TEACHERS have always done, and will always do, a baseline assessment of children when they start school. It makes sense to understand the children coming in to your care as best you can in order to cater for their needs and teach them what they need to know. It makes sense to find out what a child can already do so that you can teach them what they cannot.

What does not make sense is to sit a four-year-old in front of a computer and expect them to sit a test.

I personally spent five years as a reception teacher and of course I always did a baseline. I sat and read with children to see which way up they would hold a book, and to see if they understood that print conveyed meaning, or that it goes from left to right. I provided opportunities for them to climb and run and balance so that I could find out their level of core strength and see if they were ready to sit on a chair and begin to learn to write. I assessed whether they were toilet-trained, and if they were not, I taught them. I observed alongside teaching for a half term every year and adapted my provision accordingly.

One year, in addition to this, my school took part in the previous baseline assessment that the government trialled. I had to undergo training and then use an iPad to answer a set of questions about each child. You selected “yes” or “no” to statements about what a child could do: for example, whether they could count to 20.

It had no option for counting to 10, or understanding that the final number you say is the label for the amount, or whether they could count items not in a line. Just yes, or no, and then there was an additional statement which you could not select if the child had not met the first statement.

Not only was this incredibly narrow, but it was also incredibly time-consuming. Teachers never mind hard work or spending time on things when it is of benefit and useful. What we resent is wasting time unnecessarily. The information, once submitted, could not be collated or viewed again. The data that was collected was not able to be used by practitioners and was never seen again — especially after the government scrapped the scheme after the failings that year.

Alongside the Early Excellence Baseline, every teacher did their own baseline in every school up and down the country — one they could actually use, that captured the ability of the whole child. One that assessed whether a child could play with or alongside other children. One that took note of exactly which numbers or letters a child recognised, not just whether they knew them all. One that involved spending quality time with the child, getting to know them properly, and took into account what they liked, disliked, were motivated by and how they liked to learn.

Not only was the national baseline a big waste of time for teachers, it was a big waste of public money. The training, the programme, the planning — it all cost money and was not ever seen or used again. The government is now attempting to revive the idea, attempting to market it as better because it would be a trade-off for the Key Stage One SATs. This shows that they understand the flaws of SATs but that they are still not willing to trust professional judgement — they would like to see children’s educational path be set by narrow testing from the moment they step through the door.

That is not a test of a child’s potential (if such a thing can even be measured). It is a test of parenting. A child that has not been read to will not know how to hold a book, but they will learn. It is not their fault. A child that has not had the opportunity to climb will not be able to hold a pencil well, but they will learn. It is not their fault. A child who has been constantly spoken to, listened to and engaged with will have better language skills than their less advantaged peers, but it does not mean that the other children are less intelligent.

The proposed baseline discriminates against working-class children — living in a flat with no garden will influence their physical ability, but should not influence their projected educational outcomes. The government would like teachers to be accountable for a child’s attainment at age 11 and beyond, based on a test they took when they were four. It’s not right and it’s not fair.

Teachers have always done, and will always do, a baseline assessment. They just will not let it determine the child’s future.

Rebecca Light is a primary school teacher and NEU member.