No one would dispute that a child's early years are crucial. By the time a tot enters the pre-school system at two years old, the middle-class child will usually have an academic advantage over its poorer peers. As the system stands, this difference is likely to become more pronounced as their school career progresses. The Early Years Foundation Stage Framework, set to become law in September, is designed to iron out the disparities. The aim is worthy, but the method is wrong. The programme is too regimented in its aims, consisting of continual assessment to ensure that under-fives learn skills like using phonic methods to read long words and implementing mathematical ideas to solve problems. It places huge bureaucratic demands on teachers and assistants, who are required to monitor whether each child is reaching around 70 goals set out before its fifth birthday. And, while methods like phonics are very useful, the scheme ignores the theories which suggest that using play to develop creativity and motor skills is a more valuable way of spending those first years.

The Government may not find such theories convincing, but many parents do. It has long been their right to choose for their children an independent school that offers a less formal approach to early learning. But because the new legislation will apply to every educational establishment for children under five, they will no longer have this choice. There have been vociferous protests from smaller school organisations, including the Montessori and Steiner Waldorf schools, which emphasise artistic development and take an unhurried approach to learning. But today a letter seen by The Times from the Independent Schools Council to the Minister for Children shows that even schools with a formal educational approach find the law too restrictive.

The ISC points out that its 946 member schools which teach the under-fives are not subject to the National Curriculum for primary or secondary education. It is only in teaching the youngest children that independent schools are required to meet government targets. Adhering to these targets will mean, the ISC says, teachers “hovering around children with clipboards, Post-it notes and cameras to collect ‘evidence'”. Independent schools' practice already entails monitoring children and maintaining a high staff-pupil ratio, but as most of their results have long spoken for themselves there is no reason for these practices to become regulated by inflexible laws.

The Government has been slow to listen to criticism of this initiative, but many educators have protested. The Open EYE (Early Years Education) group emphasises that it is not against all regulation, but argues strongly against the compulsory teaching of abstract academic subjects at too early an age. The Early Education Advisory Group set up by the Government has said that the proposed literacy targets are too ambitious for pre-school and advised that they be dropped. The Group was worried that children and nursery teachers alike would be demotivated.

The Government must take these concerns on board and rethink the best way of ensuring a good start for every child. At so young an age, each child is different, and setting achievement targets in stone is inappropriate. Independent schools should certainly continue to offer an independent alternative. And enough formal hurdles await state school children after the age of seven. No one wants to stick a list of their toddler's educational goals to the fridge.