I don’t mind a times-tables test in Year 4. There, I’ve said it.

I think it’s pointless and expensive way of government showing that it’s doing something that is already happening, but if it keeps ministers happy, then let them have their little check. It won’t do children any harm to be tested on their times tables. Indeed, it never did. At least with an online assessment, we’re a few steps further on from the days when failing such a test would lead to a rap over the knuckles with a wooden ruler.

It’s also worth considering the test in the wider context of changes to assessment. If as part of some tit-for-tat deal we accept a multiplication check in Year 4, but also ditch the nonsense of Year 7 resits, or the pointless farce of statutory teacher assessment in Year 6 maths, then I’m all in favour of it.

If children don’t achieve well on the times-tables test in Year 4, we’ve time in primary schools to put in the support they’ll need to enable them to succeed in maths in the future. By contrast, ticking a box to say a child is not yet at the expected standard in Year 6 helps nobody, least of all the child.

The quid pro quo lower down the primary years is not so clear-cut. I can understand people’s reservations about trading key stage 1 assessment for a reception baseline - and let’s make no mistake about it, this is a direct trade. If we’re not prepared to accept the baseline, then we must accept the retention of the KS1 tests and probably a harder-line version of them where it is the test scores that count, rather than teacher judgement.

But to see this as swapping testing seven-year-olds for testing four-year-olds is a mistake. Concerns are always raised about the effect statutory assessments have on the curriculum. Inevitably, the KS1 assessments have an impact on the curriculum and teaching in Year 2 - perhaps beyond. One of the merits of removing them is that teachers can focus more carefully on the needs of the children, rather than the demands of the assessment.

Freeing KS1

This is not an unimportant point. In schools where literacy levels are low on arrival - not uncommon in areas of deprivation and need - then freeing KS1 up to focus on oral language and vocabulary, rather than fretting about the details of which conjunctions are used can only be right. Teachers can then use assessment during KS1 to understand how best to support their pupils.

So is the reception baseline a price worth paying? I’m minded to say that not only is it worth paying, but it will also provide rewards.

For those who argue that testing four-year-olds will be unreliable, they’re probably right. So is testing 16-year-olds. So is following the instructions on the back of a microwave meal, but that’s not a reason to abandon the idea. More to the point, assessments at the age of four don’t need to be reported and aren’t published about individual children. But in a cohort of 30 or more children, they start to tell us about the group: enough to have an idea of how the school “adds value”.

Nor should we be worried about the effect on the curriculum. The whole point of the assessment is to get in early, before it affects that.

And those worried that the baseline assessment will be more a measure of children’s prior experience and family background than of the work of the school…well, that’s rather the point.

Michael Tidd is headteacher of Medmerry Primary School in West Sussex. He tweets @MichaelT1979