There are times when ministers should treat any criticism from the educational establishment as something of a badge of honour. There are, though, occasions when such objections have the force of reason on their side. As we report today, a large number of experts in the field have signalled alarm at England's Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage document which is due to become law next autumn. They are definitely right to do so.

The mindset of this missive is captured by its sub-title, namely: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth to 5. As those words imply, this is an ambitious and essentially authoritarian volume. It seeks to impose by statutory diktat standards for teaching not just in state nursery schools but in private institutions and also by registered childminders.

What is being asked is stunningly prescriptive, with 72 separate early-learning “goals” that range from the worthy if banal (“continue to be interested, excited and motivated to learn”) to the implausibly optimistic (“understand what is right, wrong and why”) to the trendy (“begin to know about their own cultures and beliefs and those of other people”) to the insanely detailed (“use their phonetic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words” and “use developing mathematical ideas and methods to solve practical problems”). All of this is to be subject to an inspection regime now located within Ofsted.

There are three compelling reasons to regard this exercise with profound suspicion. The first is that there is still a lively debate, not only among the professionals but involving humble parents as well, about the balance between “work” and “play” in the education of very young children. Some would like their offspring to master reading and the recognition of numbers at 3 or 4 but there are many others who would prefer their creative spirits stretched in more informal ways before the business of schooling begins in earnest. The evidence in favour of one or other device is open to legitimate discussion. Different styles might well suit different children, and that can be as true for siblings as strangers. It would be wrong, even if this rubric were only imposed in the state sector, to reduce diversity and parental choice. What is worse, secondly, is for the Department for Children, Families and Schools to insist that its “vision” must be followed in schools where parents have dug into their own pockets to send their children, presumably on the basis that they favour the teaching techniques deployed there. It will also, finally, make the process of inspections a bureaucratic nightmare. Until recently, the purpose was to ensure that the welfare of young children was respected by those entrusted with their care. That important ideal will be diluted as Ofsted attempts to evaluate whether a lengthy list of goals has been met and what remedial measures should be threatened if the “standards” are not met. Ofsted is a fine body that continues to play a pivotal role in driving up standards in primary and secondary education. But it does not need to be an Oftot as well.

Parents will detect a shiftier side to this act of state intervention. There is a “we know best” tone to this document that makes for uneasy reading at ages well above that of pre-school children. Ed Balls, the Children's Secretary, has to look again (or, perhaps, the first time) at this area. For here, at least, Stalin has not given way to Mr Bean.