30,560 --> 01:08:32,800
these different levels.
Like I could really see who

1697
01:08:32,800 --> 01:08:35,160
truly gets it, who was halfway
there and who, you know, didn't

1698
01:08:35,160 --> 01:08:36,640
really have any any clue or just
rushed.

1699
01:08:37,479 --> 01:08:38,760
And it was the same with the
triangle one.

1700
01:08:39,520 --> 01:08:41,399
And the triangle question was
just absolutely fantastic.

1701
01:08:41,399 --> 01:08:42,479
I remember standing there
watching.

1702
01:08:42,640 --> 01:08:45,600
So for context, and no one's not
seen it, it was just 4

1703
01:08:45,600 --> 01:08:49,359
triangles, 4 equilateral
triangles arranged into like one

1704
01:08:49,359 --> 01:08:52,240
larger equilateral triangle.
And one of the one of the four

1705
01:08:52,240 --> 01:08:54,319
triangles was then split again
into another four.

1706
01:08:54,680 --> 01:08:56,319
And one of those little ones was
shaded.

1707
01:08:56,840 --> 01:08:59,720
So it just says what fraction of
the whole shape was shaded.

1708
01:08:59,720 --> 01:09:02,279
And I saw again, like just
standing there, I could see one

1709
01:09:02,279 --> 01:09:05,359
child spent ages with a ruler.
He's roaring in all the little

1710
01:09:05,359 --> 01:09:07,920
triangles to all the other ones.
But they could count it up and

1711
01:09:07,920 --> 01:09:09,160
they got it right.
Yeah, they counted.

1712
01:09:09,160 --> 01:09:11,439
They all of it, they couldn't
make the QikLink of well,

1713
01:09:11,520 --> 01:09:13,960
there's going to be 4 in each
one, so it's just 16.

1714
01:09:13,960 --> 01:09:18,760
And then I saw another child who
literally wrote down 1/4 * 1/4.

1715
01:09:18,760 --> 01:09:20,359
Amazing.
It was 1/4 of 1/4.

1716
01:09:20,840 --> 01:09:22,600
I think that way.
And I was like, I love these

1717
01:09:22,600 --> 01:09:25,479
questions because they allow for
this variation of like approach

1718
01:09:25,680 --> 01:09:27,479
and problem solving.
That's what the point was.

1719
01:09:27,479 --> 01:09:30,640
But I know some people were like
angry at these questions because

1720
01:09:30,640 --> 01:09:32,520
they've never seen that.
My kids have never seen

1721
01:09:32,520 --> 01:09:34,920
questions before where you
haven't got all of the parts

1722
01:09:34,920 --> 01:09:38,200
clearly displayed.
And it's like, I hate to say it,

1723
01:09:38,319 --> 01:09:41,520
but that's not really a fault of
the test, is it?

1724
01:09:41,640 --> 01:09:44,319
That, you know, that's, that's
maybe a lack of representation

1725
01:09:44,319 --> 01:09:46,080
that, you know, you haven't
provided your children through

1726
01:09:46,080 --> 01:09:46,960
problem solving.
I don't know.

1727
01:09:47,200 --> 01:09:48,399
There's something to learn from
it, I think.

1728
01:09:48,880 --> 01:09:49,760
Yeah.
All right.

1729
01:09:49,760 --> 01:09:51,800
We've, I think we've had a
really good breakdown of those

1730
01:09:51,800 --> 01:09:53,439
tests there.
I think the generic overview is

1731
01:09:53,640 --> 01:09:57,200
good tests, tricky mark schemes
sometimes bit harsh in our kids.

1732
01:09:57,760 --> 01:10:00,000
But Sophie, what?
What do we do now?

1733
01:10:00,000 --> 01:10:02,280
So we've got your analysis,
we've got all the tests back.

1734
01:10:02,640 --> 01:10:05,520
What do we do with it?
Why is it useful as teachers for

1735
01:10:05,520 --> 01:10:08,160
us to have this information?
What do we do next?

