Gail,

If the Unions use the same sort of wording in their ballots as you have in the survey, then, whether they get huge support for disruptive action or none at all, it'll have no impact whatsoever!

(You can't boycott something that doesn't exist.)

Hi, tafcam.  Well, not as strange as living in the unreal "satsworld", maybe!  Any teachers filling in the survey form are really showing themselves up.  Don't you agree?

"Boycott Sats"???

Might as well say "Boycott spaghetti trees" for all the sense it makes.

Que?

Lets lift this debate.

 Fact is, we have a chance here to vote down a boycot that has been hugely misjudged and should vote 'No' and actively campaign to get colleagues voting likewise.

Markuss's issue is that SATs was originally a label for the planned form of the test which never came to fruition.

Of course, the tests are Statutory, they're still for Assessment purposes (or so they purport to be) and they are still Tests, so SAT works perfectly well as an acryonym, just like SIPs does for School Improvement Partners, and just as we all know exactly what ICT means, even though no new National Curriculum document ever bothers to indicate what the initials stand for.

But it keeps Markuss entertained brining it up every now and then, and pretending that nobody can understand what SATs are, because they're not the official name. I can only presume that he writes regularly to his bank to complain about the superfluity of the N in PIN number and campaigns for a change in Ofsted's name to something more factually accurate.

We can but humour him.