Get the message

A'nappy curriculum', gross interference in the rights of parents to bring up their children, another example of the sinister workings of the nanny state. Perhaps predictably, the publication of The Early Years Foundation Stage: Consultation on a single quality framework for services to children from birth to five attracted a rash of lurid and misleading headlines.

The Daily Mail was responsible for the 'nappy curriculum' tag and both it and the Daily Telegraph wheeled out a spokeswoman for the National Federation of Parent-Teacher Associations to condemn the proposals as 'a step too far'. She said, 'We are now in danger of taking away children's childhood when they leave the maternity ward.'

At least the Daily Telegraph allowed Paul Ennals, chief executive of the National Children's Bureau, to bring some sanity to this one-sided debate.

'This is not about introducing a national curriculum for babies. It is about measuring progress against the five key outcomes for children,' he said.

But, significantly, while some tabloid and broadsheet newspapers railed against the document as a blueprint for introducing children to formal education too early, they were clearly not averse to the Government imposing more formal approaches on the teaching of reading through synthetic phonics.

So, practitioners face the twin tasks of combating alarm among parents about the Government's plans and explaining those key elements which help the sector, and resisting pressure to introduce very young children to teaching methods that may alienate them from reading rather than accelerate their progress.

Bernadette Duffy, head of the Thomas Coram Early Childhood Centre in Camden, says that while she understands concerns over changes in early learning goals relating to language and literacy, 'there are lots of things in the consultation document that are really powerful'.

Unlike the national curriculum, the document is underpinned by a strong set of principles, and section three contains important material on how children learn, how they perceive their learning and what practitioners need to do, such as developing flexible routines.

Role of practitioners

These good messages, Ms Duffy stresses, need to be 'presented in such a way that they are accessible to and supportive of practitioners' - and, crucially, debate over them should not be skewed by an over-emphasis on synthetic phonics.

One of the key messages, she insists, is that the curriculum is not a syllabus, or a programme of study, but is 'all the things a child experiences in the setting'. It is not a case of 'racing children through the early learning goals', and the emphasis must be on sensitive adults 'tuned into the needs of children as individuals'.

Peter Elfer, senior lecturer in early childhood studies at Roehampton University, says that practitioners need support in thinking about an implicit 'tension' in their work, whether they have a quasi-parental role and concentrate on children's emotional well-being, or they should have 'a more learning-oriented view'.

Early years consultant Sally Barnes, a former head and early years inspector, says parents are being 'grossly manipulated', partly through the scare tactics of newspapers. But she also believes the Government often 'steals the language of early years' to serve its own purposes in conveying messages which are not in the best interests of young children or those working with them.

For example, she says, the Rose Review referred to teachers using their professional judgement and the need for a rich curriculum. Yet these admirable aims are qualified at every turn by its endorsement of synthetic phonics.

She fears the sole beneficiaries of a move to embed this approach in the curriculum will be those advocating it and producing materials for its implementation.

'I have been a head twice, I have taught large numbers of children to read, and I can't remember a time when this same argument wasn't going on. I am not against phonics; I am against imposing things on young children before they are ready to take them on.'

She points out that children in most other countries do not start school until they are six and their brains and hearing are sufficiently developed to cope with more formal approaches - 'ultimately, they learn to read quicker and better', she says.

Dr Dominic Wyse, a lecturer in early childhood at Cambridge University, is also concerned at the implication contained in the Rose Review that synthetic phonics could be introduced for four-year-olds, stressing that there is no research evidence that this age group will gain any benefit.

But he goes further in his criticism of the Rose report, insisting that it was 'not informed by research' and that as a result there is 'no basis in evidence that we should move to synthetic phonics'. Urging practitioners to make their opposition to the conclusions of the Rose Review clear in responses to the consultation, he says that the Clackmannanshire study, which served as the basis for the proposed change, has never been peer-reviewed. 'I am amazed at how blatant the Rose Review is. To base a significant change of national policy on the basis of one research study is quite staggering, quite breathtaking.'

Thelma Miller, head of the Clyde early childhood centre in south-east London, which has become a children's centre in partnership with a local Sure Start programme, argues that the Government's latest proposals provide a useful link between the Birth to Three framework and the Foundation Stage guidance. She says that previously, while both were 'two excellent documents' in their own right, 'there has been something missing'.

She adds, 'This EYFS consultation document is there to further support and guide practitioners with our youngest children. It fleshes out and leads in a seamless way from Birth to Three to the Foundation Stage.'

Varied experiences

But, speaking in a personal capacity, Ms Miller says that while the EYFS must be a supportive framework for enabling practitioners to plan activities and meet children's needs, it also has to take account of the varying circumstances and specific levels of development of children. At times in her centre, up to 85 per cent of the children may have English as an additional language She, too, is perturbed by any proposals that would undermine the current literacy strategy applied at her centre, which is to give children rich and varied experiences in communication up to the age of five.

'We want them to understand the relationship between print and the spoken word and that communication takes many forms,' says MsMiller. 'Our children have two story times a day and we have a very print-rich environment.

'The guidance before the Rose Review was very good because it talked about children experimenting with sounds and linking sounds and letters, but at the end of the Foundation Stage, not at three or four.'

Boys, in particular, need to see some purpose to their reading, she says.

'If we teach children by rote when they are not ready, it takes away the joy of reading, language and communication. There is a danger of giving children what to them appear meaningless tasks of linking sounds with letters, which will bore them and could turn them off reading. Parents do look to practitioners for guidance on these issues.'

But Ms Miller cautions practitioners against a response to the Rose Review and subsequent Government proposals which simply leads to them venting their anger, however justified, and a polarised debate.

She has visited reception classes where phonics is used but fully integrated into a play-based curriculum and therefore is 'fun and meaningful'. 'I went to one classroom where the children were pirates and the reading area was like a ship and the children had to have a shell, so they were using the "sh" sound.'

Bernadette Duffy says that practitioners and parents must remember that children have always learned the sounds of words. 'What is new is that there is now so much guidance coming out and the danger is that it begins to seem that this is the only important thing. There are six areas of learning and linking sounds and letters is only one of a number of scales.

We need to keep a balance,' she says.

She says it is 'incredibly difficult to include everything you need to know about early years' in a document and there is always the risk of including too much detail. She argues that having the consultation - when neither Birth to Three Matters nor the Foundation Stage guidance were put out for consultation - presents an opportunity for constructive criticism and 'a chance to get the best document we can'. NW