Ever since the famous finding from the American Perry Pre-School Project, that a dollar spent on high-quality early education saved 16 dollars of future expenditure on welfare and other costs to society, educational researchers and politicians alike have been fascinated by the potential long-term effects of what happens in the early years.
In England the EPPE project's findings have made a very strong case for the continued benefits to children right the way through their primary and into their secondary school education. The recent report by Graham Allen MP argues that 'we should exploit the potential for massive savings in public expenditure through an Early Intervention approach'. In a similar vein, Frank Field MP's recent report to the coalition Government says that 'investing in children and families before school would also enable the Government to put taxpayers' investment in primary and secondary education to much better effect'.
Yet I wonder if these arguments might give the impression that early childhood is a time for social engineering, and that the early years are just like any kind of financial investment from which a good return is wanted.
As with any other type of education, early childhood education must principally be about what the children need now for the development of their senses, the cultivation of their creativity, and the growth of their learning.
Graham Allen and Frank Field have both produced reports of substance and value, with an appropriate emphasis on the need for a well-qualified and professional early years workforce. As members of that workforce, I think our professional obligations are to the children as individual people being cared for and educated. Education is important for itself, for the joy of learning, and anyone who has chosen to be an educator from a sense of vocation knows that any other benefits, however significant, are of secondary importance.
