---

Childcare Bill

These amendments reflect concerns about formalisation of early years and a well-founded desire, for all the reasons given by the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, to ensure that we appropriately support children in their earliest years and support a child’s sense of self through secure attachments. The early years foundation stage will have a framework capable of recognising and appropriately supporting the wide range of needs and abilities of all children in the early years, including the youngest ones. The aim of the early years foundation stage is to ensure that all children in early years settings are valued and supported through secure attachments with a key person for each child in each setting. This is crucial for children in their earliest years. Through that support, they will develop a strong sense of self and build strong self-esteem to enable them to use with confidence the skills that they are developing. A child’s secure emotional development is intrinsic to the personal, social and emotional development area of learning in the early years foundation stage, which is already a part of this Bill. I do not believe that there is a difference between the noble Baroness and myself on the objectives that we are seeking to secure. However, when it comes to the means to do so, we meet a parting of the ways. Amendment No. 57 would introduce the new legal concept of a ““very young child”” under the age of between two and three, because of the dates set out in the amendments by which a child ceases to be ““very young”” and becomes ““young””—and then will become less young thereafter. We think it would be unduly rigid to have such a legal demarcation, and indeed we fear it might work against the focus on the needs of the individual child, which is the objective that we are seeking to achieve and put at the heart of the early years foundation stage, and which has very wide support among the practitioner community. Indeed, that is a good part of the reason we are going down this road in the first place. We support an approach without an unnecessary artificial divide, during which each individual child can develop at their own pace in a way that reflects their particular development needs and their achievements. For children this young, it is not appropriate to create an age-based split that ignores the child and attempts to define absolutely when a child should move from one phase to the next. That is more, rather than less, likely to lead to too much formalisation in learning—which is not the objective that I believe that the noble Baroness is keen to attain. Young children need to be able to develop at their own pace. A child who develops quickly should not be held back simply because they are not old enough to move into the proposed two to five phase for young children. Neither should a child who takes more time to develop be forced into activities that are inappropriate simply because their birthday defines that it is time to move on. We in the Committee all acknowledge that children grow rapidly in the early years but at differential rates. At 12 months they may start to walk; at 18 months they may be confident walkers and climbers. Before they are two, they may be good runners as well, but other children may not develop at the same rate. Similarly, some children have a wide vocabulary at 18 months and are starting to form proper sentences, while others are far from that stage. At two and a half, which is the upper end of the age range set by the noble Baroness in her ““very young children”” phase, the difference can be even more marked. We believe that we need a framework that supports staff in offering activities that are appropriate, recognises the needs of the individual child and does not hold children back, as we believe would be the effect of trying to separate out the two phases in the way suggested. To support this, appropriate ongoing observation and assessment are crucial. The existing frameworks—that is, Birth to Three Matters and the foundation stage—highlight the importance of assessing children through ongoing observation. That is achieved through the normal course of a child’s learning and play. The amendments would create a framework based neither on a child’s level of development nor just on their age, but one based on their age and when they were born in the academic year. For instance, two children born on 2 September 2006 and 31 August 2007 respectively—I am not seeking to make a narrow point; there are a lot of children who were born on those dates—would both be moved into the two to five phase envisaged in this amendment on 1 September 2009, even though one is only just two and the other is a day short of three, which at that stage of a child’s life is a huge difference between them. That may be appropriate, but in many cases it will not. As I have said, we believe it is the child’s individual level of development that should determine the activities provided, and that the existing arrangements in the Bill are best suited to ensuring that. The early years foundation stage will of course allow differentiation between what is right and appropriate for babies and toddlers and for older children. It will do so in the context of an appropriate play-based approach, with a balance of adult-led and child-initiated activities. For instance, the existing Birth to Three Matters sets out that practitioners should use ““gloop”” in small trays so that babies can enjoy making marks in it. The foundation stage, for slightly older children, sets out that practitioners should,"““plan games to encourage children to move and then stop, for example moving like an animal””." The Bill contains provisions that will allow this ethos to continue. That will be fully reflected in the early years foundation stage, and we do not need to segment that stage in ways that could cause unnecessary rigidities. I hope that I have clearly demonstrated why a split would not be appropriate, although it is perfectly reasonable for the noble Baroness to probe us in this area because the concerns on undue formalisation have been voiced outside. Amendment No. 70 would add to the areas of learning and development in Clause 41, the words,"““the very young child’s sense of self””" and ““secure attachment””. I would like to make clear that we regard a strong sense of self and secure attachment as central to our approach in the early years and that they will continue to be central under the EYFS. The EYFS document is being developed from an extensive range of research that identifies the most effective practice to support the best outcomes for children. The existing Birth to Three Matters framework makes clear that it is essential for each child to have a key person in the setting. The framework has been referred to in the supporting criteria of the national standards since October of last year. This will also be a learning and development requirement under the EYFS. It will highlight the importance of key workers and other early years practitioners forming warm relationships with babies and very young children. As a requirement of the EYFS, inspection of settings will include ensuring that each child has a key person and how this is effectively managed in supporting children’s personal, social and emotional development in line with the EYFS. In the Birth to Three Matters framework, ““A Strong Child”” features as a key aspect of learning. This focuses on children developing a sense of themselves and others, feeling self-assured and supported, valuing individuality and the contributions of themselves and others, and gaining self-assurance through a close relationship. Similarly, under the existing foundation stage guidance, the personal, social and emotional development area of learning includes such matters as knowing who you are, where you fit in and feeling good about yourself. Early years providers need to support children to develop strong self-esteem to use the key skills that they are developing with enjoyment and confidence. The aim of the early years foundation stage is to build on these frameworks to create coherence, avoid duplication, support the integration of care and education in the early years and allow children to develop at their own pace. We believe, therefore, that the objectives of the noble Baroness are secured without the need to segment the under-fives period as proposed in her amendments.