Jim Knight answers delegates' questions

A new primary head asks: "SATs for Key Stage 3 have been scrapped and Key Stage 1 is teacher assessed. Why can't Key Stage 2 SATs be scrapped and teacher assessed?".

Knight argues that SATs do a number of different things: for pupils, parents, the public and government. Secondary schools are judged by their GCSE results, much less so by their Key Stage 3 results, to the extent that those SATs became more of a burden than a benefit. Knight argues that we still need a national external measure for primary schools, hence the decision to maintain Key Stage 2 SATs. He does admit that they are not necessarily here to stay in their current format however and that there is an aspiration to establish broader accountability measures for primary schools.

In response to a questioner who claims that only unsuccessful schools attract additional funding, especially for new buildings, Knight outlines the nature of the BSF and Primary Capital programmes and that they represent an investment that is spread broadly across schools.

A delegate asks: "Is there a strategy in place for the future of special schools?"

Knight claims that special schools have an important future. He argues that there are circumstances where children with special needs should be taught in mainstream schools and many circumstances where they are taught in special schools. Knight argues that through the BSF programme he'd prefer to see special schools being located on the same site as 'mainstream' schools. They are centres of expertise in the teaching of children with special needs which the mainstream can learn from, more so where they are co-located.