Guest post: Baseline assessments - 'it's wrong to test four-year-olds like this'

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

Will your child be starting Reception in September 2015? If so, did you know that they may find themselves facing the government's new baseline assessments just a few weeks after they start?

The government are asking primary schools to introduce the new tests, which will be available from a choice of private companies, to measure how well schools "add value" from the start of Reception to the end of Year 6. Trouble is, these assessments will do nothing to benefit individual children. Rather, they're a mechanism for monitoring schools’ performance – and they’re likely to do your children more harm than good.

Of course, assessments for four and five-year-olds aren't necessarily a bad thing - teachers already do them as part of getting to know their children and planning their learning. The difference is that, at the moment, they do it in a holistic way: they get to know the children and they observe them as they settle into school. They find out what they can already do and what they need more support with. Teachers also get reports from the nursery or preschool if they've been to one, and vitally, they talk to parents and carers (who know their children better than anyone else) about what the child knows and can do.

Children settle into school at different rates, and some take longer than others to gain the confidence to show their capabilities in a new environment. Their development is not linear, and so there isn't a simple check-list for monitoring their progress. That’s exactly why the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) – the curriculum for nought to five-year-olds in England – is based on age-appropriate principles, with the emphasis on observing what children can do over a period of time, rather ‘marking them down’ because they haven't reached some notional benchmark on a particular day.

These new baseline assessments won’t rely on parents’ and teachers’ careful observations of their charges, or follow the developmentally appropriate practice of the EYFS. Instead, the tests will be designed by an external body, because the government believes this will be more objective than teachers’ observations. But standardised external tests just aren't a valid or effective way of assessing a 4-year-old's knowledge and abilities - as any parent knows, young children don't perform on demand in an unfamiliar environment.

Moreover, the assessments won't be age-adjusted, so a child aged 4 years and a day will be judged on the same criteria as one aged 4 years 11 months. Summer born children, boys, children with special educational needs and children whose first language is not English, amongst others, will all be disadvantaged. They will also take up a significant chunk of teachers’ precious time - at least 30 minutes per assessment – time that could be used to help kids settle in.

The government also wants the tests to focus on its priority areas of literacy and numeracy – but performing at these kinds of tests aged 4 isn't a good predictor of children’s later progress. There's plenty of evidence that children who learn to read later do as well as their peers who start younger, and often better, because they retain a greater enthusiasm for it. If you want to know how well children will do later in life, it’s far better to look at children more holistically: are they self-motivated, resilient, curious and keen to learn? A narrowly focused baseline assessment won’t measure these characteristics.

Then there's the question of what will happen to the results. It's hard to imagine that schools won't share them with parents. But how would you feel if, just weeks after your child starts school, you are told that they have been assessed as "failing"? This can only be demoralising for children at a stage when building self-confidence is vital, and stigmatising for parents who may feel they are being blamed. It will be a barrier to building strong relationships between parents and teachers, and probably in cases where it’s particularly important for families and children to be supported by schools.

It seems like the government is going backwards. How can they endorse the EYFS, a (very sensible) approach to the curriculum, on the one hand, and, on the other, request a blanket ability assessment within weeks of starting school? Because of this, and for all the reasons above, we, on behalf of a coalition of Early Years organisations, are urging the government to rethink, before it's too late.

You can find out more information and view the petition here.

Madrigals, schools will indeed have a mild incentive to use the baselines to underplay a child's current ability to improve the value-add measure. But everyone always has an incentive to cheat at tests! Surely, the majority of schools and teachers find the incentive of doing the right thing professionally by their pupils will outweigh the desire to cheat? And the right thing surely includes assessing pupils accurately

I also think this is scaremongering and totally disingenuous.

It is not about testing individual children, it is testing the school. It doesn't matter that the summer born children will generally fare worse in the tests.

The point is about comparing overall results for different schools - if one school is adding double the value of another that is worth knowing. All schools will have roughly the same number if summer born children so there is no need to adjust the test for each child.

I agree there are issues about teachers gaming the system and also I share the view of some others that the results should be anonymous.

The op is misrepresenting this issue and that is not helpful.

The op asserts that the tests will be "damaging" and uses emotive language to try to persuade others that these tests are wrong. I'd be interested to know on what evidence her assertions are based. Scaremongering, as always. It's helpful as a teacher to have a baseline, even if it is never shared with the pupils, as it allows progress to be measured over time in a more objective way.

Yes, at 4 children have had very different upbringings, and have a 12 month age range, but that is the same at 16 for GCSEs and A Levels, and there is no fuss about the inequality in them.

maybe this is the point of wanting independence in the testing procedures - so we don't get this nonsense of downplaying kids ability for years in a row to play it safe for sats tests results years later. kind of makes sense IF they get it right and the right people, procedure etc for doing it.

i agree btw that this is a very misleading post and i say that as an ex teacher, home educating, anti sats person.

