I am too busy being a child to be tested

If my future were determined just by my performance on a standardized test, I wouldn't be here. I guarantee you that.

 Michelle Obama

In 1994, I took my four-year-olddaughter on a march against nursery vouchers, the first move to place four-yearolds into school. I was dismayed at the idea of putting children into school soearly and worried that she would be rushed into learning stuff that she couldlearn much more easily a little later.  Sheis 27 now and the debate is still live. It’s not been easy to keep the vice ofthe four-year-old central to the debate. As Early Years teachers we have been mocked and ridiculed by Governments,our concerns rebuffed despite the continuing flood of research from across theworld showing us that we should be concerned.

Parents have now raised their voices and collected 65,000 signatures to petition against the new baseline tests for children aged four and five due to start in 2020. They don’t like the idea of their children being tested at such a young age. They are worried by the emphasis on maths and literacy in the tests and fear that it will lead to a narrow curriculum. This is good news for a sector that cannot get Government to listen.

In 2015, the Department for Education introduced testing for four-yearolds on a voluntary trial basis. Three assessment suppliers offering a mix ofapproaches were chosen but at the end of the controversial trial the Governmentfound it impossible to compare the approaches and abandoned all three.  So, rather than think about what this failure indicatedthe Government instigated a new £10m trial, based on a one-off test whichstarts in September.

It’s not clear what the point of thisis?  The DfE won’t share the outcome ofthe tests with teachers so it can’t be used to plan the right educationalenvironment for children. They argue it’s to measure the schools and the testscores will be held centrally with each child becoming a unique number on anational database.

Baseline assessment poses manychallenges and distortions and risks branding children from an early age. Ithas a horrible competitive edge so that some parents may start to “tutor” theirchildren to pass the test while other children with less engaged parents willget lower scores and be branded problems from an early age; nothing like aself-fulfilling prophesy to guarantee lifelong failure. We also know that, boysdon’t do well in these situations, children who are acquiring two languages andthose summer born have a challenge but mostly children aged four don’t have alinear development pathway. They learn in fits and starts and do so far more effectivelyif they are in the right learning environment. So why test?

The research so continuously rejectedby Government has that groundhog feel, repeating the same story that small childrenneed time, nurture, play and a broad and balanced curriculum led by engagedcapable adults to help them to develop and learn.  Rushing them to count, recite the alphabetand write words by three or four years is unhelpful and unnecessary.  There is simply no evidence that says this hurrywill improve their learning.  In fact, ithas the opposite effect especially for little boys.

I am pleased to see parents begin tounderstand the implications of testing their children and I hope that they getthe Government to stop this testing obsession but more importantly for us toarticulate what kind of education small children need to thrive.