{"id":7934,"date":"2019-01-11T14:36:12","date_gmt":"2019-01-11T14:36:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/?p=7934"},"modified":"2026-04-18T19:34:31","modified_gmt":"2026-04-18T19:34:31","slug":"p1-tests-first-green-shoots-of-recovery-for-scottish-education","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/2019\/01\/p1-tests-first-green-shoots-of-recovery-for-scottish-education\/","title":{"rendered":"P1 tests \u2013 first green shoots of recovery for Scottish education?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

All is not well with education in Scotland. We\u2019re sliding down the international literacy and numeracy <\/strong>charts<\/strong><\/a>. Our \u2018poverty-related attainment gap\u2019 is widening. What to do? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

In 2015, the First Minister took decisive action. \u2018Judge me by my performance on education,\u2019 she said and \u2013 to provide data on which to base that judgement \u2013 introduced Scottish National Standardised Assessments (SNSA) in literacy and numeracy at P1, P4, P7 and S3. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Four years later, the SNSAs are the focus of two national reviews. The first, by the Parliamentary Education Committee, began this month. The second \u2013 an \u2018Independent Review\u2019 of the particularly controversial P1 assessment \u2013 is due to report in May.  However, at the time of writing no one seems willing (or perhaps \u2018independent\u2019 enough) to chair it.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Look for the silver lining<\/strong>     <\/h2>\n\n\n\n

As a former primary heidie <\/em>and a literacy specialist for forty years, I\u2019m very cheered by these developments. Indeed, they suggest to me that the Scottish education system is in a much healthier state than those of other western nations (England, Australia, USA) where national testing regimes hold sway. Scotland has always been suspicious of national standardised assessment before the age of 16. We inadvertently slipped into doing it during the dark days of the 5-14 Curriculum <\/em>but we soon recanted and devised a Curriculum for Excellence <\/em>(CfE<\/em>) which has been internationally lauded as a model of educational guidance.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Sadly, the introduction of CfE<\/em>was bungled and its praiseworthy principles haven\u2019t yet been translated into world-beating practice. But perhaps the two SNSA reviews provide an opportunity to get it back on track, not least because they\u2019re focusing public attention on how the educational process begins.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Themedia focus <\/a><\/strong>kicked off last summer, with stories about five-year-old children reduced to tears and an obscure question about a humming bird\u2019s beak (media commentators couldn\u2019t decide whether to treat these as tragedy or farce). Then came a concerted campaign against the P1 SNSA<\/a> <\/strong>supported by the EIS, Children in Scotland, a parent-teacher organisation (Connect) and other groups concerned with children\u2019s \u2018right to play\u2019. The slogan \u2018Play Not Tests 4 P1\u2019 began to appear, scrawled in chalk beside various Scottish landmarks. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Scottish Government \u2013 bewildered by this unexpectedly vocal resistance movement \u2013 tried to suppress it. But they failed to check their references, leading to more media coverage<\/a> <\/strong>when they were accused of misleading head teachers on parents\u2019 right to opt children out of the P1 tests. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

By this time, the opposition parties had scented blood. They swotted up on early childhood education and tabled a motion in the Scottish Parliament to drop the P1 tests. It was passed by 63 votes to 61<\/a> <\/strong>but the government (which, in common with most media commentators, hadn\u2019t had time to swot up) decided to ignore the vote, thus firmly establishing the P1 SNSA as a political hot potato<\/a><\/strong>. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Hence, the two SNSA reviews. On the first day of the Education Committee review another media furore<\/a><\/strong>broke out when the Scottish Government was revealed (presumably due to more unchecked references) to be misrepresenting the views of two international educational gurus about standardised assessment of five-year-olds.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This bizarre, unexpected sequence of events means that \u2013 for the first time ever \u2013 early childhood pedagogy has hit the headlines. Although political commentators are still as bewildered as the government about what \u2018play-based learning\u2019 at P1 actually involves, they\u2019ve at least brought one of CfE\u2019<\/em>soutstanding problems to public attention. Even better, they\u2019ve raised the possibility that Scotland might finally unravel a knotty educational problem with implications for the whole of the English-speaking world. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

A historical-cultural knot <\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