Why does 'progress over time' need to be measured at all? The whole process has been damaging to my children. Nobody in adulthood is going to think DS's b in English is better because he had a 3 in English at KS2, or that his A star in Maths is mediocre and his C in Chemistry a failure because he got top levels on maths and science at KS2.

Basing treatment and expectations of children on results they got years before is demoralising. Yet DD in year 9 has her KS2 levels stuck on the front of every text book next to a predicted gcse grade based on that, and nothing she has done over the last seven terms changes that.

It is purely strength of character that keeps her aspiring for top grades, despite a huge sticker on every book telling her she's not expected to get them.

The only point I can see of baseline assessments would be to assess how schools close the gap between early low and high achievers, while the current system seems designed to maintain or widen the gap.

it's to test schools and teachers really to be sure they're actually progressing all the children that they're getting. that bright children aren't being left to dwindle, that children who are struggling on entry aren't still struggling with the issues they came in with when they start secondary, etc. it's about being sure that each child is actually getting an education. otherwise why bother sending them to school and why be surprised when so many are disaffected, bored and outright pissed off and acting out by about year 9?

6 or so hours a day for 14 years is a huge chunk out of ones childhood that could be spent in all manner of ways that add value - best to find out if school is even achieving anything don't you think?

and if you have genuine, authenticated value added data you can start comparing models of education in a meaningful way. you can even begin to compare school or no school for the progress a child makes. you can start to question 'is our education model actually working', do children who go to school for 6 hours a day gain more or less than children who do 2 hours a day of education and spend the rest of the day playing or engaging in practical activities, do children who learn informally through interest based activities gain more or less than those who have formal education, do children who learn in groups of thirty fair better than children in small groups etc.

you cannot make meaningful comparisons however without actually seeing what value is being added rather than just outcomes of populations.

i guess though tbh i'm coming from a 'this model is broken' stance and i feel the beginning of dealing with that is to really look at the actual lack of added value and the reality of how impossible it is to meaningfully address that within the system we have.

no amount of tweaking it or government dictates that just add to the to do or not to do list change that or do anything other than make it creak at the seams even more. it's a model that bar those tweaks and superficial and sometimes devastating interferences from above was created in a supremely different time - our world has changed exponentially and we live in a totally different, and unforseeably so, 'world' now.

it's not tweaks we need but a full on paradigm shift as kuhn would say.

I really can't imagine an educational professional using negative language like failure on a child of any age. This article is too emotive. The 4 year olds are too young to care. It will be the parents if anyone who turns this into an issue. So long as it is left to the schools discretion on what to do with the data I can't see a problem.

I don't see the harm in it at all. So many schools DO fail their kids that it is useful to have a meaningful reference on progress, rather than woolly observations. Ask long as the assessment is carried out in a manner familiar and reassuring to the child im not fussed.
You make it sound like some sort of exam centre ffs. I call scaremongering rabble rousing on this thread. Very daily mail.

The OP says:

"There's plenty of evidence that children who learn to read later do as well as their peers who start younger, and often better, because they retain a greater enthusiasm for it."

Now, it may well be the case that children who learn to read later do as well (on average), but better? and greater enthusiasm? As "evidence" for this, she links to a paper which cites only the following: one study published in the Journal for Waldorf/R Steiner Education, and one self-published article. Peer review, anyone?

To be honest, if someone has this little regard for proper evidence, I'm not really willing to trust what they say. The OP is not a teacher, she is a "consultant". In my opinion, if Mumsnet wants articles on education, they should commission them either from teachers, or from people who are prepared to quote proper evidence.

I worried about the testing of your children a lot. I became a school governor on the back of these concerns to see how these things work in practice. In my opinion, a half decent school makes all activities a child does enjoyable. I have watched phonics screenings and SATs type tests and the kids think it is 121 time with the teacher/a game rather than anything scary. I'd go so far as to say some of them love it!
The tests themselves do not damage the children because teachers, generally, are amazing and look out for the kids!
I don't like that either subconsciously or otherwise, these tests end up becoming a kind of streaming tool. Of course, tests or no tests, some sort of ability groups would emerge in a class. I just hope that having these abilities, at this young age, stored on file for ever more does not influence teachers' perceptions of the children in the future.
I'll have to be a parent for a few more years to let you know if this concern comes to anything! Any views from teachers on the likelihood on this happening gratefully received!!

again, these are not to test the children but the school. i agree (sorry can't remember who and on limited connection overseas so posting quick) that the assesment would have to have enough range to be able to genuinely show a child's ability rather than yes they can do abc and d therefore we don't have to worry about them, tick. there has to be 'room' to show they can do y etc - so an open frame assessment rather than a closed check a few skills - it has to be to genuinely assess value added on more able kids or they just do the usual trick of claiming added value that was already there if they'd actually given the opportunity for it to be used rather than sit dormant waiting for school to catch up.

also agree there is no reason at all for a test to be daunting - teachers/schools shouldn't project, and don't need to and good ones won't, their anxiety onto kids - again this is testing schools not kids. kids should never have been spending ages preparing for tests that didn't come from the test being put in place but the culture that arose itms. we did cats and stuff when i was a kid but we never prepared and i don't think we ever knew there was any 'issue' attached to it. it was fun,there was no build up, there was none of this making kids come in early and stressing the hell out of them etc.

Interesting. Whilst this sort of baseline testing has always been there in some form or another I think there is a growing movement towards judging 'unalterable potential'. Especially as the tests get increasingly sophisticated across various domains. Where resources are increasingly limited it might not be too difficult to imagine a future scenario where certain pathways for children with different IQs and aptitudes are eventually suggested even enforced (?) whilst they are still relatively young?

I think we are moving away from valuing recall, knowledge (rote learning is generally not seen as necessary or desirable in today's world) and very hard work (seen as being unhealthy and not conducive to 'well being' if someone doesn't have an IQ suitably above average, perhaps?). Some pioneering top UK public schools are steering some towards less intellectually robust work/pathways if consistent CAT type scores show they don't have the intellectual aptitude. Work is tailored according to 'innate ability' and aptitude for various subjects/disciplines. Many selective schools won't let you in if you don't have a high enough CAT score to start with of course too assessed via pre-test.

Our school have robust CAT tests from Y4 reported back to parents and the teachers receive the data. They don't tell them it's a test but a fun quiz that isn't that important. Most teachers won't take too much notice (realising its just a snapshot) but cognitive bias is likely even at a subconscious level perhaps? If I have data that says your child is not so smart then a poor assessment or some key poor work etc and I might think that the current group/pathway is not suitable if demanding? If I have stats that tell me your child is weak in Maths and strong in English how would you feel? The school realise of course these are only a brief snapshot and employ holistic methods to assess children but the fact remains that the children's intellectual potential will be seen to approximate to results especially after a pattern emerges as they are tested every year with a respected CAT type test? The reason the tests are given is to spot those who attainment might not match their potential etc and the more information we have as parents the better. Many believe it's possible to change the results by tutoring, early exposure to puzzles and so on so you might end up without a true representation of a child's so called innate potential? It will be interesting to see what happens in the years to come. Will parents begin to tutor 3 and 4 year olds etc?

How is this new?

DD had a baseline assessment when she started reception.

She is now at university.

And I don't understand how a school assessing what proportion of its 4 year olds can do certain things at intake can harm a child, or what possible difference not having age-adjustment could make. It's an average. It's to measure the school.

And, just possibly, it'll identify a few kids who could use some extra support.

"But how would you feel if, just weeks after your child starts school, you are told that they have been assessed as "failing"?"

It's not about you and your need to be told how wonderful you are as a parent. It's about your child and the education their school provides. If you can't cope with discovering your child isn't very good at something then you need to take your head out of the sand and get a grip, and yes, you need to start doing so when they are four. Preferably long before then.

Would the parent who complains that she was only told negative things about her daughter because she's dyslexic really rather not have been told her daughter was struggling? How can any child ever get extra help if nobody's allowed to be told they might need it in case they are upset?

If the wording says "failing" then change it to "not at the expected level" or "well below average" or just plain "can't do this yet". The principle is fine.

Skylark2 was your comment Would the parent who complains that she was only told negative things about her daughter because she's dyslexic really rather not have been told her daughter was struggling? How can any child ever get extra help if nobody's allowed to be told they might need it in case they are upset?*

Aimed at me?

If so, Would I really rather not have been told my daughter was struggling at 4 when she had been in school for just weeks? YES, I would have. I wanted my child to learn at school to relate to other kids, get used to the way school works, make friends, explore etc etc. Not to be pushed into a big academic system which it is well known is not beneficial for children.

Your comment suggests this is all about me and how I am feeling, it is not, it is about our (i.e. society's) expectation of what children at four should be able to achieve. And How can any child ever get extra help if nobody's allowed to be told they might need it in case they are upset?

I do not feel my child was given extra help. I was expected to pick up the slack and make sure my child was not behind, which was impossible, because an average means some will be more academic and others will be less so. And the school did not want to access her for dyslexia because they do not want to 'label' children and there is no money for dyslexic children anyway. So it was only because I sought any extra help from the Dyslexicia Research Trust that I got any help and knew more what to push for (e.g. a smaller group as well as a small ration - so not 6 children to two TAs but 3 children to 1 TA).

I had to wait over a year to hear anything positive about my child from a teacher at the school. If that is what they were saying to me, I wonder what messages she was getting.

Does "not at the expected level" mean that we now expect all children to be on this average level? For everything?

That is not my idea of education.

www.toomuchtoosoon.org/

www.toomuchtoosoon.org/say-no-to-baseline-assessment.html

I am not overly worried about all this for myself. My son (4) is pretty academically minded, loves school, has taken to sounding out well and is keen to learn to read. Seems to love maths. My dd, now 10, is dyslexic and still struggles a lot. School is hard work for her. Had I had my children the other order, had I had an academic child first, I may well have lots of different ideas about what was normal, or helpful, or what worked or did not work.