Should Young Kids Have To Do Exams?
 

I heard on the radio the other day that some teachers wernt happy that young kids had to go through exams and they felt it was unnecessary stress put on them since exams done in primary school are not particularly important.

I was speaking with Jaye in The Shed about this last night, and was wondering what others thought?

Imo in primary school you only do exams in maths, english and science which are considered the most useful subjects so they dont do many, and also it helps you get into exam technique for secondary school. However I dont think constant testing is needed at a young age in class. :)

I'd say get rid of them really, They don't serve much of a point.

I think if people got used to them at a young age, they would do alot better when they are older, for like GCSE's and A levels.

I say give kids more, they dont have enough pressures on them, they can lounge around playing computer games and browsing the net all day and night. Parents cant beat them with sticks, they are banned from working down mines and up chimneys etc so we need something to make the litle blighters suffer.

You get tests every year at secondary school though, you'd be used to them by the time the big ones rolled around.

Im guessing you dont like kids? :devil:

I disagree, childhood should be more fun, you dont have much time to spend for leisure reasons when you grow up as your busy with work..

Where I live we don't do exams until you're 14/15; in proper exam halls and conditions.

In Primary and at the beginning of Secondary we only did Assessments, in class conditions.

Not like proper exam hall conditions though. then again, some people deal with her better than others. I always do so much better when im not in the exam hall. I panic. I got a B in my english mock and I just know i wont in the actual exam.

No, no, no. Exams suck :(

In my school they was. We'd go into the hall and and do the tests under proper conditions. If they do that then you'd be used to the experience for the proper tests.

The SATs ones are rediculous.

We had teachers telling us that there's nothing to be worried about and that they don't mean anything yet they had us study after-school on bitesize. Are year mostly got **** results though.

Oh right. I think my school should do that tbh

Tests kind of prepare kids for the real world, they also allow teachers to see what their abilities are, they allow them to tailor individual learning packages for those that need additional support. That said I dont like that they use the result to create league tables.

I assume you're talking about sats! They are good preparation for when children are older - so they know what to expect from exams! Also for those that want to do well - doing well in the sats can provide motivation to continue working hard! They also provides parents with information on their children's academic abilities! Pros and cons I guess - as with anything!

SATs are the most pointless exams ever, they serve no purpose other than to provide parents with guidance as to how their children are doing.

And yet they build them up to be some really important, 'must revise hard for' exams.

I'm all for preparing kids for exams early on, but don't pile the pressure on until it comes to the big ones, eh?

Do they have continual assessment over in Britain or is it all basically riding on your end of year exams?

I love kids but I couldnt eat a whole one at one sitting.

Nah I think Exams should be introduced to them but without pressure. So they come to realise you shouldnt fear them, just accept them and do your best.

Once they are introduced with pressure and with league tables based upon the results you tend to see a "training for exams" type mind set not only appearing in the students but also in the teachers and the methods used for teaching.