Sir, Professor Joan Freeman erects a confused straw man in her advocacy of early literacy teaching (letters, July 25). She is mistaken, first, in asserting that our early years campaign supports “prohibitions . . . to stop enthusiastic children from getting the basics of literacy at nursery”. Not one of our members has ever advocated such a view. We certainly agree with Professor Freeman’s implicit but unexceptional point that children who show a natural, unforced and freely chosen aptitude for certain learning experiences, including literacy, should not be “prohibited” from those experiences.

Professor Freeman also spuriously conflates “children who are read to” with “teaching early literacy”: the two activities are by no means the same, and could easily be entirely distinct and different, one from the other, in both experience and effects. However, what we do strongly challenge is the unquestioned assumption in government policymaking that it is both “normal” and desirable to encourage complex literacy experiences for all four to five-year-olds.

If the introduction of quasi-formal, cognitively privileged regimes of early childhood learning from the late 1990s onwards were to have impacted adversely on children’s healthy development, then this would be manifesting today in the behaviour and experience of children about ages 14-15. Though assuming causality is inevitably hazardous, some of us strongly suspect that it is indeed no coincidence that it is precisely this age group that is exhibiting such antisocial tendencies today. Current cultural trends are certainly consistent with this thesis; and, if our suspicions are anything like right, then the imposition of yet more developmentally inappropriate learning via the “learning requirements” of the EYFS can only exacerbate this toxic and deeply harmful trend, with incalculable long-term economic and social costs to our society.

Dr Richard House
Open EYE Campaign steering group

Sir, Professor Joan Freeman makes the point that if children are not read to at home they must get it from outside. I fully agree that children who are read to at home come to school with a desire to learn and a certain advantage over those who are not. However, even the best schools cannot provide this missing factor in the early years of a child. Consider a child-to-teacher ratio of 15-1 and tell me what you think.

What needs to be done is to tackle the problem before the child starts formal education by, for example, home visits, parenting classes etc; in short, teaching parents.

After years of experience as an early years teacher and head teacher I am convinced this is where resources should be placed.

Ann Tyas
Rotherham, S Yorks

Explore Letters

• Feedback