THESE are testing times for the Scottish Government regarding its P1 assessments of school pupils. We say “assessments” advisedly because as beleaguered Education Secretary John Swinney points out, these aren’t high stakes tests that pupils pass or fail. They’re designed to provide a snapshot of how pupils are developing. It’s regrettable that a few apparently ended up in tears, but children will cry and it’s not always clear why. Metaphorically, at least, there have been more tears about P1 assessments from the opposition parties. There has been blatant politicking about this issue, with the Tories in particularbeing inconsistent in their approach.

Their motion before Holyrood today appears belatedly to have noticed that the assessments aren’t in line with the play-based philosophy of the Curriculum for Excellence. It’s the first substantial element they’ve adduced, but seems another debate for another time. P1 assessments measure children’s development in the system we have now. Apart from which, they’re hardly cruel or play-denying. Mr Swinney may have his faults but he makes a poor Wackford Squeers.

But are the assessments necessary? The purpose was to introduce consistency in such exercises across Scotland (they already existed, though in different forms – often bought in from elsewhere – and run by local authorities). Another associated motivation was to see where improvements could be made, with the ultimate aim of closing the attainment gap. As such, they were an integral part of education as the Scottish Government’s “flagship policy”. The problem with a flagship policy is that it gives oppositions a clear target at which to aim. This administration’s Education Bill has already met an ignominious end, and if today’s non-binding vote goes against the Government, its position will be difficult.

The reasonable observer reserves judgment at this stage. Shouting “It’s not working” when it’s hardly started suggests an overweening purpose of inflicting defeat on the administration. The P1 assessments aren’t perfect, but we’re not convinced they’re as dastardly as depicted.

Reading between the lines, the opposition motion calling for a rethink sounds half-hearted, reflecting perhaps the fact that they’re unclear if they want everything to revert to the old muddle of different exercises in different places or to replace assessments with a sandpit. The assessments should be given time to pass the test of improving early education and closing the attainment gap.