Clause 19 - Meaning of “young child”
Childcare Bill
6:00 pm
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.”