1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Concerns raised about Harry Potter mentioned in KS1 Sats

Discussion in 'Education news' started by TES_Rosaline, Dec 12, 2018.

  1. TES_Rosaline

    TES_Rosaline Administrator Staff Member

    Interesting story for those who think education is driven by an ever-growing number of unrealistic targets:

    ‘Primary teachers are shocked and concerned about new official reading assessment guidance that includes a real example of a six- or seven-year-old reading Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

    The guidance issued by the Standards and Testing Agency, which administers the Sats tests and assessments, states that the child, “Pupil H”, would be assessed as working at greater depth within the expected standard because she could read words such as “international magical co-operation” without any hesitation, and used phonics and morphology to read unfamiliar words such as “consignment” and “Transylvanian”.’

    It begs the question, what more can we expect from the targets set by the Standards and Testing Agency?

    Are you surprised by the inclusion of Harry Potter as a credible example of young children demonstrating good reading skills?

  2. bessiesmith

    bessiesmith Occasional commenter

    In my opinion HP Goblet of Fire is not suitable content for a Year 2 child - it is way too scary. There is a risk of children either becoming desensitised or having nightmares as a result. It's fine to challenge bright children with demanding reading but there are plenty of much more suitable choices - I've known Year 2 children tackle The Animals of Farthing Wood, lots of Roald Dahl, Charlotte's Web etc. They all have their dark moments but don't compare to Goblet of Fire.
  3. phlogiston

    phlogiston Star commenter

    It suggests to me that the person who wrote the criteria doesn't know much about 6 year olds.
    Sadly, I'm probably not the only poster who's not surprised by this.
    lardylegs, agathamorse and bonxie like this.
  4. Sally006

    Sally006 Lead commenter

    Absurd. That’s the only thing I can say. The whole book is totally age inappropriate. So what if the 6 year old can decode the printed text they can’t possible have a deep understanding and therefore it is not evidence of greater depth. If GDS is about being able to decode then god help the Y6 teachers as this GDS at KS1 cannot be used to predict a child will reach GDS at Y6 where mature understanding is required. But they will expect that won’t they?
    lardylegs and agathamorse like this.
  5. aypi

    aypi Senior commenter

    Is Harry Potter worthwhile literature? I got bored pretty quick.
    About that age I was reading a version of the Greek Myths to my daughter, we both enjoyed it. I have to report that she "without any hesitation, and used phonics and morphology to read unfamiliar words such as" the names of just about everybody in the text better than me.
    agathamorse and Sir_Henry like this.
  6. Summerhols6

    Summerhols6 Occasional commenter

    Have you ever wondered why so many of your members are off with WRS or have left the profession?
    agathamorse likes this.
  7. scilady

    scilady New commenter

    [QUOTE="TES_Ros Primary teachers are shocked and concerned about new official reading assessment guidance that includes a real example of a six- or seven-year-old reading Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.

    Harry Potter books are OK for those who want to read them but rather like Blyton, not that well written and not vocab rich. At 6 my kids were more advanced than that ( Hobbit, Narnia, Swallows and Amazons and similar) but I dare say it will suit others less able than they were.
  8. scilady

    scilady New commenter

    Sir_Henry and cassandramark2 like this.
  9. phlogiston

    phlogiston Star commenter

    When I said
    I really meant "doesn't know much about teaching 6 year olds".
    Yes there are "better" authors than JKR, but sometimes kids want to read what everyone else if reading to fit in. Iexpect there are year 2 who have read and enjoyed the book.
    However these are reasons why I (as a non- infant specialist) would be surprised to find HP IV featuring in yr 2 lessons.
    It's part 4 of a multipart series. (part 3 in yr 1, part 2 in foundation, part 1 in nursery??)
    It's very long - no way could it be used as part of a controlled part of teaching and learning.
    Is it really realistic for teachers to spot a reading time book, go up the the chold and say "what's that word?" and then use this as part of planned an systematic assessment?
    Why can't children be allowed to read for fun? Quickest way to put them off is to make the fun into work.
    When I tried to introduce my daughter to the joys of Arthur Ransome, it was a sad failure. She found him very slow paced and very far removed from her world.
    Win some, lose some.

    Rumer Godden lived in very literary home that had previously been occupied by Henry James and EF Benson!
    agathamorse likes this.
  10. ABCCBA123321

    ABCCBA123321 Occasional commenter

    I have a Y2 child working at greater depth in reading and writing... there is no blooming way on this earth I want her pushed to read Harry Potter (which seems to have become the parental bragging badge of honour at present) - especially not the later books in the series. Would give her nightmares for months and be utterly inappropriate for her emotionally.

    There will be schools though that latch onto this and try to push it onto kids though.8
    agathamorse likes this.
  11. abacus1982

    abacus1982 Established commenter

    I may be wrong but I thought each book was pitched originally at the year of school Harry was in? I do think this example is meant to show the very very top of greater depth as the other examples are much more realistic Y2 greater depth texts. Personally I don't think the content is suitable for Y2.
    agathamorse likes this.
  12. Stiltskin

    Stiltskin Star commenter

    That would agree with what parents/children think based on the common sense media site -

    That it's suitable for those aged 9+
    agathamorse likes this.

Share This Page