Labour under fire for touchscreen assessment plans for four-year-olds
The Department for Education (DfE) has written new guidelines, to come into effect from the next term, requiring schools to assess reception-age pupils using screens.
Campaigners have said that the change 'implicitly endorses and normalises device use in reception classes' and risks 'undermining the rights of parents' to restrict their children's screen time.
Politicians, teachers and campaigners sent a letter to the Education Secretary and Peter Kyle, the Technology Secretary, urging that the guidance be immediately revoked.
Signatories include Katharine Birbalsingh, known as Britain's strictest headteacher, Justine Roberts, the founder of Mumsnet, and Sophie Winkleman.
The letter said: 'We are united in our deep concern at this retrograde step which pushes our youngest schoolchildren, the majority of whom will be just four years old, on to touchscreen devices, and which implicitly endorses and normalises device use in reception classes.'
The new statutory Reception Baseline Assessment will involve a teacher using a device to conduct the assessment, with the child carrying out the test with a second touchscreen device.
The assessment, done within six weeks of a child starting at reception, has usually involved the use of toys and teddy bears.
The Government now says: 'Your child will complete the assessment by: using a touchscreen device; answering questions verbally with the teacher; working with materials given to them by the school.'
A spokesman for the DfE defended the guidance, telling The Telegraph that 'digital assessments reduce the administrative burden on teachers, freeing up their time to focus more on teaching and supporting pupils' learning.'
Campaigners said that, with some exceptions for children with special educational needs, a screen-based assessment 'can only be inferior' to the previous model.
They added that doing so risks 'undermining the rights of parents to raise their children in a screen-free, or 'screen-lite', environment, as many are now choosing to do'.
'Protect childhood'
The letter has also been backed by Laura Trott, the shadow education secretary, as well as other MPs from the Conservatives, Reform UK and the Liberal Democrats.
Ms Trott told The Telegraph: 'Testing children as young as four on screens, instead of using books or physical objects, undermines their development. The evidence of lasting damage to children so young is now overwhelming. We must change course and protect childhood.
'We've sleepwalked into a society where children are increasingly glued to screens rather than engaging with the world and each other.'
The Conservatives are working to ban smartphones in schools and stop exam boards from shifting assessments to online-only.
Ms Trott said: 'If we don't act now, future generations will not forgive us.'
Mr Kyle has repeatedly stated the Government's aim to protect children from online harms, including restricting their time on social media.
Earlier this month, it was reported that he was considering introducing a time limit on social media apps for children and a 10pm curfew.
A spokesman for the DfE said: 'Giving every child the best start in life is central to our mission to break the link between background and success, and our Plan for Change will help get thousands more children school-ready by age five.
'These assessments give a clear picture of children's abilities when they start reception to measure progress by the end of primary school. They are carried out one-on-one with a teacher, so for children who are unable to use a device, verbal responses can be input by their teacher, and paper-based versions are available.
'Digital assessments reduce the administrative burden on teachers, freeing up their time to focus more on teaching and supporting pupils' learning.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
an hour ago
- Daily Mail
Now Reeves hints taxes WILL go up: After she vowed there'd be no more hikes, public is warned of £40BILLION bill in Budget
Rachel Reeves fired a Budget tax warning yesterday as experts predicted she could have to plug a £40billion black hole this autumn. The Chancellor said there would be 'a cost' to this week's U-turn on welfare reform, which she said would be 'reflected in the Budget'. Ms Reeves declined to say how this and other recent U-turns would be funded. But she insisted she would not change her 'fiscal rules', leaving tax rises as the most likely option. Her comments are the clearest hint yet that taxpayers are set to be penalised for the Government's capitulation to Labour MPs opposed to any attempt to bring Britain's bloated benefits bill under control as Sir Keir Starmer tried to fight off a rebellion. They came amid growing warnings over the likely scale of the looming crisis in the public finances. The Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) think-tank said that Ms Reeves could have to find as much as £40billion this autumn – equal to the sum raised by her record tax-raising Budget last year, which was blamed for bringing economic growth to a halt and which she promised not to repeat. Ben Zaranko, an economist at the IFS, said it was 'not hard to imagine a world where they are of a ballpark similar scale to last autumn'. He added: 'If you have the perfect storm of economic forecasts being downgraded, additional spending commitments because these reforms haven't got through Parliament, and the world is in a gloomier place generally, you could comfortably be into double-figures billions even before you talk about any retail offers. 