'Putting Children First' Manifesto is welcome antidote to current early years proposals

There was consternation over the weekend amongsts early years specialists and parents following the announcement of tests for two year olds.  The tests would be the logical extension of the neoliberal obsession with the grading and rating of children and their teachers as education becomes increasingly linked to purely economic goals. A base for future measurements is established at a lower and lower age as the government seeks to establish data on which to judge provision. The obsessions with data and measurement is at the expense of holistic child-centred early years education.

Formative assessment of a child should be linked to long term goals of health and happiness rather than aimed at predicting future narrow academic performance.

This was announced alongside government proposals on making the emotional abuse of children an offence. I have little quarrel with that but it comes at a time when children are subject to social and economic abuse by the government as their families suffer from benefit cuts and the disruption caused by the bedroom tax.

The Green Party's Education Policy LINK opposes testing of young children and instead advocates an approach that takes into account differing rates of child development and the  important role of play.

The 'Putting Children First' Manifesto issued today by the Save Childhood Movement brings together those concerns in a very powerful document that I welcome as providing the basis for building a consensus against the current proposals. It is certainly a manifesto that the Green Party should support.

This is what the Save Childhood Movement says: 

Across the political spectrum there is now consensus that early years provision is important for children's development and for helping parents - especially mums - into work. As identified by the IPPR the question of 'what is best' for young children is, however, a point of huge contention among researchers, policymakers, commentators and politicians - not to mention parents. Some argue against public involvement in the care of young children in principle, while others assert the importance of parents (usually mothers) being able to stay at home to look after their children (1)

In its manifesto 'Putting Children First' the Save Childhood Movement argues that governments must put the best interests of the child at the heart of all early years policymaking and expresses its concern that this is not currently the case. It calls for a much stronger focus on relationships and the importance of family life, highlights the importance of developmental readiness and confirms the dangers of pushing through universal childcare without the appropriate evidence base and significant investment in improving the current quality of provision.

As stated by the OECD "Expanding access to services without attention to quality will not deliver good outcomes for children or the long-term productivity benefits for society. Furthermore, research has shown that if quality is low, it can have long-lasting detrimental effects on child development, instead of bringing positive effects." (2)

Putting Children First - The 3 Key Elements

1 an integrated, holistic and appropriately financed system built upon
2 an evidence-based understanding of the child as
3 a citizen with developmental rights and freedoms

Developed by the members of the movement's expert Early Years Advisory Group, and with the backing of the larger sector, the manifesto sets out the three key elements and 11 key policy points that should to be taken into account for the development of an appropriate Early Childhood Education and Care System (ECEC). With the 2015 election in mind the movement is calling for all political parties to incorporate the identified elements in their own manifestos and to acknowledge the urgent need for a better balance between economic aspirations and child and family wellbeing.    

The development of a fully integrated system should:

1 respect and support the rights and freedoms of children to be provided with environments that allow them to develop all their natural dispositions and capacities to the fullest potential. This must include regular and open access to the natural world

2 re-instate the importance of early relationships and better support the health and wellbeing of parents and families

3 address inequalities and ensure that every child can develop to his or her full potential

4 ensure that the values we are modelling for children are those that we want to see in a 21st century world

5 ensure that developmentally appropriate play-based care and education governs children’s experiences until at least age 6

6 be evidence-led and have the best interests of the child at its heart. This should not be a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution but should be responsive to the diversity of parental and local community needs

7 reverse the existing funding curve so that we prioritise the vital importance of the early years

8 underpin all ECEC services and provision with the latest scientific evidence and global examples of best practice

9 review, consolidate and evaluate all policies and evidence through a new National Council on the Science of Human Learning and Development

10 provide formative assessment and screening of children’s development from birth and ensure that we are measuring what matters for children’s long-term health and wellbeing

11 ensure that the adults working with young children are highly trained, emotionally mature and appropriately valued and remunerated 

Wendy Ellyatt, Chief Executive, Save Childhood Movement says: 

"We are currently very concerned that universal childcare provision is being pushed through in England without due attention to the vital quality of care that includes developmentally appropriate environments, greatly improved parental support and engagement and the training and empowerment of a skilled workforce. One of the key aims of any ECEC system is to allow every child to flourish and to achieve his or her full potential and we feel there is a real danger that without the necessary quality controls English children will be greatly disadvantaged.