The problem began in the 1860s, when compulsory state-funded education began and Britain decreed an earlier school starting age than other countries setting up schooling systems. Victorian politicians considered it \u2018of great utility\u2019 to enrol the children of the poor in school as young as possible \u2013 not only would this free their mothers to return to work, but the sooner schooling started, the sooner it would end and the children could start work too. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scotland has since been one of only 12 per cent of nations worldwide (all bar one ex-members of the British Empire) where children are expected to crack on with the three Rs before the age of six. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Once out of sight in school, little children were out of the British public mind until the 1970s, when increasing adult illiteracy sparked debate about the effectiveness of primary schooling.  A bitter argument broke out among literacy specialists about the best way to teach reading and writing \u2013 \u2018traditionally\u2019 (focusing on phonics) or \u2018progressively\u2019 (focusing on meaning and motivation).   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In England, thanks to a political takeover of education, traditional methods won the day and there\u2019s since been a draconian system of tests and targets to ensure training in phonic \u2018sound-symbol relationships\u2019 is rigorously enforced. In Scotland, the educational establishment struggled to keep a sensible balance, currently enshrined in CfE. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nevertheless many Scottish educationalists are still unsure which side to take in the great P1 SNSA debate. Like the First Minister and most of the general public, they\u2019re not sure what all the fuss is about. After all, if you want to track children\u2019s progress in the three Rs, it makes sense to start in their first year of schooling and it\u2019s now a national 150-year-old habit to assume that\u2019s the year children turn five.  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But what if we\u2019re wrong to start teaching literacy skills so early? There was no educational justification for the Victorians\u2019 political decision. There is, however, a growing body of international evidence to suggest it was a thoroughly bad one. So might the P1 SNSA controversy help Scotland untangle the historical-cultural knot that focuses primary education on how<\/strong>best to teach literacy, while ignoring the question of when<\/strong>? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Play-based pedagogy \u2026<\/strong><\/h2>\n\n\n\n

In countries with far better educational records than the UK \u2013 including China, Singapore, Canada and (of course) Finland \u2013 there\u2019s a tradition of play-based pedagogy until children are six or seven years old. The approach is based on well-established educational principles, underpinned by the science of child development. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The First Minister will be pleased to know that play-based pedagogy doesn\u2019t mean children who show an early interest in the three Rs are \u2018held back\u2019; simply that literacy and numeracy skills aren\u2019t explicitly taught<\/strong>until all children have reached an appropriate developmental stage. Until then, the focus is on supporting <\/strong>their learning \u2013 in the way biology has successfully equipped young children to learn \u2013 through play. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There\u2019s no place for standardised assessment of literacy and numeracy skills in a developmentally-based pedagogical system because, until the age of around seven, early child development is so variable that it can\u2019t be standardised.  As one of the academics recently \u2018misrepresented\u2019 by the Scottish government put it: \u2018The unreliability of the assessments, combined with the unreliability of five-year-olds, means these assessments are almost completely useless as guides to the achievement and needs of five-year-olds.’     <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Politicians in the rest of the world are now recognising the scientific basis behind play-based pedagogy during early childhood. That\u2019s why China recently banned testing in its kindergartens (some of which had fallen under the English-speaking spell) and Singapore, famed for its rigorous national assessment regime, has from 2019 stopped standardised testing of children under the age of eight.   <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Scotland was actually ahead of the game in this respect. CfE <\/em>recommended play-based pedagogy in P1 as part of its \u2018Early Level\u2019 for three- to six-year-olds. Unfortunately, there was nowhere near enough teacher training to accompany CfE <\/em>and \u2013 since most primary teachers were as clueless as the rest of the population about the developmental significance of play \u2013 it didn\u2019t catch on. Fortunately, there were enough teachers and early years specialists who did see the point and many joined the Upstart Scotland <\/em>campaign, which aims to introduce a play-based kindergarten stage for Scottish children.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u2026 and why does it matter so much? <\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Upstart Scotland\u2019<\/em>s interest is not merely educational: indeed most Upstart <\/em>supporters don\u2019t come from an educational background. They\u2019re from social services, health, psychology, children\u2019s rights, the arts, playwork, criminal justice, environmental sustainability and many other professional fields. The unifying factor is shared concern about the changing nature of children\u2019s play and its potential effects on the long-term health and well-being of the nation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

I wrote about this here in an article last year called The Silence of the Weans<\/a><\/em><\/strong>. There\u2019s growing scientific evidence that active, social, outdoor play is a biological necessity in early childhood and its decline has serious implications for the physical and mental health of the next generation. I suspect that the introduction of a Nordic-style kindergarten stage is the only way currently available of connecting all Scotland\u2019s children with their evolutionary heritage. And, who knows, it might also help get Curriculum for Excellence <\/em>back on track.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Images courtesy of Sue Palmer\/Upstart<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

A Nordic-style kindergarten stage is the only way currently available of connecting all Scotland\u2019s children with their evolutionary heritage. And, who knows, it might also help get Curriculum for Excellence back on track.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":239,"featured_media":7939,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[706],"tags":[304,37],"class_list":["post-7934","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-society","tag-school-tests","tag-scottish-education"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7934","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/239"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=7934"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7934\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":18782,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7934\/revisions\/18782"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/7939"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7934"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7934"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sceptical.scot\/staging\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7934"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}