Opinion: In my view - An age of difference

Both the conference of the Association of Teachers and Lecturers and the select committee on primary education share the widely expressed concerns about school starting age and mandatory learning goals in the foundation stage.

Michael Gove, shadow minister for children, schools and families, has also been vocal about the need to return to a more traditional syllabus, requiring teachers to teach, rather than trying to cure the social ills of society.

I am concerned about the confusion these views might lead to. There is truth in all of them, but the danger is that those in charge of policy decisions may confuse the developmental needs of our youngest children with the educational needs of those over six and continue to lump them all together.

Confusion arises when we speak of 'education from birth' as if it is a continuum. This mantra may be leading to the top-down and too-much-too-soon concerns. It would be better to speak of 'development from birth' and 'education from six'.

We all develop and learn naturally from birth, with the possibility to equip ourselves with the foundation of emotional and social readiness. Where opportunities are lacking, these can be provided by high-quality nursery settings which research has proved are beneficial for all children whose parents want them.

There is a mindset that prescriptive education should start ever earlier, hence the compulsory framework of the EYFS for learning, despite a later school starting age in Scandinavia giving rise to better outcomes.

We urgently need clarity here. Young children must be helped to develop naturally by caring parents, childminders and practitioners.