1736
01:10:08,880 --> 01:10:12,360
I think firstly, when you're
starting year 6 next year, it's

1737
01:10:12,360 --> 01:10:14,520
really helpful for your long
term plan.

1738
01:10:14,520 --> 01:10:18,040
So especially in something like
maths, making sure that you

1739
01:10:18,040 --> 01:10:20,640
don't, well you don't have to
cram everything in before maths.

1740
01:10:20,640 --> 01:10:22,880
So if you're going to prioritise
some areas, it's really helpful

1741
01:10:22,880 --> 01:10:24,920
to know which areas you're going
to prioritise.

1742
01:10:25,880 --> 01:10:29,440
And then when you do any kind of
interim assessments, you're

1743
01:10:29,440 --> 01:10:31,960
gonna know which areas you want
your children to really nailed

1744
01:10:31,960 --> 01:10:33,880
down.
So if they haven't nailed down

1745
01:10:33,880 --> 01:10:36,480
the calculations, their FTP from
previous years, you know that

1746
01:10:36,480 --> 01:10:40,600
that's gonna be a priority.
Similar for GPS is the kind of

1747
01:10:40,600 --> 01:10:43,040
things that they need to have
secured and if they haven't

1748
01:10:43,040 --> 01:10:44,800
secured some of the other ones
yet, it's not the end of the

1749
01:10:44,800 --> 01:10:50,080
world, but also for a bit of
test prep, it's just I think

1750
01:10:50,080 --> 01:10:52,480
it's kind of useful to know what
hasn't come up yet.

1751
01:10:53,320 --> 01:10:56,840
So again, for example, in maths
scale, I mean, I know maybe

1752
01:10:57,000 --> 01:10:58,960
maybe that's not the best advice
because I've been saying look at

1753
01:10:58,960 --> 01:11:02,000
poems and that still hasn't come
up, but I just like to keep to

1754
01:11:02,000 --> 01:11:03,960
be mindful of it.
And I know we didn't really

1755
01:11:03,960 --> 01:11:07,040
cover the spelling, but there
are certain spelling rules that

1756
01:11:07,040 --> 01:11:09,800
come up a lot.
And so making sure you keep

1757
01:11:09,800 --> 01:11:12,160
focus on those as you go
throughout the year because

1758
01:11:12,160 --> 01:11:14,080
they're much more like either
they're much more likely to

1759
01:11:14,080 --> 01:11:16,080
appear or they haven't appeared
in a while.

1760
01:11:16,080 --> 01:11:18,400
And so they're, or you might
expect them to appear.

1761
01:11:18,560 --> 01:11:21,000
So it's just, it's just good to
be, to be mindful of.

1762
01:11:21,000 --> 01:11:23,640
And I'm not saying teach the
test at all, but again, like the

1763
01:11:23,640 --> 01:11:25,440
arithmetic, if you know what's
coming up in the arithmetic,

1764
01:11:25,440 --> 01:11:28,320
which we do because it's the
same every single year, then you

1765
01:11:28,320 --> 01:11:31,000
can prepare your kids adequately
and and make sure they've got

1766
01:11:31,000 --> 01:11:33,520
enough confidence to go into the
test with all the information

1767
01:11:33,520 --> 01:11:35,920
that they need.
Amazing.

1768
01:11:35,920 --> 01:11:37,840
And we're going to put in the
show notes something you put

1769
01:11:37,840 --> 01:11:41,520
together for schools to deliver.
I think in general, if we want

1770
01:11:41,520 --> 01:11:44,040
to actually get a deep dive into
using this information, this

1771
01:11:44,040 --> 01:11:45,320
analysis and where to go from
here.

1772
01:11:45,520 --> 01:11:47,520
So you've spent some time
putting together some slides.

1773
01:11:47,520 --> 01:11:50,320
Am I right in thinking?
Yeah, so the, the blogs are

1774
01:11:50,320 --> 01:11:54,000
obviously quite neaty and take a
lot of time to read and digest.

