Childcare Bill |
|
Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham) (Con): The Minister does not accept it. Maria Eagle: Except that it is already implied. To put it in the Bill would not add anything. I shall try to convince the hon. Lady of that. Clause 73 enables providers to appeal to the care standards tribunal against the imposition of a condition. Therefore, there is a route of recourse if providers believe that unreasonableness has been applied to their circumstances. That provides an independent element in the judgment of the reasonableness of the chief inspector’s actions, which should address the hon. Lady’s concerns. As reasonableness is already implied, if we put it in the Bill, we will simply be repeating what the law already states in regard to the exercising of the chief inspector’s functions. If we were to begin to do that, we would, to be consistent, probably have to double the size of every Act of Parliament. Although the hon. Lady made a good and sensible argument, the word “reasonably” is not necessary and would simply add to the burden of words in the Bill. Amendments Nos. 208 and 211 require the regulations governing the activities of providers registered on the general child care register to be approved by both Houses before they come into force. A document has been made available outlining the proposed requirements for providers on the Ofsted child care register. Implementation of the regulations will be subject to discussion in Committee and subsequently during the formal consultation. The regulations will be used to support the registration requirements. Therefore, there will be a great deal of discussion with those on whom they will have an impact. I hope that the hon. Lady agrees that that will allow for proper parliamentary scrutiny, which will enable those affected by them to know clearly what the requirements contain and to have an input during consultation. We take the need for parliamentary scrutiny seriously, but the points that I made on the previous group of amendments are also pertinent to this group. I hope, therefore, that, instead of making them again, the hon. Lady will remember what I have said and be prepared to withdraw her amendment. Miss Kirkbride: I am a bit disappointed. It is always nice when the Government accept one of our amendments. For a moment I was in danger of
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clauses 39 and 40 ordered to stand part of the Bill. Clause 41 The learning and development requirements Annette Brooke: I beg to move amendment No. 221, in page 20, line 16, leave out from ‘which’ to ‘, and’ in line 17 and insert
The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 113, in page 20, line 16, leave out
and insert
No. 220, in page 20, line 16, leave out ‘taught to’ and insert ‘experienced or mastered by’. No. 222, in page 20, line 35, at end insert—
Annette Brooke: This is one of the most important clauses. For that reason alone, we must get the wording right. As I said on Second Reading, I do not think that it is right, despite my continuing support for the early years foundation stage. I thank the Minister for circulating the document. I am not ready to be tested on it yet. I have read it, but I need to do more work on it and do not want her to ask me whether I have read page so-and-so. There is some excellent material in the document, and I am really pleased about that. I hope that the Minister treats my amendments as the most serious that I have tabled.The main problem is the inclusion of the word “taught”. If we are talking about a curriculum—a vision—for nought to five-year-olds, clearly it is not appropriate to have teacher-initiated activities, which is how I interpret the word “taught”, throughout those stages. The document—I could not express this better myself—makes the point that there will be a mix of child-initiated learning and teacher-initiated learning. It is dangerous to include “taught”. The quality of the work force will be important for successful delivery, but things will take time. There could be a problem with people knowing that “taught” is in the Bill. Sometimes, the best-meaning parents in the world try to cram their children with information at a very early stage and, in doing so, possibly damage development. There are dangers. Amendment No. 220 was my first stab; I prefer amendment No. 221, which is rather better. Rather than use the word “taught”, the Bill should say:
Column Number: 249 The Minister obviously has drafting experts, but I feel that the amendment encompasses what we want to say. It does not preclude teaching, but it ensures that the approach is not unidirectional, which is basically what the Bill says. Someone pointed out that there is something sexist about amendment No. 220. If I could have expressed it in any other way, I would have done, because that is the last thing that I want to be. I have thought long and hard about whether “play” should be included, but because there will obviously be some teacher-initiated activities at age four, it is difficult to use that word. However, I will give it some more thought. On amendment No. 222, I said in my opening speech that we should have more “nots”. Subsection (5) states:
