Clause 19 - Meaning of “young child”
Childcare Bill
5:45 pm

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing and Shoreham, Conservative)

I beg to move amendment No. 241, in page 10, line 21, at beginning insert ‘(1)’.

David Amess (Southend West, Conservative)

With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 242, in page 10, line 21, leave out ‘young child’ and insert ‘baby’.

No. 278, in page 10, line 25, leave out ‘five’ and insert ‘two’.

No. 243, in page 10, line 25, at end insert—

‘(2)For the purposes of this Part and Part 3, a child is a “young child” during the period—

(a)beginning immediately on the 1st September next following the date on which he attains the age of two, and

(b)ending immediately after the 1st September next following the date on which he attains the age of four.’.

No. 112, in clause 39, page 19, line 33, at end insert

‘and

(c)distinguish between such requirements applicable to children under the age of 2 (babies) and those aged over 2 (young children).’.

No. 248, in schedule 1, page 53, line 35, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—

‘8(1)Section 81 of the 2002 Act (the key stages) is amended as follows.

(2)In subsection (1)(a) for “the age of six” substitute “the age of five”.’.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing and Shoreham, Conservative)

Again, we are setting out our stall for later debates. We take the view that children beneath the age of four should be treated differently from other children, and children from nought to two should be   treated differently as well. I will not go into great detail but will elaborate more when we reach the foundation years definition, particularly in clause 41.

I will take the first five amendments together, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton will speak to amendment No. 248, which is slightly different.

The first five amendments would split the definitions in clause 19. The lead amendment has been helpfully supplied by the Clerk, I think, because it does not appear a very dramatic amendment on which to hang our arguments, simply involving inserting the figure “(1)”. I am told that for mechanical reasons it is necessary to group the other amendments under it. If we push the amendment to a vote, it may seem rather finicky, but the amendments—the first five—need to be taken holistically as a group.

It would be useful to have advice from the Government on the terms that they use. All sorts of phrases can be tossed around, but it is useful to make a distinction, as we have by referring to children between the ages of nought and two as babies and those aged between two and four as young children. We could have used a host of other definitions, but I am advised by child care experts that the two terms we use would be generally acceptable in referring to those age groups. We could use infants, we could use young children and very young children, or we could use very, very young children and very young children, but I think that babies and young children are simple enough for the age groups that we are considering. That will become important in later clauses, when the Bill tries to define the developmental requirements for babies and young children of those age groups, which we believe are different from those for older children.

The amendments are self-explanatory. We are simply elaborating on the clause, the bottom line being the definition of baby—nought to two—and of young child—two to four.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)

Amendments Nos. 278 and 248 are probing amendments that try to obtain clarity about the overlap between “Birth to Three Matters”, a strategy, and the foundation strategy. By its nature, “Birth to Three Matters” is a play-based strategy. The introduction to the framework says:

“The Framework takes as its focus the child and steers away from subjects, specific areas of experience and distinct curriculum headings.”

That is as it should be for what I think we will now call babies and also for the first year of being a young child.

By contrast, the foundation stage, which includes the reception class of a primary school, will begin to bring in more formal teaching. Indeed, many reception classes now begin serious work on chronological awareness and phonics teaching, and many parents and teachers see reception as the start of proper school. The early-years foundation stage brings together both those strategies. It incorporates “Birth to Three Matters” and the curriculum guidance for the foundation stage, which also emphasises play. Both   will then be incorporated into the early years foundation strategy. On page 49, the 10-year strategy says:

“The Government proposes to create a single quality framework for services for children from birth to five. The new framework will take an integrated approach to care and education, reflecting the reality of the way childcare services operate. It will be underpinned by a play-based approach to promoting children’s development and learning, building on children’s experiences to help them extend their skills and develop their understanding and confidence.”

My concern is that, if we incorporate the rising-fives into the meaning of young child and incorporate strategies applicable to toddlers to children in the reception class, that may have a dampening effect on raising standards in primary schools.

My understanding is that, for example, the literacy and mathematics frameworks cover children from three to 11, so they overlap the early-years foundation strategy. Is a territorial battle going on in the DFES over these strategies? If there is, who is winning? Is it those who are concerned about rigour and standards, or is it the other guys?

I was reassured to an extent by the wording in the document circulated to members of the Committee, which sets out some broad principles about the early-years foundation stage. I am not clear what the status of the document is—whether it is guidance, regulation or merely ministerial intention—but I am reassured by a number of paragraphs, particularly paragraph 13, which says:

“There has been a long debate about the extent to which early education should be formal or informal, often summarised by the extent to which the curriculum is or is not ‘play’ based. EPPE concludes that in the most effective centres ‘play’ environments were used to provide the basis of instructive learning. The most effective approach, and the one which will be at the core of EYFS, is both ‘teaching’ and providing freely chosen yet potentially instructive play activities.”

Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland, Labour)

I reinforce what the hon. Gentleman was saying about the importance of play-based activity for children. Unfortunately, I had to miss the earlier part of this afternoon’s sitting because we were launching the all-party group on children’s play, but we will discuss some of these matters in our debates on the Bill and in other forums.

Nick Gibb (Shadow Minister, Education; Bognor Regis and Littlehampton, Conservative)

I thank the hon. Lady for that helpful intervention. I am concerned about the debate on this matter, because some people would like the play-based approach to be extended further up the age range into primary school, which would not be effective in raising standards. We do have problems.

