IN Emily-Ann Elliott’s article about SATs tests (The Argus, August 7), she looks at whether learning would be more effective without constant testing.

Children are not constantly tested. They take very few SATs tests throughout their time at school.

It would be more sensible to see the tests as a useful preparation for sitting GCSEs, A-levels, degree finals or professional exams.

Schools may hold SATs tests each year but for a different set of children each time. Christine Blower of the National Union of Teachers is quoted complaining about the usual recriminations about standards.

It is notable to see the resistance to publishing past papers as proposed by Michael Gove, the Conservatives’ education spokesman in the House of Commons.

If, however, standards are poor or have fallen at particular schools, SATs test results are one – and only one – useful way of alerting parents, politicians and officials to a potential problem.

Most parents accept academic test results are just one measure of a school and its success.

It is only natural that parents want academic success for their children because of the consequences for important later choices of, say, university or career.

It is ridiculous to suggest that children are somehow pigeon-holed for not reaching a set standard in SATs.

Another union leader, Martin Johnson, is quoted as saying schools should be empowered to excite children about learning as though they are not free to do this already. In fact, many do. Nor is such a positive approach incompatible with testing.

Testing is merely a way to check children’s understanding and teachers’ ability to teach.

Teachers would do well to shed their negative mindset about tests and focus on the advantages understood so well by your readers with children – and that’s most of us.

A Mater Old Shoreham Road, Hove