'A £20, £30, £40billion Budget is not what the Government would want but it's not impossible by any means.' Last year's Budget tax bomb included a £25billion raid on employers' National Insurance, which has been blamed for fuelling inflation and unemployment and slowing investment and growth. The following month, the Chancellor told the Confederation of British Industry that she would not need further tax rises as the Budget had 'drawn a line under the inheritance' she received from the last Conservative government. 'Public services now need to live within their means because I'm really clear, I'm not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes,' she said. But the pledge has been quietly ditched in the wake of sluggish economic growth blamed partly on the impact of the Budget. The Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) halved its growth forecast for this year in March. This week the economic watchdog hinted at a further likely downgrade after admitting that previous forecasts had proved too optimistic. Economists have warned that a 0.2 per cent downgrade in the OBR's forecasts would leave the Chancellor with an £18billion hole to fill. The problem has been made worse by recent costly U-turns on welfare. Sir Keir's climbdown on the winter fuel allowance will cost £1.5billion. This week's retreat over cuts to the Personal Independence Payment (PIP) could cost as much as £6billion. And Labour MPs are pushing for the abolition of the two-child benefit cap. Ms Reeves and Sir Keir yesterday refused to say how any of these measures would be paid for. Shadow Chancellor Sir Mel Stride said voters were paying the price of Labour's 'inability to govern'. He told the Mail: 'Labour's welfare shambles has left the country facing a ticking tax timebomb. 'Businesses and hardworking families should brace themselves for further painful tax hikes as Rachel Reeves scrambles to plug the gaping hole left by this weak prime minister's economic mismanagement. This week's chaos exposes Labour's inability to govern – pushing us towards higher taxes and a spiralling debt crisis. It doesn't have to be this way.' Labour MPs lined up in the Commons this week to demand the introduction of wealth taxes to pay for higher benefits. IFS director Paul Johnson told Times Radio the Chancellor would be 'caught between a rock and a hard place' if she needs to raise substantial sums this autumn. He added: 'Politically, she's going to be under pressure to impose a wealth tax or hit high earners or capital gains [tax] or something. And the markets will respond very badly to that, because they'll be worried about its impact on growth. 'The alternatives are to essentially break some manifesto commitments on increasing income tax or VAT. And I think her backbenchers and the electorate will react very badly.' The Prime Minister yesterday insisted that the Government would press on with welfare reform, despite his humbling at the hands of Labour backbenchers this week. He said it was 'important we reform the system' as 'welfare isn't working'. But in an embarrassing development, the parliamentary authorities forced Sir Keir to change the name of the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill after cuts to PIP were dropped from the legislation. Commons leader Lucy Powell said it would be shortened to the Universal Credit Bill as it will be 'narrower in scope'.
The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
After a year studying Starmer, I can tell you that he is at once a very kind man and a ruthless one
Ask friends of Keir Starmer what they make of him and one of the first things they will say is that he can be incredibly kind. I've heard it time and again. The former Labour leader Neil Kinnock described how Starmer was among the first to turn up on his doorstep after he lost his beloved wife, Glenys. 'You don't have time for this; you've got a party to lead,' Kinnock told him. Then there was the former employee who started crying over a cup of coffee as she recounted to me how warm her boss had been when she lost a loved one. The lawyer Parvais Jabbar, who has been a close friend of the PM's for almost 30 years since they started working together to oppose the death penalty around the world, offered the same opinion. 'On a personal level, Keir is the opposite of ruthless,' he said. But on a political level? Having spoken to more than 100 sources for my paperback Taken As Red, which tracks Starmer's career from the moment he arrived in Westminster as a backbench MP through shadow cabinet roles to becoming Labour leader and then his first year as prime minister, I discovered his willingness to be politically ruthless, especially when it came to fixing things that had gone wrong. And right now it feels as if things have gone very wrong for the prime minister. On the eve of the anniversary of his first year in power, Starmer has not just suffered a humiliating climbdown over flagship reforms. His party is also trailing Reform UK in the polls and his personal popularity has spiralled down. Ben Walker at Britain Elects has compared Starmer's position with those of his predecessors through their first year and showed that his -33 approval rating, 339 days into the role, was six points lower than Rishi Sunak's (-27) at the same point and 77 points below Tony Blair's (+44). Although some of the problems have little to do with the Treasury (such as a failure to plan across government, or the freebiegate scandal), a number have emerged directly from No 11 Downing Street, including policies on winter fuel payments, inheritance tax changes for farmers and now welfare. That is why the sight of the chancellor, Rachel Reeves, visibly upset during yesterday's prime minister's questions, and Starmer's failure to fully back her in the moment (although his team later did), are leading people to ask how the prime minister will act in the face of