With this manifesto we are arguing that the best needs of the child should be at the heart of all future policymaking, that we need to acknowledge and better support the vital importance of family and community life and that there needs to be a national debate about the values that we wish to see nurtured in larger society." 

Professor Sir Al Aynsley-Green Children's Commissioner for England, 2005-2010: 

"Children are our nation's most precious resource, and as Neil Postman has said in his book 'The Disappearance of Childhood', 'They are the living messages to a time we will not see.' We ignore their importance at our peril, yet this Manifesto for the Early Years' from the Save Childhood Movement comes at a time of unprecedented financial and political turbulence leading to austerity and cuts to state spending accompanied by zealous reform of education policy. What is in danger of being lost from the debate are the best interests of the child.

'Putting Children First' is an outstanding evidence-based document that should be read by every Parliamentarian and Government Minister as well as those formulating policy, alongside professionals directly involved in the care of young children in partnership with parents and carers." 

Liz Bayram, Chief Executive, Professional Association for Childcare and Early Years (PACEY):

"We wholeheartedly support the 11 policy points raised by the Save Childhood Movement. They offer a timely reminder to all political parties that a high quality early years experience in its broadest sense supports all children to reach their full potential and that childcare is about far more than just supporting parents to work and children to do well in school."

Neil Leitch, Chief Executive, Preschool Play Association:

"In an environment of continuous change and growing uncertainty, the early years sector is in absolute agreement that one priority never changes, its commitment to giving every child the best experience of care and learning.

As early years policy is increasingly directed at getting parents back to work and competing in the global economy, we need to ensure that our children are not viewed as numbers on a Government spreadsheet or figures in an economic model.  The 'Manifesto for the Early Years - Putting Children First', gives the sector a shared voice and focuses on what's really important - the interests of the child."    

Beatrice Merrick, Chief Executive, Early Education:

'We welcome the Manifesto for the Early Years, which captures what really matters in its title "Putting Children First".  Early years policy must be evidence-based, and the evidence shows us that positive home learning environments and high quality early childhood education are the best ways of giving children a good start in life.  Politicians must not rush to expand the quantity of early years education and childcare without first ensuring that the quality is right' 

1. Double Dutch: The case against deregulation and demand-led funding in childcare, Institute
    for Public Policy Research, 2012   

2.  Starting Strong III - A Quality Toolbox for Early Childhood Education and Care, OECD, 2012

The full Manifesto is HERE

RECLAIM OUR SCHOOLS! Hammersmith.Tonight.

Tonight's Education Question Time at St Paul's Church in Hammersmith could be the start of a significant fightback against neoliberal policies in education. It is a chance to bring together teacher unions, parent groups, community organisations and governors in a concerted campaign to defend progressive child-centred and democratically accountable schools with broad educational aims from privatisation and narrow aims centred on international commercial competition.

Nothing could illustrate the current battle more than the fate of Sulivan Primary School, a walk away from tonight's venue. Hammersmith and Fulham Council has voted to close the successful Sulivan Primary School (ostensibly a merger with a nearby primary academy) and handing over its unique site to a boys' free school.

Staff, parents and pupils have all campaigned for their school and their views have been ignored.

Here are some of the questions tweeted for tonight. Add your own: #edqtime @nec2014

Labour also fail to grasp the significance of Gove's education revolution

Following the Green Party Conference's  failure to approve a full review of its education policy, in consultation with teacher organisations, parents' groups and students, it appears that the Labour Party has also failed to grasp the full extent of Michael Gove's neoliberal revolution.

