Yes, some primary teachers did - and why? Because they were pressurised by some HTs, LA QIOs, HMIE and others to show evidence of continuous improvement. Primary schools that ensured most pupils had a solid grasp of Level C and D, for example in Maths, were criticised by HMIE et al for 'coasting' and a lack of attention to 'pace of learning'. You can't win. Come to think of it , is it not also the case that some secondary teachers teach to the test/exam so that their pupils get better results for the benefit of league tables. I am also told by some secondary colleagues that quite a high level of 'support' is given in course work to ensure better exam results. This perhaps explains why some secondary pupils can obtain a Credit pass at Standard Grade Maths and apply for primary teaching, and then struggle to do the P7 Maths they are expected to teach when qualified. The argument that secondary teachers continue to teach to the test because that is what pupils are used to from their primary school experience is debatable. I would suggest they teach to the test/exam to improve their results. It was certainly the case when I was at school. Yes, and it also meant that able pupils who had achieved a very genuine Level E were left kicking their heels for a year as they revised P7 whilst secondary staff 'patched up the gaps'. If a pupil was working at Level B or C at Primary 7, the chances are they were not going to achieve a genuine Level E by the end of S2, regardless of any amount of teaching, or experience 'new and wondrous learning'. There is an argument that the primary curriculum has become overloaded with additional 'specialist' subjects and that primary schools should concentrate on 'the basics', which usually means English Language and Maths. However, just how much time would we expect young children, some very young, to spend doing nothing but English and Maths? Would we expect secondary pupils to do nothing but English and Maths, all day every day. If a broad and balanced curriculum is considered appropriate at secondary, why should the curriculum not also be varied at primary school? Yes, experiential learning is important but children also have to be taught. Most four year olds do not automatically learn to tie shoe laces by observing. They need to be shown how to do it and then practise. If that is the case, why did they not just scrap the exams and concentrate on the process of learning itself?