The truth about SATs
What do we make about the latest round of criticisms against SATs? This week they got a right kicking from the education sector in the wake of a damning report from the Government's own schools select committee made up of MPs.
The night before Panorama put the boot in as well with an edition called Tested to Destruction which featured a load of educationalists saying how damaging national testing is to children.
In the face of all this, Ministers remain unrepentant and insist SATs are a key tool in raising attainment.
Knowing who to believe is a bit tricky.
On the one hand, there's a case for going with what the teachers say. They work in schools after all and are the best place to tell us what impact SATs are having.
But then, teachers also have a natural aversion to having their results held up to scrutiny. It puts them under pressure and shines a light on what is going on in the classroom.
The Government argues it's on the side of parents who have a right to know how their children are doing and it is right that schools that are under-performing are held accountable.
Is this necessarily true? I'm not sure many parents are that interested in being told whether their child is a level four or level five, which in my experience tends to be what happens these days when you go to a parents' evenings.
Most parents would rather know about their child's attitude and aptitude to learning. Today's teachers, however, feel under more pressure from central Government to give us our children's vital statistics.
The Government says that national tests and league tables have been instrumental in driving up standards in education.
But is this kind of competition healthy? Or does it force teachers to "teach to tests" in order not to look bad under the harsh gaze of the public eye?
The fear expressed by many is that this means kids are getting denied a well-rounded education. They also warn of the long-term effect of "drilling" youngsters in this way, claiming they are put in danger of becoming test punch-drunk.
Schools Minister Jim Knight was on the radio recently defending SATs in English, maths and science taken at the ages of seven, 11 and 14, claiming they are good preparation for the more pressured GCSE and A-level tests to come.
He also said many other countries were adopting national testing now and maintained it was up to schools to manage SATs so they did not detract from a rounded curriculum and pupils did not feel stressed by them.
There's truth in this. But when you have a regime in place that's based on comparing schools against each other it's difficult for them not to get hung up on the competitive element.
SATs have been important in making sure kids leave school with a decent grasp of the basics. And this is vital if they are to succeed in the modern workplace and make Britain successful.
If nothing else they have being instrumental in highlighting that our kids are currently under-performing on this score.
All of which doesn't answer the question of whether we should have them or ditch them. The truth is, there are strong arguments on both sides. Leaving me - like many - confused!