The dangers of implementing an infant curriculum extend beyond restricting free play. A statutory learning programme for under-fours will homogenise early years care as practitioners are forced to stick to prescribed activities.
Response to the Government's proposed infant framework has been very negative. The principal objection is the foreseen loss of creative play as infants are subjected to specific learning outcomes. Many practitioners were already sceptical about the early introduction of formalised learning when the national curriculum started as late as four. Children's minister Beverley Hughes has responded to critics of the proposal by arguing that an infant curriculum won't signify an end to childhood, but simply a 'coherent framework'. Yet it's exactly the coherent framework which is pernicious.
Choice is an even greater issue. Scarcely a week after the white paper championing new freedoms for educators, independence is being sucked out of a previously autonomous education sector. Infant care providers will be compelled to fully implement four 'distinct curriculum headings'. The result will be a Government monopoly on early years pedagogical methods, in which different approaches to early years teaching are disallowed. Choice tops the Government!s rhetorical agenda, yet in practice diversity is being disabled.
The other major concern is the inevitability of testing. To date, Government-set learning goals have been accompanied by testing as a way of regulating their implementation. Testing for 0-3 year-olds would run the risk of driving practitioners to becoming league-table, rather than child-development, focused.
So why is the Government proposing an infant curriculum? Crudely put, Ofsted-enforced outcomes permit regulation without investment. It's a cheap way of appearing accountable - but with high costs for children.
