School Gate: Are we teaching our children too much too young?

Alpha Mummy: How the under 5s recommendations and sex education are related

A powerful lobby of leading authors and educationists accuse the Government today of setting children up for failure.

In a letter to The Times they say that ambitious education targets – including using punctuation before a child turns 5 – are unrealistic and risk harming pre-school children by setting back their development.

They accuse Beverley Hughes, the Children’s Minister, of ignoring her advisers and shelving research commissioned by her department because it contradicted policy.

Philip Pullman and Michael Morpurgo, the children’s authors, Susie Orbach, the sociologist, and Steve Biddulph, the psychologist, have joined dozens of academics to demand that the reforms be scrapped or turned into a voluntary code before they come into force this autumn.

Children as young as 4 are expected to write in sentences and use punctuation under the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) framework – widely described as a “toddlers’ curriculum”.

This sets 69 goals and more than 500 development milestones that children in England should reach by the age of 5.

They are supposed to use mathematics to solve practical problems, retell stories in the correct sequence, understand right from wrong, read simple sentences on their own, sit quietly, be able to use a computer and understand that other people have different views, cultures and beliefs that need to be respected.

However, two of the most contentious targets are being reviewed by Sir Jim Rose, who carried out an inquiry into primary school literacy teaching. These are that children should “write their own names . . . and begin to form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation” and, “use phonic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words”.

Evidence suggests that only 30 per cent of five-year-olds achieve the first target and 46 per cent the second.

Campaigners claim that young children affected by EYFS will become “guinea-pigs of ministerial whim”.

An outcry from nurseries, child-minders, pre-schools and independent schools, who will have to adopt the framework, prompted two concessions from Ms Hughes, including the review of the two literacy targets.

But these are lambasted today by the Open Eye campaign, founded by Richard House, a child psychologist and university lecturer.

The letter, signed by more than 80 campaigners, says the two “alleged ‘concessions’ fail to address the concerns” because Ms Hughes has “ignored calls to scrap or suspend literacy goals that are widely deplored as being far too advanced for many young children.

“Her other ‘concession’ – the 34-page exemption process purporting to enable providers to opt out of some of the ‘learning requirements’ – is expertly camouflaged, labyrinthine and bureaucratically complex, appearing to have been intentionally designed to deter anyone from applying.”

It adds: “Parents should have the right to choose how their preschool children are cared for and educated.”

The letter is signed by Tim Brighouse, Visiting Professor at the London University’s Institute of Education; Pullman, who wrote the His Dark Materials trilogy; Morpurgo, the former Children’s Laureate; Sally Goddard Blythe, director of the Institute for Neuro-physiological Psychology; Lilian Katz, Professor of Education at the University of Illinois; Katherine Langrish and John Dougherty, the children’s authors; and Sue Palmer, the educational consultant and author of Toxic Childhood.

Dr House told The Times: “Certain parts of the learning requirements set some children up for failure, particularly those who haven’t got the necessary foundations of social learning or basic skills.” He said that children who did not come from middle-class families, or those who were less academically bright, were particularly at risk. “They may withdraw into themselves and stop trying. Trying for them becomes associated with fear and angst.

“Just because you can get children to do something at 4 or 5 it doesn’t follow that it’s appropriate for them, and Beverley Hughes has never made that distinction.”

A spokeswoman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said that the commissioned research had not been published because “the evidence base was too small to be significant”.

Ms Hughes said: “The EYFS is hugely important as a single framework for play-based early learning and care, based on the kind of support that helps children thrive in the early years. We have always said that we will keep the EYFS under review.”

A hard lesson – or too much, too soon

— The National Curriculum was established by the Education Reform Act 1988. It was revised at all key stages and in all subjects in August 2000

— The Foundation Stage, which lasts from a child’s third birthday to the end of the reception year, became part of the National Curriculum in 2002. Early Learning Goals were achieved through play and group activities, not sitting at desks

— In 2005 the Government announced that the Early Years Foundation Stage would be included in its Childcare Bill and become part of the national curriculum

— There was mounting criticism of the new national curriculum for under5s. In November 2007 a lobby of academics said it would induce needless anxiety and dent children’s enthusiasm for learning

— It requires children to be continually assessed on 13 learning scales including writing, problem solving and numeracy

— It will apply to 25,000 private and state nurseries and aims to make children aged 3 and 4 write simple sentences using punctuation, interpret phonic methods to read complex words and use mathematical ideas to solve practical problems