I am pleased to see paragraph (a). I mentioned that I visited a first school in the past two weeks where it was clear that there was good teaching—I am happy to use the word “teaching”, possibly, in the context of four-year-olds. Even at that age, the good teacher-led process involved a mix of child-initiated and teacher-initiated activities throughout the day. The Minister laughs at my using the word “teaching”, but my example expresses exactly what I mean. I do not want a two-year-old to be taught in a traditional way. There will be some teacher-led activities, but the situation is different as we move through the different stages. The word “taught” is wrong in the context of nought to five-year-olds. However, returning to the “nots”, amendment No. 222 provides that no particular teaching style should be prescribed and that no specific curriculum content should be delivered. I am trying to make the provision much looser, so that the Minister’s planned long consultation, which is to be applauded because the work will not be completed until 2008, is as open-ended as possible. To open up the provision, the amendment introduces extra “nots” rather than what might be interpreted as a “must”. I know the Minister’s commitment to consulting the experts, and that is right, but this important clause needs to be less prescriptive. What is required is leadership and thrust, not prescription. Tim Loughton: I am happy to support the hon. Lady’s amendments, and in particular amendment No. 221. Our amendment No. 113 seeks to achieve the same objective. Many of us see flashing lights when “taught” appears. That is the nub of the problem. As I said, the Opposition think that the nought-to-two age group is crucial, and the way one interacts with babies, as we sought to call them—the Committee was not minded to back us in an earlier amendment—is different from what comes afterwards. That age group should be differentiated. The use of anything remotely educational and “schoolified”, as one of the groups put it, is inappropriate for that age group. There are several welcome ways in which this clause and others that deal with this aspect of the Bill set out a lot of detail that we have not had before. The
Just the mention of “taught” can be taken wrongly. It creates visions of ticking boxes and achievements that represent a scaled down version of what is expected of children as they go into the formal school system. Part of the problem is not having the regulations. I welcome the vision that the Minister provided, but I am not sure how it will translate into regulations and guidance for the people providing the service. All of us should subscribe to the vision. I subscribe to section 15 in particular, which says:
That is an important and key part of the vision. We are not trying to take the place of parents, nor impose things on them; we are trying to encourage, not impose, good parenting. In the past, the balance has often been lost. Many of the children’s charities that have taken an interest are concerned. In their professional experience, they see problems with the use of “taught” and suggest an alternative wording to reflect the reality that children learn through play. Amendment No. 113 uses a phrase which, in terms of parliamentary lingo, is full of holes, I am sure. It states that the matters, skills and processes should be “assimilated” by babies and young children of two and under, rather than “taught” to them. Assimilation is all about absorbing and taking things on board, and that is what the development of babies and young children is all about. Ours is a probing amendment, to put on record our objections to the use of the word “taught” and to try to come up with a better use of words that would dissuade anybody so minded from thinking that the provision was intended just to produce a miniature version of the assessment frameworks for schools, which apply later in a child’s life. The explanatory notes use very educational language with regard to clause 41. They mention “six areas of learning” and use the phrase “expected to achieve by” in respect of young children. One would expect to see such things for schools and for later in a child’s life. The notes discuss:
and
of such children. I do not like such language, and it concerns us greatly. Local authorities, if they were so minded, could devise an assessment based on a slimmed-down, mini-version of the assessments for the development of children that apply once they get into primary schools and beyond. Such schemes would be entirely inappropriate for babies and young children. Column Number: 251 9.45 amJustine Greening (Putney) (Con): My hon. Friend raises a valid point. There is no doubt in my mind that the clause intends to give a directional steer for early years child care providers. The use of the word “taught” gives the provision a far more prescriptive sense than is intended, if we consider the vision in the guidelines that we have been given. Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend is right; I should like to see the provision much more in terms of dissemination of the good practice that, as I pointed out, one would expect from the normal and natural good parenting that would be happening in any case. This is a probing amendment. If the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole wishes to press her lead amendment to a vote, we will be minded to give it our support. I really think that the Government have to get away from the use of the word “taught”. It is only one word, but its implications and the extra ammunition given it by the explanatory notes are very concerning and could be dangerous. On that basis, I seek the Committee’s support of our amendment and that of the hon. Lady. Helen Goodman (Bishop Auckland) (Lab): I have a great deal of sympathy with the points made by Opposition Members about the use of the word “taught”. I shall not support them if they press the amendment to a Division because, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole said, the phrase “mastered by” seems sexist and also, like the phrase “should be assimilated by”, gets us away from the idea that young children spend time having a range of experiences rather than achieving certain skills and being very outcome oriented. Ministers, however, should remind themselves of what they were in charge of in writing the national child care strategy, which stated that activities should be
