I’VE been following recent press reports on plans for assessments in Primary 1. As a former primary teacher I understand the crucial role of readiness to learn and I hope these early-years “tests” are actually assessments of readiness for learning?
I taught P3 and P4 (age seven to nine) and in one class alone I had two boys with very poor and limited oral language skills, which meant they were unable to learn letter symbols, never mind start to read. Unless children are given a good grounding in basic skills they fall behind right at the very start of formal learning, and never catch up. The importance of assessments in the early years is to assess readiness for learning – concentration, oral language skills, hand/eye co-ordination, being able to hold a pencil. It should not be a test of how well a child can read, write or know their numbers as this is what will be taught in formal education.
As a mother of three grown-up children I experienced the importance of correct early assessment for my older son. He had attended kindergarten in America and was given a one-to-one assessment there by a teacher (not a computer), for which I was present, to assess his readiness for formal learning at six years. Kindergarten was a great basis for learning the oral sounds of each letter, the shapes, colour and so on, and with a focus very much on play. If any child was not considered ready or mature enough they were kept back a few months. Parents were happy with this, rather than see their children struggle early on.
In America children are often held back in the early years to give them time to mature and develop concentration and language, and it’s not frowned on by parents, but rather looked on as a good thing.
We moved back to Scotland a year later, where he was given no assessment of his learning readiness, and he was put straight into the end of primary two, based only on his age, even though he was young for this stage. He coped with the maths but struggled to dive straight into the unknown reading scheme, when children beside him were already writing a whole page of full sentences in their story books. He was extremely frustrated and unhappy in P3. I was fortunate I had had the training as a teacher to understand and appreciate all the concerns, but even I had initially expected him simply “to cope”.
In the end, after some difficulties, we moved him to another local school and had him repeat primary three, which was by far the best thing we could ever have done. It gave him the breathing space and time he desperately needed. Those early years of play are crucial, and require highly skilled teachers and small class sizes. A good start in education is everything, and I know this as a teacher and parent.
I was told too, the old lie – he’ll catch up somehow! But I knew as a teacher this was a serious problem, to give him such a mountain to climb at this early stage. I firmly believed in his ability and he always seemed a very curious fast learner and a bright boy.
Because it is not only the academic, its how a child feels about themselves – their confidence and where they see themselves with regard to the other children. I also believe firmly in co-operative learning in mixed abilities, with plenty of play outside and inside – where the more mature children assist slower developers. After all, that’s what happens in the real world too (or should be). Children of all abilities must be engaged, encouraged and stimulated.
There are also other ways to reduce the gap between high-attaining children and slower learners – reduction of child poverty, better childcare provision, and good parenting.
My son ended up being dux of his secondary school and now works as a paediatric dentist – so much for being average then!
P Keightley
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel