Tests in league of their own

However, Disraeli's adage was tailor-made for today's plethora of education data. For how else can one adequately explain the contradiction between record GCSE passes, and the assertion that standards have been diluted in the politically-driven pursuit of excellence?

This will be accentuated by the latest proposed reforms to primary education which are likely to see more schools branded as "failing" while their actual attainment results continue to improve.

Though this appears, at face value, to be illogical, there is considerable merit behind the Government's intentions. It wants 60 per cent of 11-year-olds to have a solid command of both English and maths.

Based on last year's results, one in five Yorkshire schools would have failed to have achieved this benchmark – an unacceptably high number. But, rather than settling for this percentage figure as the norm, Ministers are looking to introduce a progression element to reward those schools – particularly those with challenging catchment areas – that improve year-on-year.

Even though this criteria will doubtlessly be open to interpretation, as Disraeli implied, it, nevertheless, represents a sea-change that deserves endorsement. After 12 years of New Labour reforms that used the GCSE syllabus for 16-year-olds as the starting point, the coalition has recognised that early years education is fundamental to a child's future prospects – a point articulated by the respected Labour backbencher Frank Field last week.

It's disingenuous, therefore, of the teaching unions to voice their opposition to the latest changes because they remain opposed to the principle of testing – the NAHT, and their contemporaries, are always quick to condemn the number of pupils who leave primary schools with an inadequate grasp of basic numeracy and literacy skills.

Now that the Government has recognised this, the unions should be prepared to be magnanimous and work with Ministers to ensure children receive the best possible start to their education rather than using statistical arguments to perpetuate longstanding disagreements.