I fear that the Bill reflects neither that nor what is in the birth-to-three framework, also produced several years ago by the Department for Education and Skills. Andrew Selous (South-West Bedfordshire) (Con): Perhaps the hon. Lady will enlighten me, and one or two other Committee members, about what is sexist in any of the amendments. I am genuinely puzzled about what she means. Helen Goodman: The word “mastered” is a rather old-fashioned and sexist word to use when we are talking about small children. My concerns are strengthened in respect of communication, language and literacy, which is one of the areas of learning and development. Perhaps the Minister will say something about that. There is a risk, with taught literacy for children under the age of five, that some people will push children to read and recognise letters a long time before they are ready to do it. Column Number: 252 It is good if children know how to handle a book. Once they recognise that a book is not just an object, but is representational in that it contains pictures of things in the real world, and once they know that stories come from books, that is the beginning of their becoming an active learner. However, if we concentrate on taught literacy, we risk turning off small children. It is a mystery how children learn to read. Justine Greening: I was listening with interest to the hon. Lady. I agree. When we picked up “The Very Hungry Caterpillar” we did not know whether we were reading a book, just enjoying a story or being taught, but having read it we enjoyed it, which meant that we developed personally. Helen Goodman: That is a good example. A child I knew well became obsessed with the tube map at the age of four and loved drawing it and reproducing the colours. He lived in London and travelled on the tube and realised that the tube map was a representation of the trains in which he journeyed to his nursery school. At that moment, it became clear that although he did not know any letters, he was going to learn to read quickly because he had made the connection between the symbols and what was going on in the world. We will deal later with the quality of the training and qualifications, but we all know that we have a work force that need to be improved. Perhaps if the Minister does not accept the amendment, she will be realistic and consider the matter and, on Report, change “taught” to “experienced by”. Justine Greening: I, too, support the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton). The clause is far too prescriptive. The reality is that other issues may be in conflict in respect of children of nought to two-years-old. Babies may be happy in a sandpit or doing whatever they are doing, but ensuring that all the boxes are ticked may hinder their personal, social and emotional development, and it may upset them if people have to ensure that they have covered all the areas. I should love to hear more about the aspirational areas—problem solving, reasoning and numeracy—from Labour Members. I understand that there is a need to focus on that. I support the amendment and although I have, perhaps, been slightly glib about one aspect of it, I hope that the Minister takes on board the serious point that it makes. Miss Kirkbride: I should briefly like to agree with the points that have been made. Children develop at different stages. A child could be damaged if they were pushed too hard to achieve all the goals that the Government have set out. It is not that Conservative Members do not understand why the Government want to do what is proposed. There are far too many children in our society whose chances are simply hopeless because of their experiences at
Helen Goodman: I have just realised that there is something that I forgot to say. The points made about a play-based approach, rather than a teaching approach, were endorsed by the all-party group on play, which met earlier this week. Miss Kirkbride: The hon. Lady is right to point that out. We know that she is a champion of the cause. I should have said that we are grateful for her support—her emotional support, if not her actual support when it comes to a vote. I hope that Ministers listen to the points that have been made. The Government are seeking to make child care available to everyone nationally. Clearly, with regard to those households where children are not properly looked after, the state can have a role in making up for what parents are not doing at home. That is of benefit not only to those children—that is the first priority—but to our society in general. I understand where the Government are coming from in being so prescriptive, but it just does not seem to us that their approach would work entirely, because children develop at different rates. We cannot rush them; doing so may well hinder them. For many young children, personal development is as much progress as they can reasonably be expected to make; that is apart from the other goals set out in the clause. Achieving that personal development in an unhurried and unthreatening fashion—at their own pace and when they are ready for it—may help them to learn better when they go to mainstream school. I worry that the Government are trying to do too much and are setting up a framework that will be antagonistic to those seeking to put it into practice. Sadly, it could end up being counter-productive for those children that the Government most want to help. I urge them to reconsider the matter of just how prescriptive they want to be, and I urge them to allow a little more flexibility in the way that child care providers can look after children in their charge. The Minister for Children and Families (Beverley Hughes): First, let me say that there is no difference between my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland (Helen Goodman) and I and among other hon. Members on both sides of the Committee about what we are trying to achieve, and the kind of environment and experiences that we want for young children, whether in child care or in their educational settings. Frankly, hon. Members are getting caught up on their interpretation of “taught”. I do not accept what the hon. Member for Bromsgrove said about our approach being prescriptive; I completely reject that. If she looks in any detail at the documents that I circulated, particularly the framework direction of travel document, she will see that that is not the case. Amendments Nos. 113, 220 and 221 seek, in one way or another, to remove the word “taught” in reference to young children and replace it with alternative wording. The first point to note is that
