Clause 41 - The learning and development requirements
Childcare Bill
9:30 am
Annette Brooke (Shadow Minister, Education & Skills; Mid Dorset and North Poole, Liberal Democrat)
This is one of the most important clauses. For that reason alone, we must get the wording right. As I said on Second Reading, I do not think that it is right, despite my continuing support for the early years foundation stage. I thank the Minister for circulating the document. I am not ready to be tested on it yet. I have read it, but I need to do more work on it and do not want her to ask me whether I have read page so-and-so. There is some excellent material in the document, and I am really pleased about that.
I hope that the Minister treats my amendments as the most serious that I have tabled.The main problem is the inclusion of the word “taught”. If we are talking about a curriculum—a vision—for nought to five-year-olds, clearly it is not appropriate to have teacher-initiated activities, which is how I interpret the word “taught”, throughout those stages. The document—I could not express this better myself—makes the point that there will be a mix of child-initiated learning and teacher-initiated learning. It is dangerous to include “taught”. The quality of the work force will be important for successful delivery, but things will take time. There could be a problem with people knowing that “taught” is in the Bill. Sometimes, the best-meaning parents in the world try to cram their children with information at a very early stage and, in doing so, possibly damage development. There are dangers.
Amendment No. 220 was my first stab; I prefer amendment No. 221, which is rather better. Rather than use the word “taught”, the Bill should say:
“young children should experience, appropriate to their age and ability”.
The Minister obviously has drafting experts, but I feel that the amendment encompasses what we want to say. It does not preclude teaching, but it ensures that the approach is not unidirectional, which is basically what the Bill says. Someone pointed out that there is something sexist about amendment No. 220. If I could have expressed it in any other way, I would have done, because that is the last thing that I want to be.
I have thought long and hard about whether “play” should be included, but because there will obviously be some teacher-initiated activities at age four, it is difficult to use that word. However, I will give it some more thought.
On amendment No. 222, I said in my opening speech that we should have more “nots”. Subsection (5) states:
“A learning and development order may not require”.
I am pleased to see paragraph (a). I mentioned that I visited a first school in the past two weeks where it was clear that there was good teaching—I am happy to use the word “teaching”, possibly, in the context of four-year-olds. Even at that age, the good teacher-led process involved a mix of child-initiated and teacher-initiated activities throughout the day. The Minister laughs at my using the word “teaching”, but my example expresses exactly what I mean. I do not want a two-year-old to be taught in a traditional way. There will be some teacher-led activities, but the situation is different as we move through the different stages. The word “taught” is wrong in the context of nought to five-year-olds.
However, returning to the “nots”, amendment No. 222 provides that no particular teaching style should be prescribed and that no specific curriculum content should be delivered. I am trying to make the provision much looser, so that the Minister’s planned long consultation, which is to be applauded because the work will not be completed until 2008, is as open-ended as possible.
To open up the provision, the amendment introduces extra “nots” rather than what might be interpreted as a “must”. I know the Minister’s commitment to consulting the experts, and that is right, but this important clause needs to be less prescriptive. What is required is leadership and thrust, not prescription.