While testing from a young age could be seen as preparation for later life when competing for university places and careers, could ranking primary school pupils be a step too far?

Experts fear too much measuring could be damaging after proposals to rank primary school pupils against their peers across the country were announced.

The proposals would see youngsters put into ten per cent bands or deciles based on their achievements. Parents would be told of their child’s position, for example, that they are in the top ten per cent in the country in a particular subject.

They are part of package of measures set out by ministers which they say will help raise the bar on achievement in primaries and ensure youngsters are ready for secondary school.

The Government is also consulting on introducing a new ‘baseline assessment’ to ensure children are making progress, which could be ‘a simple check of a child’s ability’ in their first weeks of compulsory schooling, or maintaining existing teacher-marked tests at the age of seven.

Children are required to reach Level 4 in English and maths at the end of primary school under the current system, with primaries expected to ensure that 65 per cent of their pupils achieve this standard. They are also measured on the progress they make between ages seven and 11. But ministers are proposing that from 2016, schools will need to have at least 85 per cent of their students reaching the new higher standard.

The plans also contain measures to scrap national curriculum levels and introduce a scoring system based on international tests.

Primary schools are also set to be given hundreds of pounds more for each poor child to improve standards among disadvantaged youngsters. The pupil premium – cash for disadvantaged school-age children which is aimed at raising achievement – is to rise to £1,300 per eligible primary pupil in 2014/15, compared with £900 this year.

Coun Ralph Berry, executive member for children’s services on Bradford Council, says while they do need to look for a solution to make the transition from primary to secondary school smoother, he doesn’t think this is the answer.

“Yet again we are looking at the right problems, but coming up with a solution that has been drawn from a narrow range of advisers. I think there is an issue about how we get a smoother transition, but you do not beat improvement out of people.”

Coun Berry fears the proposals will lead to more labelling and stigmatism. “Children develop at different rates and learn in different ways, and I don’t understand how this will lead to an improvement, particularly across primary to secondary transition.

“I share the concerns that teachers and trade unions have about the implication of banding children into ten bands does not seem like a very helpful diagnostic tool.”

But Coun Berry says the boost on pupil premium “has some merits and is worth looking at”.

Ann Nash, Bradford branch secretary of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, says: “Artificial measurement damages children. That is not what education is about. Putting them in a pigeon hole at whatever age is damaging to children.

“We all know we are accountable, there is no denying that, and that is what we are there for, but not in this way.”

Elizabeth Lawley, headteacher of St John’s CE school in Dawson Lane, Bradford, says: “Parents find the current system of levels very difficult to understand. At St John’s, our annual reports give parents a broad indication of how well their child is doing in relation to other class members; parents told us that they wanted this information.

“As yet, it is unclear how the coalition’s proposals will raise standards. Teachers are familiar with the current system and know how to help children to achieve the higher levels.

“Schools and teachers already set ambitious targets for their pupils; at our school some of our children have been able to achieve L6 in maths and English.

“I am concerned that the current pace of change already poses a threat to standards. We will have a new curriculum to implement, changes to inspection and special needs, to name but a few. I hope that the Government take account of the need to pace change carefully so that standards do not fall as a result of their policies.”

Bradford East MP David Ward says he felt the news about pupil ranking overshadowed the good news about pupil premiums, but added: “We have got to look at it and see what it all means.”

Siobhan Freegard, founder of parenting site Netmums.com, says: “This policy risks labelling children as stupid because of the month they are born in. In primary classes, especially the younger years, there is a major developmental difference between the eldest in the class born in September and the youngest with August birthdays who are effectively a year behind.

“Children mature at very different rates and it is simply putting too much pressure on youngsters at a very young age.

“Teachers have always used groupings to help them teach to the individual child’s ability, but children move groups every term as well as every year. Most parents will despise the idea that children as young as four are labelled ‘failing’ or ‘gifted’ or even ‘average’, as we know labels can be self-fulfiling prophesies.”