1775
01:11:54,680 --> 01:11:57,240
So if anyone did want to deliver
that information to staff,

1776
01:11:57,240 --> 01:11:59,840
particularly subject leads, so
maths subject lead, English

1777
01:11:59,840 --> 01:12:03,520
subject lead, then we've made
some CPD slides with LBQ.

1778
01:12:03,520 --> 01:12:06,480
So they have the the kind of
highlights of the blog.

1779
01:12:06,480 --> 01:12:09,240
So none of the qualitative
discussion, none of my opinions

1780
01:12:09,240 --> 01:12:11,080
on there.
It's just the data, the cold

1781
01:12:11,080 --> 01:12:13,240
data.
You can interpret it how you

1782
01:12:13,240 --> 01:12:16,200
want, use it how you want.
You can deliver that to staff.

1783
01:12:16,200 --> 01:12:18,520
It's got the tables on there and
it's got the bullet points of

1784
01:12:18,520 --> 01:12:20,440
analysis, just quantitative
analysis.

1785
01:12:21,320 --> 01:12:23,560
And so it's much easier to
deliver to staff rather than

1786
01:12:23,560 --> 01:12:26,800
read this blog or hear here's my
interpretation of the blog.

1787
01:12:26,800 --> 01:12:29,640
So hopefully it'll be much
easier to interpret and deliver.

1788
01:12:30,480 --> 01:12:32,560
That sounds perfect.
I think if yeah as a maths lead

1789
01:12:32,560 --> 01:12:34,120
I'd be downloading them and
using them straight away.

1790
01:12:34,120 --> 01:12:36,680
Why waste my time doing it again
when I can just use yours?

1791
01:12:36,680 --> 01:12:39,320
Because it's gonna be better
than mine anyway as well.

1792
01:12:39,320 --> 01:12:42,720
Let's just phase it.
Or just play this podcast for an

1793
01:12:42,720 --> 01:12:46,560
hour.
No, I think, I think maybe we

1794
01:12:46,560 --> 01:12:48,320
should do that.
Let's download this code,

1795
01:12:48,440 --> 01:12:50,160
download the links.
There's a link in our links in

1796
01:12:50,160 --> 01:12:51,680
our show notes.
Yeah, good stuff, definitely.

1797
01:12:51,720 --> 01:12:53,600
Check it out.
Thank you so much Sophie, I'll

1798
01:12:53,600 --> 01:12:56,600
always love chatting with you.
Third appearance on the part

1799
01:12:56,600 --> 01:12:58,680
that is taking the lead.
And we're gonna have to do more,

1800
01:12:58,680 --> 01:13:00,600
because we still have stuff to
talk about this.

1801
01:13:00,600 --> 01:13:02,080
We have to cut this a bit short.
Really.

1802
01:13:02,880 --> 01:13:08,120
So how many can we get to before
it gets awkward?

1803
01:13:08,560 --> 01:13:10,600
17R17 Very.
Specific.

1804
01:13:10,640 --> 01:13:12,720
Yeah, not fourteen or two.
Yeah.

1805
01:13:14,240 --> 01:13:15,320
Thank you so much.
Thanks, Sophie.

1806
01:13:15,720 --> 01:13:20,360
Thank you.
If you got this far into this

1807
01:13:20,360 --> 01:13:22,640
episode and you haven't yet
followed us, why not do that?

1808
01:13:22,640 --> 01:13:24,600
Leave us a review as well,
wherever you're listening to

1809
01:13:24,600 --> 01:13:26,240
this podcast.
It really helps us out.

1810
01:13:26,560 --> 01:13:28,840
And I think, Hayden, we're going
to see these guys next week,

1811
01:13:28,840 --> 01:13:30,560
right?
We are going to see you all next

1812
01:13:30,560 --> 01:13:32,520
week, can't we?
And don't forget, download

1813
01:13:32,520 --> 01:13:35,200
Sophie's amazing CPD slides to
use in your school in the show

1814
01:13:35,200 --> 01:13:36,760
notes of this episode.
See you later.