The following account has appeared on the Left Futures website LINK

The debate on the education section of the NPF report, on the first day of Conference, was opened by Peter Wheeler (NEC). Six delegates spoke: three prospective parliamentary candidates and three union delegates (GMB, Unison, Unite). Stephen Twigg replied to ‘discussion’. No teachers, local authority councillors, educational campaigners or university educationalists took part. This session lasted 36 minutes.

Although the nominal purpose of the session was to debate the two sections of the NPF report devoted to education no one spoke for or against anything in the report. It was a debate in name only. Had the speakers read the education section of the NPF report? Did they approve its contents? We will never know.

An innocent observer could be forgiven for wondering why the party that came to power saying that its three priorities were education, education and education could only find 36 minutes of its annual conference for the subject. Such an observer might also be forgiven for wondering how it was that all the Labour Party’s complex policy-making machinery could result in educational material for conference that passes no comment on the transformation of education under the Coalition. Schools have been removed from local authorities and made into “independent” units – often under the aegis of powerful private sponsors. Local Authorities are being progressively removed from the sphere of education and private operators play an increasing role, but none of this seems to figure in Labour’s concerns.

How is it that Labour can present policies on education which do not deal with these problem? The answer has to be that Labour does not think that such things are problems. Labour policy differs from that of the Tories/Coalition on matters of detail (which is not to deny the importance of some of those details) but on basic principles it would not be possible to get a cigarette paper between Tory and Labour Policy.

In opening, Peter Wheeler for the NEC said that Labour wants cooperation in order to produce the best education while the Tories favour division and competition. And yet the reality is that Labour and Conservatives believe that the way forward is to make schools into independent units competing for parental choice. He said that only Labour authorities were resisting Coalition policy. Sadly this is quite untrue. Some Conservative Councils have put up more resistance to Gove’s reforms than some Labour Councils.

Of the three union speakers two spoke about the importance of teaching assistants and the Coalition cuts forcing a reduction in their numbers. This is a good point but there is nothing in the NPF report about this. One speaker called for the abolition of tuition fees in FE/HE but this point was simply ignored as if it had never been said – such was the nature of the ‘debate’.

The prospective parliamentary candidates tried to raise enthusiasm with talk of Labour as the “Party of Aspiration”, denunciations of the Tories on childcare and rising child poverty, the demand for quality apprenticeships and the claim that the economy “must be powered by the many and not the few”. However, this was all speech making to move conference along and none of it had the slightest implication for the NPF report which was supposed to be under consideration.

Stephen Twigg replied to the preceding non-discussion. He talked of growing child poverty and Labour’s plan to provide child care as of right from 8.00 am to 6.00 pm. He denounced the use of unqualified teachers and claimed that Labour’s “mission” was to “place power and wealth in the hands of the many not the few”. This radical sounding statement (which has no reality in Labour policy) was immediately offset by an elitist discussion of opportunity. Success for Stephen Twigg seems to be measured by getting to a “top university” (a phrase he used three times in his eleven minutes on the podium). It seems not to have occurred to him that if a small minority of universities are designated as “top”, then by definition the great majority will not go to them. Someone should tell him that if you focus obsessively on “the best” you forget the rest.

Finally Stephen Twigg repeated Labour’s commitment to providing high quality apprenticeships for all those who do not go to university although he did not tell us how this would be achieved beyond saying that firms with government contracts would be required to provide quality apprenticeships.

For anyone following the dramatic changes to the educational landscape in England the whole debate would have had a strange air of unreality. None of the major political issues of the Gove revolution in our schools were even hinted at. For the moment Labour is still set on the educational course and the educational philosophy set by New Labour. It is a path to fragmentation and division in education. Its basis is in neo-liberal ideology and as far from a democratic and socialist perspective it is possible to be.