The National Union of Teachers has not garnered enough support from its members to hold a boycott of national tests for seven and 11-year olds.

Although the majority of the received ballot indicated support for a boycott, the turnout was too low for the vote to be carried.

Phil Willis, education spokesman, said: "All activities in our schools must be designed for the benefit of children, not for meaningless Government statistics.

"The NUT's decision not to take action does not let the government of the hook on testing.

"The 86 per cent positive response for action over SATs by NUT members who turned out to vote, should send as a clear signal to Charles Clarke that all is not well.

"The government and other teacher unions must enter positive negotiations over the current system of testing, which has little validity and distorts young people's learning."

Forum Response: National Union of Teachers

Doug McAvoy, general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said: "Rarely has there been such a large and positive response to a ballot for industrial action.

"Over 35,000 members voted but that is not enough under the Union's own stringent rules to sanction a boycott.

"Yet government should be under no illusion that the strength of feeling against tests remains undiminished. The members who voted yes were prepared to take industrial action to end the tests. Those who voted no or failed to vote believe the tests should go.

"The teaching profession remains convinced that the tests constrain their professional judgement and undermine children's learning.

"The NUT will continue to press its concerns about the damaging effects of the tests. It will pursue those concerns in discussions with the other teachers' organisations and in dialogue with government. Early in the New Year the NUT will seek the support of parents and governors for its campaign.

"A fundamental independent review of testing as undertaken in Scotland and in place in Wales is the best way forward.

"The NUT is the only organisation, through surveys and ballots, to provide a voice for teachers about the tests.

"The NUT is proud of its record and, on behalf of its members will continue to pursue policies that have at their heart the benefit of children and young people and their education."

Forum Response: Association of Teachers and Lecturers

Dr Mary Bousted, ATL's general secretary, said: "This result is a victory for common sense. That so many members of the NUT did not vote is a clear indication that they think that there are better ways of dealing with this issue than industrial action, which would be so damaging to children's education.

"ATL believes that a reform of the current regime is more likely to come through informed discussion than through ballots and industrial action.

"The current regime of targets, tests and tables is in urgent need of reform, a point emphasized in ATL's ongoing Teaching to Learn campaign.

"ATL is prepared to work with ministers to find a way out of this mess but only if they are genuinely prepared to listen to what teachers have to say. ATL is calling for weekly meetings with ministers until we find a way through the current testing crisis.

"The real issue here is not the tests themselves but the high level stakes that go with them. Our priority should be to scrap top-down targets and to do away with so-called performance tables. What we need is a national consultation on what parents really want to know about schools."

Forum Response: Professional Association of Teachers

Alison Johnston, senior professional officer, said: "Members of PAT do not take industrial action, but make the interests of children their overwhelming priority.

"Whilst not undertaking a ballot of our members in respect of a boycott, we do fully support the campaign for a real need to review the whole of our assessment system and work alongside other organisations in pursuing this aim.

"It is difficult to deny that there is a case for assessment. Schools need to be able to demonstrate to parents and the community that their teachingis effective and that pupils are doing as well as they ought to be doing for children of their age, having regard to differences in ability and family circumstances.

"The debate should be about the kind of assessment that is most accurate and helpful.

"For example, PAT believes that there should be no tests at Key Stage 1, as the current format is inappropriate for children of this age. We would welcome their removal, as seen in Wales, but look forward to the outcome of the Key Stage 1 trial taking place this school year. Teacher assessment is our favoured form of assessment, supported by rigorous moderation.

"The end of Key Stage 2 provides a more suitable opportunity to assess pupils in the form of a formal test. What is not appropriate here is the high stakes approach we currently have, ie published league tables, target setting, results influencing teachers' performance reviews, 'teaching to the test' and the narrowly-focused curriculum we see at KS 2.

"Transfer of pupils to KS 3 often takes little or no account of their results and pupils are often retested as soon as they arrive in secondary school.

"Our own feedback from our members reinforces the view that testing in this way can be stressful to both pupils and their parents and places unnecessary burdens on schools to produce results, when a more rounded, holistic development of children would be far more beneficial."