declining popularity. Could he sack Reeves? Or his chief of staff, Morgan McSweeney? I know from studying Starmer that he is certainly capable of being ruthless. To that end, surely no one is safe. Don't forget that he actually moved McSweeney on once before. After Labour's disastrous loss in the 2021 Hartlepool byelection, the key strategist was redeployed from Starmer's chief of staff to campaign director. And he wasn't the only one. McSweeney's successor, Sam White, found his period in charge also brought to an early end, as did the next in line, Sue Gray. They are far from the only examples of Starmer's willingness to take harsh action for political reasons. Take the phone call he made only 20 minutes after becoming Labour leader. Jennie Formby, who had been general secretary for Labour for two years, had wanted to discuss how she and Starmer would work together in the coming weeks. We won't, Starmer told her. One of her allies told me there was shock. Pushing out Formby, who had been unwell with cancer, was without precedent, they said, pointing out it took Jeremy Corbyn three years to replace the previous general secretary. But after the controversies under Corbyn, including an antisemitism crisis, Starmer wanted to overhaul the party and did not hesitate when it came to sacking his leadership rival, Rebecca Long-Bailey, and then removing Corbyn himself. Starmer also forced through rule changes which meant that those on the most leftwing flank of the party would struggle to ever again reach the ballot for leadership. So I don't doubt that Starmer could act now if he felt it were necessary. Arguably there was a streak of ruthlessness in his decision to tell his biographer Tom Baldwin that he 'deeply regrets' using the term 'island of strangers' in a recent speech. As for McSweeney, there are rumours of vulnerability, suggesting that he could be replaced by someone such as Liz Lloyd, Tony Blair's former deputy chief of staff who joined Starmer's administration last November as director of policy. But it's worth remembering that Starmer credits McSweeney with last year's election victory and for turning things around when he hit tough times in the past. Would he really move against Reeves? In this case, there is definitely a different dynamic from those he has acted against in the past. Starmer has liked and trusted Reeves since a breakfast shortly before he became leader. And surely this has been their joint project, in which the most controversial decisions being blamed on the Treasury could also be laid at No 10's door. Sources tell me that the PM trusted his chancellor so completely over means-testing winter fuel payments that he nodded through the proposal based on the figures alone. As for welfare, senior figures under Starmer have known for weeks that it was going to be a major problem. When it comes to this threatened rebellion that was unprecedented in scale, many blame the prime minister himself for failing to reach out personally to his own backbenchers and persuade them to remain loyal. Rebuilding relations with backbenchers is going to be key for Starmer if he is to recover. For some close to Starmer, his loyalty to Reeves has been 'frustrating'. I don't doubt that it has wobbled and that he would be prepared to act. But he must also know that removing a chancellor carries the risk of turning all the ire towards him. As ever, he'll deliberate and weigh the options very carefully. He is ruthless, that we know – but far from reckless. Anushka Asthana is the US editor for Channel 4 News and author of Taken As Red: The Truth About Starmer's Labour
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
China's foreign minister dismisses European worries over rare earths
BERLIN, July 3 (Reuters) - China's foreign minister downplayed European worries over rare earth exports restrictions on Thursday, saying it was standard practise to control dual-use goods exports but that Europe's needs could be met if applications were submitted. Wang Yi was speaking in Berlin during a joint news conference with his German counterpart, on the second leg of a European tour seeking to lay the groundwork for a summit between EU and Chinese leaders later this month. "Rare earths have not been, are not, and will not be a problem between China and Europe, or between China and Germany," Wang said. "If legal applications are submitted, Europe's and Germany's normal needs can be met." China, which controls over 90% of global processing capacity for rare earths used in everything from automobiles to home appliances, had imposed restrictions in early April requiring exporters to obtain licenses from Beijing. German Foreign Minister Johann Wadephul said the restrictions were causing "great concern" and tarnishing China's image in Germany as a reliable trade partner. "We are on the path to finding sustainable joint solutions that will bring the necessary detente," he said. But when Wang was asked if an agreement could be reached on restrictions ahead of the EU-China summit, he said: "This is not an issue between China and Europe... controlling dual-use goods is standard practice. China and Germany both have the right to do so." The Chinese Ministry of Commerce already has a fast-track procedure in place to ensure that normal approvals are processed as quickly as possible, he added. Wang came to Berlin from Brussels, where he met with EU officials including the bloc's high representative for foreign policy Kaja Kallas, who also urged Wang to end rare earth export restrictions. Wadephul said the two foreign ministers also discussed Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Taiwan and the crisis in the Middle East. "We believe China can play a constructive role in relation to Iran," he said.