Tomorrow, Ofsted will publish a report that is cause for concern. It is cause for concern that 43 per cent. of 11-year-olds leave primary school without having achieved level 4 in reading, writing and arithmetic, so we should not be looking to extend playing further up the age range into primary school. I want to draw from the Minister the extent to which the play-based strategies applicable to babies and toddlers will be extended to the reception class of primary schools.

I am reassured by the document, paragraph 18 of which says:

“Suggested activities for babies will necessarily differ from the sorts of activities which are appropriate for 3 and 4 year olds.”

That is reassuring, as is the next paragraph, which says:

“We will also ensure we retain a clear focus on the Early Learning Goals, which set out challenging expectations for children’s achievement at the end of the Foundation Stage ... particularly in the areas of communication, language and literacy, and problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy where many of the existing goals are pitched at level 1 of the national curriculum.”

I am extremely reassured by paragraph 35, which says that in developing the early years foundation strategy,

“we will take account of the findings and recommendations of the Rose Review ... into the teaching of early reading”—

synthetic phonics—

“ ... in primary schools”.

Having said that, it would still be helpful if the Minister said something about the territorial dispute over reception classes, and whether that dispute is going on in the DFES or at a more philosophical level between practitioners and educationalists in the country as a whole. Are reception classes part of proper school or part of a child care settlement?

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford and Urmston, Labour)

We are trying to create a more coherent definition and framework that combines education and care for young children, and that leads them seamlessly into the more formalised learning of their primary school years.

I am confused by the two different sets of amendments. Perhaps the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham is the author of one set, and the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton is the author of the other. In any event, amendment No. 248 seeks to do something completely different from the amendment moved by the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham.

The first group of amendments would replace the intention to provide a coherent birth-to-five phase with a disjointed set of phases that are not focused on the child and that create an unnecessary and artificial distinction between periods of child development. We all know that children develop at their own pace. It is simply not possible to say when any child ceases to be a baby. A child who develops quickly should not be held back by staying in the baby phase, but should be allowed to move on.

In fact, the “birth to three matters” framework and the foundation stage overlap considerably to allow for the fact that children develop at different rates. We propose to remove that overlap by having one coherent phase in the early years foundation stage through which children will move at their own pace. It is meant to be a stage-related framework through which children will progress according to how quickly they reach certain stages. It is not an age-related framework.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I agree with what the Minister is saying. I wonder whether the calls for this change came from experts and providers in the child care field—I understand that there have been difficulties in working with the two frameworks—rather than its being initiated from the Department.

Beverley Hughes (Minister of State (Children, Young People and Families), Department for Education and Skills; Stretford and Urmston, Labour)

The practitioner world certainly see this as the next logical step on the journey that we have been undertaking with the definition of the foundation stage and the development of birth to three matters. Providers and practitioners find that useful. However, as many of them care for children from very young up to five, they feel that it would make sense to have a single coherent phase, particularly as there is an overlap to allow for the fact that some children will leave birth to three matters earlier than others.

Some anomalies would result from the proposal to split into a baby definition and a young child definition. Let me give an example. Two children—one born on 2 September 2006, the other born on 31 August 2007—would both be moved into the two to four phase on 1 September 2009, even though one would be just two and the other would be nearly three. For individual children that might be appropriate, but we cannot legislate that that would be appropriate for all children. We know that small children can make huge progress in a matter of months. There is a great deal of difference generally between what a child of nearly three and what a child of just two can do.

We shall have a debate about this on clause 41, so I shall not dwell on it now. I will simply say that what we intend to do here is completely counter to the amendment. I therefore ask the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham to withdraw it. We will certainly resist it.

That brings me to amendment No. 248, tabled by the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton. It seems to be going in completely the opposite direction. It would bring the start of key stage 1 to the beginning of the reception year when children are four. I am surprised by it, given some Opposition Members’ strong feelings about the use of the word “taught” and about the appropriateness of formalised learning for very young children. I do not agree with the amendment and I wonder whether many of the hon. Gentleman’s hon. Friends really agree with it either.

We want to see a coherent foundation stage from nought to five and then we want children to begin their key stage 1 learning in primary school at that appropriate age. I do not recognise what the hon. Gentleman was talking about in terms of territorial splits and so on. This is an issue about which people have strong views, but I do not think that it is about protecting territory either inside or outside the Department. I think that people want to do the best for children. I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press the amendment.

Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)

I want to add a further comment on amendment No. 248. I recently visited a first school in my constituency, and saw synthetic phonics being used right around the school. The head teacher pointed out   that one of the differences between the reception class and the first year of the first school was that, in the reception class, numeracy and literacy were not dealt with in one hour sessions, but had to be in clever, bite-sized portions right through the day. The amendment would be dangerous because it would mean four-year-olds sitting down to one hour of literacy, which would be ridiculous.

Tim Loughton (Shadow Minister (Children), Health; East Worthing and Shoreham, Conservative)

We are having a little foray into this territory. The essential developmental stages of a child between the ages of nought and two will become clear later on. It is very different from what happens subsequently.

I would have been delighted to have been at the group launched by the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman), and I duly responded to her invitation, but my priorities had to be with the Committee. I hope that I can attend future events and that the launch got off to a successful start.

Play is essential to children in their early years, which is why we have serious reservations about the way in which parts of the Bill are structured. They attempt to “educationalise” or “schoolificationalise”—crazy words that pressure groups have come up with—and detract from the prospects of children developing in the way that they should, without being put into any quasi-curriculum process from far too young an age.

There is a clear strategy to our approach. Amendment No. 248 relates to a schedule rather than a clause. However, rather than detain the Committee, we will live to fight another day on clause 41 and to go into more detail about why we think that it is essential to differentiate between early years children. Having said that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.