...says Ed Balls.
Of course one's first reaction to this story can only be similar to Pete's. (headdesk, headdesk, headdesk. Ow...Pete's forehead is clearly harder than mine. )
On top of Pete's other comments, I would love to ask Mr Balls " Just how deceitful, patronising, Machiavellian and tyrannical do you think adults should be towards children? And "Do you really think such behaviour sets a good example of how humans should behave towards one another?".
And "If a child realises that they may never know when they're being tested, isn't this likely to raise rather than reduce their anxiety levels?"
And finally, "How ridiculous is it to imagine that you will get accurate results when a child doesn't know they're being tested! I have numerous examples of this problem as there was a fashion at my own junior school for surreptitious testing, but here is just one: a school friend of mine who went on to get prizes at Oxford, failed her 11 plus (quite badly apparently) all because she had no idea we were being tested and had decided to spend the morning staring out the window as whatever it was we were doing seemed too easy and boring. Was that test helpful in any way?" I would like to know.
Of course there couldn't be any other possible motive for Mr Balls' comments, now could there? Not with all the other current problems with SATs? No surely not...