Maria Miller is someone you want to believe in. The Conservative Shadow Minister for the Family is well informed on the prime early years debates. She engages with concerns over quality and says with conviction that provision 'must not fail children'. She is open to briefings from the sector and has heard from organisations representing children, families and professionals within maintained, private, voluntary and independent (PVI) early years provision, and from allied agencies. As a result, both she and her party's engagement with the early years have been cautiously welcomed.
'The Childcare Forum is broadly pleased with the overview of the Conservatives' childcare policy,' says Steve Alexander, chief executive of the Pre-school Learning Alliance (PLA) and chair of this Forum, which brings the PLA together with 4Children, Daycare Trust, the National Childminding Association (NCMA) and the National Day Nurseries Association (NDNA).
'It's good to see consensus on the importance of the early years,' says Wendy Scott, president of TACTYC. 'My memory of 12 years ago, when the Conservatives were last in government, is that we were banging on closed doors.'
Informally, early years leaders speak of liking Maria Miller, of finding her intelligent. But doubts continue to prick their confidence in her. Despite the dialogue, concerns remain that the Tories' guiding principle of personal choice in an open market are inconsistent with the sector's broad view of what is in young children's best interests. These concerns were fanned last November by Ms Miller's position paper in the Daycare Trust (2008) report, Childcare Futures, which led Nursery World to suggest that a Conservative government 'would significantly slim down the Early Years Foundation Stage and remove regulations if it came to power' ('Tories would change EYFS', 4 December).
Questioned about Ms Miller's paper, early years leaders expressed dismay at the disruption it implied. 'What we don't want is more change,' says Purnima Tanuku, NDNA's chief executive. 'There has already been so much.'
'The Conservatives should give EYFS a chance,' says Liz Bayram, chief executive of NCMA. 'An awful lot of work has gone into it and the principle of having a review in 2010 is a good idea.'
So it should be reassuring to know that, in person, Maria Miller speaks against all-out change. 'The last thing the childcare market needs is continual upheaval,' she says, echoing Purnima Tanuku. 'We've had such incredible change over the last ten years and there's a need for a period of consolidation.' She certainly does not suggest that EYFS would disappear, as some have feared, and supports the idea of a review in 2010.
And yet, frustratingly, the reassurance doesn't quite hold up. Ms Miller is quick to say that the need for consolidation would not rule out 'doing things' that are 'absolutely required'. And she is adamant that 'if there are significant problems with EYFS, they would need to be addressed earlier' than the 2010 review. As a general election is unlikely before 2010, this suggests a Conservative government might indeed make speedy changes - the very upheaval that Miller says is unhelpful. Mixed messages such as these hamper the progress of understanding between Conservatives and the early years sector. Wanting to believe in Maria Miller is not enough. To move forward, there must be some meeting of minds.
DRIVER FOR QUALITY
Quality is at the root of most questions for Maria Miller, with the status of the EYFS being a consistent reference point. 'Either you see EYFS as a burden or as a driver for quality,' says Liz Bayram. 'I recommend to the Conservatives that they see it as the latter.'
Early years leaders and experts are particularly uneasy with Ms Miller's statement in Childcare Futures that the Conservatives have 'serious reservations about the appropriateness of introducing the Early Years Foundation Stage when such a high proportion of staff still may only have the most basic of qualifications'.
For Kathy Sylva, lead author of the Evaluating Pre-school and Primary Education (EPPE) report, this misses the point. 'I see EYFS as a way of raising the quality of training and so raising the entitlement of all children to a challenging environment,' she says. But Maria Miller dismisses this as a 'chicken and egg' view, and this highlights a gap in perceptions as a similar comment might well be made of her own argument in Childcare Futures.
Kathy Sylva accepts that EYFS is aspirational. 'It is true that many practitioners are struggling with it. But let's put in place measures that will help them, for instance via the Graduate Leader Fund.'
But Ms Miller remains focused on her view of the current situation. 'The question is this,' she says. 'Do we have enough training in the workforce at the moment for practitioners to be confident in implementing EYFS in the way that it should be, and for it not to be a tick-box that people go through by rote?'
She voices concern that universal delivery of what is a 'complex framework' could 'militate against certain sectors of the childcare market', and cites this as the reason why childminders have been leaving the job - a point contradicted by Liz Bayram, who ascribes it to a combination of problems, only one of which is implementing the EYFS.
Ms Miller does recognise that the NCMA supports EYFS as a driver for quality and she credits the framework's role in 'driving up standards and also helping parents to understand the importance of quality in childcare'. And while she qualifies this statement, here is a comment that might just offer the basis for a more consensual dialogue and an appreciation of differing viewpoints which can go beyond the level of 'chicken and egg'.
It is harder to find points for agreement in the messages about broader provision. In Childcare Futures, Maria Miller says that the 'childcare market' must be opened up if Britain is to respond to the revolutions in working patterns and family life. Flexibility and diversity of provision are essential if families are to have a meaningful choice and, to offer this, she pledges support to the PVI sector as well as to childminders, with a reduced focus on centre-based provision.
DEREGULATION AND DIVERSITY
Few in the early years would disagree with the need to provide for diverse family lives. But concern that the EYFS may be slimmed down under a Conservative government - or 'sharpened', as Maria Miller puts it - is again crucial for their interpretation of Tory plans, especially if deregulation is the route to diversity. 'What is the guarantee that all children will be entitled to a broad and balanced curriculum if EYFS is weakened?' asks Kathy Sylva. And she wonders at the wisdom of turning the spotlight off maintained provision. 'The conclusion drawn through both EPPE and the Millennium Cohort Study is that children do best in the maintained sector. That's not a surprise, because staff in maintained early years provision usually have higher qualifications.'
Margaret Edgington is also wary. As a member of the Open EYE campaign, she is unhappy with the statutory nature of the early learning goals in EYFS. But this does not mean she is for deregulation. 'I fully support the welfare regulations, themes, principles and commitments of EYFS. We must have guidelines as to what is appropriate for young children.' Without them, she asks, what is there to ensure that provision is not anti-play?
It is important to know that Maria Miller refers only to an interest in 'quality childcare' such as that provided by 'the Montessori sector and Steiner schools'. She does not advocate formal early years provision - but neither does she refer to learning through play.
In fact, early childhood education is missing as a topic in Conservative statements about the early years, with 'childcare' the chosen term for all pre-school provision. Asked what she understands 'quality childcare' to be, Ms Miller replies, 'The measure of a quality experience for young children is ... are these children school-ready?'
It is a disappointing response, judging the quality of children's experience by who they become, not by who they are now - an idea deeply at variance with that held by much of the sector.
So is that it for the meeting of minds? Was it really too much to hope that Maria Miller is someone who the early years can believe in? Well ... no. That would be unfairly pessimistic. This 'becoming' view of early childhood is not uncommon outside the sector.
It is up to the early years lobby to speak convincingly for a different perception of quality in young children's experience. And while the mixed messages and qualifying statements are frustrating, Ms Miller never rules anything out. She remains open to new information and so, one must hope, to new ideas. 'I don't think there is any requirement at all,' she says, 'to pre-judge what we might do.' In that case, there must be room to carry on talking and to look for agreement on what really is in the best interests of young children.
REFERENCES
- Daycare Trust (2008), Childcare Futures, Policy insight paper 2. London: Daycare Trust
- Nicholson, S, Jordan, E, Cooper, J & Mason, J (2008) Childcare and Early Years Providers Survey. London: Department for Children, Schools and Families
- Pat Gordon-Smith is a writer and editor for the early years.
