Responses to the Government statements
12/09/13
Dear Mr Gove,
I am writing in support of the above campaign, initiated with the open letter to the government in the Telegraph of 11 September 2013. I am disappointed by the reported response from said government, who has professed to wanting an ‘evidence base’ for the education of England’s children and young people. This wide evidence base, as cited in the open letter, does indeed support starting formal education at a later stage. This evidence base, and the letter, also supports learning through play earlier on, rather than no learning at all, which appears to be the government’s understanding and perhaps explains its strong and negative reaction. The reported response, while clearly political in nature, does little more than expose the ignorance of your ministers with regard to child development and the needs of young children. In contrast to the lengthy list of signatories to the letter, I wonder what qualifications, experience or expertise members of your department have in child development. The government should therefore ‘stop intervening in early education’, unless it takes the step of listening to experts in the field and following their advice, rather than making political decisions that in effect disadvantage our children and our future.
Yours sincerely,
Cath Lowther (Dr)
BA Hons MSc D.Ch.Ed.Psych
HDipEd PG Cert NPQICL
Dear Mr Gove,
I am writing in support of the above campaign, initiated with the open letter to the government in the Telegraph of 11 September 2013. I am disappointed by the reported response from said government, who has professed to wanting an ‘evidence base’ for the education of England’s children and young people. This wide evidence base, as cited in the open letter, does indeed support starting formal education at a later stage. This evidence base, and the letter, also supports learning through play earlier on, rather than no learning at all, which appears to be the government’s understanding and perhaps explains its strong and negative reaction. The reported response, while clearly political in nature, does little more than expose the ignorance of your ministers with regard to child development and the needs of young children. In contrast to the lengthy list of signatories to the letter, I wonder what qualifications, experience or expertise members of your department have in child development. The government should therefore ‘stop intervening in early education’, unless it takes the step of listening to experts in the field and following their advice, rather than making political decisions that in effect disadvantage our children and our future.
Yours sincerely,
Cath Lowther (Dr)
BA Hons MSc D.Ch.Ed.Psych
HDipEd PG Cert NPQICL
Schools Minister Liz Truss’s comment on Newsnight on 12 September reveals the extent of the government’s ignorance about the nature of play and its role in children's development.
She said “we’re not against play ... the issue is whether it should be entirely child initiated or teacher led”, yet every serious study of the subject has identified that the benefits of play arise from the child being in control. It is the self-determination, the experience of uncertainty, the management of risk, the negotiation of relationships and the exercise of choice – all in the process of vital self-expression and creativity – that makes playing so important for children and their development.
Until now, all government policy that touched on it recognised this crucial part of the definition of play. Its ignorance matched only by its arrogance, it seems that that this government is intent on marching children back - no doubt strictly in line, fingers on lips - to a time when they did what they were told or else. Look where that has got us.
Adrian Voce OBE
Founder of Play England
She said “we’re not against play ... the issue is whether it should be entirely child initiated or teacher led”, yet every serious study of the subject has identified that the benefits of play arise from the child being in control. It is the self-determination, the experience of uncertainty, the management of risk, the negotiation of relationships and the exercise of choice – all in the process of vital self-expression and creativity – that makes playing so important for children and their development.
Until now, all government policy that touched on it recognised this crucial part of the definition of play. Its ignorance matched only by its arrogance, it seems that that this government is intent on marching children back - no doubt strictly in line, fingers on lips - to a time when they did what they were told or else. Look where that has got us.
Adrian Voce OBE
Founder of Play England
Dear Letters Editor,
The contempt which government ministers have shown towards those challenging England's unconscionably early start to formal learning is breathtaking ("Start schooling later than age five, say experts", 12 September). A key problem for Mr Gove and Ms Truss is that 130 experts on education and learning are likely to know a lot more about what is, and isn’t, appropriate early learning than are professional politicians who possess little in-depth pedagogical experience. Indeed, ministers are inadvertently making the strongest case imaginable for our education system being taken out of the hand of the professional political class.
At least 95 per cent of early years educators would fundamentally disagree with ministers, and would argue that early learning should be developmentally appropriate, and that it is precisely children from deprived backgrounds who need a later start to quasi-formal learning, because they have not yet had the opportunity to develop the kinds of physical, social and emotional competencies that are an essential prerequisite for formal learning to be effective. For without these crucial foundations for learning (foundations that take time and which cannot be rushed), it is these very children who will experience failure at an early age, and who will often grow up with that deeply ingrained self-image for the rest of their lives. So it is the new campaign’s approach which is the true friend of the deprived children that ministers are rightly so concerned about, and not the misguided ‘earlier is better’ ideology that informs current DfE thinking.
Yours truly,
Dr Richard House, C.Psychol.
University of Winchester
There are many deeply troubling aspects to the government’s official response to the debate about when young children should be introduced to formal schooling. Not least worrying is the knee-jerk reaction, exemplified by Ms Truss and Mr Gove, of responding with ill-informed scare-mongering (‘wrong-headed’; ‘pop-psychology’ etc). Admittedly, such an approach is known to be an effective way to gain media coverage, yet it has no place in serious issues which shape the life chances of young children.
Most worrying, though, is the fallacious assumption made by many that delaying formal schooling means delaying education. Nothing could be further from the case. As every parent and educator knows, young children learn many things as they go about their everyday lives. The highly skilled role of parents and educators is to seize moments of opportunity to build on children’s natural curiosity and to plan creative and engaging activities to extend these. Effective early years education requires fine-tuned and responsive planning, supported by high quality interactions between knowledgeable staff and children (and between children) and rich resources that promote young children’s imaginative, creative, motivated and focussed engagement in a range of curricula areas, including early literacy and early numeracy. This approach is known to offer the kinds of spaces and opportunities that foster curiosity, positive learning dispositions and positive images of the self as a learner and effective communicator. These attributes are known to form the foundations for lifelong learning, as those countries who come ‘top’ in international league tables know only too well. In the meantime, the DfE big guns prefer to expend their energy in combative bickering. Where is the ‘quality’ in that?
Dr Rosie Flewitt
Early Years and Primary Education
Institute of Education
University of London
Most worrying, though, is the fallacious assumption made by many that delaying formal schooling means delaying education. Nothing could be further from the case. As every parent and educator knows, young children learn many things as they go about their everyday lives. The highly skilled role of parents and educators is to seize moments of opportunity to build on children’s natural curiosity and to plan creative and engaging activities to extend these. Effective early years education requires fine-tuned and responsive planning, supported by high quality interactions between knowledgeable staff and children (and between children) and rich resources that promote young children’s imaginative, creative, motivated and focussed engagement in a range of curricula areas, including early literacy and early numeracy. This approach is known to offer the kinds of spaces and opportunities that foster curiosity, positive learning dispositions and positive images of the self as a learner and effective communicator. These attributes are known to form the foundations for lifelong learning, as those countries who come ‘top’ in international league tables know only too well. In the meantime, the DfE big guns prefer to expend their energy in combative bickering. Where is the ‘quality’ in that?
Dr Rosie Flewitt
Early Years and Primary Education
Institute of Education
University of London