Annette Brooke: I do not know the answer to this, but is the word “taught” used in “Birth to Three Matters”? 10 amBeverley Hughes: I cannot recall whether it is or not. I have no doubt that someone will tell me in a moment. I shall try to get an answer for the hon. Lady. The point is that the early years foundation stage will cover the wide range of processes, planning and teaching needed by practitioners to provide an effective, stimulating, play-based environment to enable young children to learn and develop at their own pace—a pace that is appropriate to their age and ability. That includes practitioners establishing relationships with babies and young children and their parents; planning the learning environment; supporting and extending children’s play, learning and development; and observing and assessing children’s achievements; and planning for each child’s next steps. That is far from the formal education that I believe is in Members’ minds when they think of the word “taught”. Justine Greening: These comments very much come out of those made to me by my constituents. Putney is a typical part of London. It has many young mothers and young families with small children and babies, and the concept of babies and young children being taught is raised with me on the doorstep. There is an issue in the wider world that will need to be addressed. The amendments reflect not just the Opposition’s perception of the clause but the perception of the outside world. Beverley Hughes: Perhaps some of my comments later will clarify for the hon. Lady what we intend and what the meaning of the word “taught” is. The early years foundation stage will continue to promote, as “Birth to Three Matters” and the foundation stage already do, the kind of activities and experiences that all good parents
with their children—I was clear about including that phrase in the document, and I am glad that the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham picked it out—and which they would therefore want to occur in any good child care setting. The standards are those that we set ourselves for our own children. My children are now in their 20s, but, had they had child care, that is what I would have wanted. I cannot think of any activities that I as a parent did with my children that were not, to some extent, teaching. Children are not born knowing nursery rhymes, how to clean their teeth or how to tie their shoelaces. They are not born knowing how to speak. They learn that through interaction, initially with parents and, when they are not at home, with other adults. That is what we are talking about for child care.
Miss Kirkbride: The Minister is very sexist to say “Daddy” first. Beverley Hughes: I was reflecting other people’s common practice, not mine. I remember that my mother was perplexed when I took a conscious decision to refer to everything as she or her—dogs in the street, post people, everything—as a matter of course, to challenge the received wisdom that everything is assumed to be male unless proved otherwise. Helen Goodman: The fact is that children who learn English as their first language always learn to say “Daddy” before they learn to say “Mummy” because it is easier for a child to make the d sound than the m sound. There is nothing sexist about that. Beverley Hughes: I thank my hon. Friend for a more scientific explanation of what tends to happen in practice, for whatever reason. To take this further, practitioners who read and speak to babies and young children are helping—or teaching—children’s early speech and language development. That activity also supports—or teaches—social development and interaction. I assure hon. Members that, as the document makes clear, we will make this interpretation clear in the supporting document for the EYFS on which, as the hon. Member for Mid-Dorset and North Poole has kindly acknowledged, we plan to consult extensively. The issue goes to the heart of what we mean by “teach”. We are referring, as the previous legislation has done, to its natural meaning. With respect, it is a mistake to equate that term with a formalised method of learning and teaching. That is what hon. Members who have spoken in this debate are doing. Tim Loughton: I am grateful to the Minister. I can tell her that, from my speed reading of it, the word “taught” does not appear in “Birth to Three Matters”. What she is saying seems very much to apply to children above the age of two, which is why we differentiated in what we proposed earlier and in our use of the word “babies”. Unless she had very advanced children—I am sure she did—teaching them to recite nursery rhymes between the ages of nought and two would not have been a goer. Does she not see that there is a difference between those who are aged nought to two years and those who are above two? That is what we are trying to get at in our amendments. Column Number: 256 |
| |
| ©Parliamentary copyright 2005 | Prepared 16 December 2005 |