WHY is the government, with 'education' as its watchword, suddenly going soft on the idea of tests for seven-year-olds?

If they are shown to be putting children of that age under pressure, then, says Education Secretary David Blunkett, he will seriously consider changing them.

But, hey, isn't that the idea of the tests - to put the kids (and their teachers) on their toes?

We saw what harm was done by the no-pressure, play-school approach of so-called child-centred learning, by which youngsters were supposed to acquire knowledge of the vital basics in primary school if they felt disposed to - as opposed to the traditional system of having the three Rs hammered into their brains through disciplined learning.

Was not the same Mr Blunkett driven to set targets of literacy and numeracy for primary school children - because they were doing so badly under the unpressurised system?

Where does this foolish notion come from, that school should be 'fun' - when the failings of that soppy outlook are what drove the government to get tough on education's failing in the first place?

The tests are the vital instrument for raising standards and hurt to the kiddies' feelings - above all, over being branded as failures - has too long been an excuse for allowing them and their teachers to coast through what are the crucial years in which they should be grasping the fundamentals, not idly playing with sticky paper.