Primary schools in England are judged on the performance of children in their final year (age 10-11) in statutory tests. These ‘SATs’ tests in reading, spelling and grammar, and mathematics are therefore ‘high stakes’ in that they are very important for the school and the headteacher's reputation. They provide the data for school performance tables and poor results can trigger a visit from the school inspection service, Ofsted. Although the SATs have been conducted in primary schools since the 1990s, the form of the tests and their impact have altered with successive governments. This paper explores the impact of the ‘tougher’ iteration of these tests on classroom practices in the pre-COVID era, and particularly schools' use of grouping by ability, educational triage and interventions, which are characterised as ‘practices of division’ (Foucault, 1982).

The research project involved in-depth interviews with 20 headteachers at a range of schools around England, and a survey of almost 300 heads conducted online. It was funded by the More than a Score coalition of teachers’ and parents’ groups.

International research on testing suggests that the pressures of assessment can have more significant effects on children from disadvantaged backgrounds and those from minority ethnic groups (Hamre et al, 2018; Jennings and Sohn, 2014). In the paper, we argue that the organisation of pupils in preparation for SATs involves: first, the use of grouping by ‘ability’ in sets, despite the increasing evidence of the disadvantages (Francis et al, 2017; second, forms of educational triage (Gillborn and Youdell, 2000), where borderline or ‘cusp’ children are prioritised; and third, the growth of ‘intervention culture’, where some children are withdrawn from normal lessons to resolve ‘gaps’ in their learning. Often these choices are made by headteachers and their staff against their view of what is best practice for children’s learning and well-being, creating professional and ethical tensions. In particular, ‘vulnerable’ children are seen as most at risk from the negative impacts of testing.

These practices are understood through a Foucauldian lens as micropractices of power, particularly forms of classification, which is the use of truths to distinguish between children; distribution, which is the use of truths to organise people physically in a space; and exclusion, which is the use of truths to create boundaries of normality and abnormality, such as in the case of children deemed ‘behind’ and in need of intervention (Gore, 2001). These practices of division label and categorise pupils within an accountability system that seeks to classify pupils on a norm/Other binary of ‘Age-related expectations’.

Thematic analysis of the data was guided by the theoretical tools offered by policy sociology and policy enactment (Braun, 2010; Ball, 2012), Gore’s Foucault-inspired work on micropractices of power (2001) and the existing literature on grouping (Marks, 2014; Bradbury 2018). Several conclusions were drawn on the topic of classroom practices, and we focus here on the impact on how children are organised physically within school spaces and across the school day. Although there was wide variation in practice, often related to context, some distinct themes emerged, such as the increased use of interventions in schools under pressure to improve results.

This research project aimed to explore the views of headteachers of primary schools on key stage 2 Sats tests. Data collection took place in the period March – June 2019, used a mixed methods approach involving a nationwide survey and interviews with 20 headteachers. The survey was compiled using Opinio software, and was distributed via the Nation Education Union (a teachers’ union) and social media, with a specific request for headteachers to respond. It was completed by 288 respondents who were headteachers or executive headteachers in the period March-June 2019 (ending shortly after the week when SATs were completed by Year 6 pupils). The respondents were leaders at Community Primary Schools, Faith Schools, Academies and other schools, with a range of Ofsted ratings (though ‘Good’ was the most common). Respondents had been headteachers for varying lengths of time (approximately 30% each from under 5 years, 5-9 years, and 10-19 years, and 5% over 20 years). Respondents were asked a series of questions about the impact of SATs, and were also asked to identify different areas of school life that they thought were affected by SATs (such as extra-curricular clubs, the organisation of the school year and staffing). They were also asked if they strongly agreed, agreed, neither agreed or disagreed, disagreed or strongly disagreed with a number of statements, which were based on existing literature and material related to SATs. Interviews were conducted with 20 headteachers at primary schools in various regions of England. Purposive sampling was used to ensure that the headteachers represented different types of school as well as different areas. Contact was made through the existing professional networks of the research team and through survey respondents who volunteered to be interviewed. A priority of the sampling strategy was to explore regional and local variation. The inclusion of schools that are Academies, both recent and longer-standing converters, and part of both large and local MATs, was also a key aim. Headteachers in the sample varied by gender (nine female and 11 male), age and length of time as a head. Headteachers were interviewed using standard interview schedules by a member of the research team. Interviews were recorded and transcribed professionally for analysis. Qualitative data analysis focused on the themes generated by the research questions, and then identified significant sub-themes through thematic coding. The research was conducted within the ethical guidelines provided by the British Educational Research Association (2018).

