Sir, I am so pleased that The Times has highlighted the growing bureaucratisation of children’s lives

(“Stealth curriculum is ‘threat to all toddlers’ ”. Nov 30). It seems that more than 20 years of research that establishes the true neurological and psychological needs of how children can develop to their true potential is ruled out or ignored when making policy.

What does the Government hope to achieve? Why is there this constant drive for total control of families’ lives, down to little children, who should be allowed to develop at their own pace within a close, stable, loving environment?

One size does not, and will never, fit all. I have witnessed first hand what is already happening in primary schools that attempt to cater for hundreds of already vulnerable children, but are having vital emotional and psychological support withdrawn because they don’t hit educational targets. It amounts to abuse. I challenge Ed Balls to visit some of these schools and to actually listen, something that patently isn’t happening, despite great protestations from Government departments.

Melanie Gill

Child forensic psychologist

Sir, Both the Government and the Opposition are having a knee-jerk reaction to statistics that make uncomfortable reading, instead of looking at the approaches used in those countries with a better track record than our own.

The countries near the top of these lists have not achieved their success by a “more formal, earlier” policy, but by striving to provide a well educated and articulate workforce for “birth to sixes” who are highly motivated to help these youngest children to understand and feel part of the world around them.

Go to Italy and watch this age group out in the market place or exploring the features of their town, or to Norway — where “kindergarten” goes on even longer — with an emphasis on den-building and discoveries in the woods as important learning opportunities. Or watch children in Denmark playing and exploring alongside involved and well-trained practitioners who value conversation and extend improvised play (much of it out of doors) because they understand that experiences and verbal articulacy need to come before reading or writing about it. Or go to Berlin and spend time with groups of very young children, each with two key carers who assess emotional needs as well as the value of the children’s play, through unforced interactions and such heartwarming experiences as visiting each child’s home as a group to play and have tea!

Contrast that with the experience of many of our under-5s, trapped for up to ten hours a day behind high perimeter fences in a special “children’s world” of red, yellow, blue and green plastic. We will never have children who are articulate, or confident readers and problem solvers, while we continue to put the “tricks of the trade” ahead of real experiences.

Sally Thomas

Birth-to-5 consultant and trainer

Sir, Contrary to your piece, our Early Years Foundation Stage has not been introduced by “stealth” — we have consulted widely and publicly on this, and it was debated fully in Parliament. We have the wholehearted backing of the vast majority of early years specialists, who think that the EYFS fits with their flexible approaches to learning.

This is because it is a play-based approach which allows children to learn and develop at their own pace. Children will not be tested against a formal curriculum but rather observed to make sure that they are developing normally. Nursery staff and childminders will respond to each child’s learning needs. This could mean, for example, guiding a child to put a brick through the correct slot or showing them that mixing two colours together can produce a third colour. This merely replicates in nurseries and other early years settings exactly what good, interested parents do at home. It is just not the case that the EYFS is “highly prescriptive”.

The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education study, carried out by the Institute of Education, shows that good-quality early years education can have a lasting positive impact on a child’s learning until the age of 10. It would be irresponsible of us not to act on this evidence and to do our best to provide the best possible start in life for every child in this country.

Beverley Hughes

Children’s Minister

Explore Letters

• Feedback