First, in many schools, Sats tests justified the use of grouping by ‘ability’ in sets (where whole classes are rearranged for one subject on the basis of attainment) in Maths and English, though setting in Maths was more prevalent. These practices operate despite the increasing awareness of the disadvantages of setting (Francis, 2017;Hargreaves et al, 2020) and teachers’ reluctance to use setting, echoing findings based in early years (Bradbury, 2018). Second, this project revealed the continuing existence of forms of educational triage, where borderline or ‘cusp’ children become the main focus in order to directly improve overall percentage scores for the year group. These practices, whereby some children are deemed ‘safe’ and others unlikely to attain the benchmark, continue despite a focus on progress measures in league tables which include how all children have performed relative to previous results. Third, and most significantly, the data from headteachers revealed the growth of ‘intervention culture’, which can be seen as a form of grouping (Bradbury, 2018). Interventions involve selecting those seen to be deficient or ‘behind’ in one area and targeting them, either for a special programme over a period of time, or on the basis of their performance in lessons earlier that day. Children are withdrawn from normal lessons to be taught by another member of staff in a small group, and may miss other non-SATs lessons, assemblies and school events as a result. We analyse these systems of pupil organisation as ‘practices of division’ (after Foucault, 1982), which classify, distribute and exclude children (Gore, 2001), on the basis of their value in relation to Sats tests. We argue that these forms of disciplinary power are encouraged by the disciplinary function of Sats tests themselves, which place pressure on headteachers to prioritise results over the broader purposes of education.

Ball, S., Maguire, M., & Braun, A. (2012). How schools do policy: policy enactments in secondary schools. Abingdon: Routledge. Bradbury, A. (2018). The impact of the Phonics Screening Check on grouping by ability: A ‘necessary evil’ amid the policy storm. British Educational Research Journal, 44(4), 539-556. Braun, A., Maguire, M., & Ball, S. (2010). Policy enactments in the UK secondary school: examining policy, practice and school positioning. Journal of Education Policy, 25(4), 547-560. British Educational Research Association (2018) “Ethical Guidelines For Educational Research”. Accessed 1 August 2018. https://www.bera.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2018 /06/BERA-Ethical-Guidelines-for-Educational-Research_4thEdn_ 2018.pdf? noredirect=1 Foucault, Michel. "The subject and power." Critical inquiry 8.4 (1982): 777-795. Francis, B., Archer, L., Hodgen, J., Pepper, D., Taylor, B., & Travers, M.-C. (2017). Exploring the relative lack of impact of research on ‘ability grouping’ in England: a discourse analytic account. Cambridge Journal of Education, 47(1), 1-17. Gillborn, D., & Youdell, D. (2000). Rationing Education (Buckingham, Open University Press). Gore, J. M. (2001). Disciplining bodies: On the continuity of power relations in pedagogy. Learning, space and identity, 167-181. Hamre, B., Morin, A., & Ydesen, C. (2018). Testing and inclusive schooling: international challenges and opportunities. Abingdon: Routledge Hargreaves, E., Quick, L., & Buchanan, D. (2020). ‘I got rejected’: investigating the status of ‘low-attaining’ children in primary-schooling. Pedagogy, Culture & Society. Jennings, J., & Sohn, H. (2014). Measure for Measure:How Proficiency-based Accountability Systems Affect Inequality in Academic Achievement. Sociology of Education, 87(2), 125-141. Marks, R. (2014). Educational triage and ability-grouping in primary mathematics: A case-study of the impacts on low-attaining pupils. Research in Mathematics Education, 16(1), 38-53.