We share a profound concern about England’searly years foundation stage (EYFS) legislation,which becomes law next autumn. We believe itto be fundamentally flawed in conception, withnet harm likely to be done to children due tothe framework’s contestable assumptions andunintended consequences.Young children learn most naturally andeffectively through a subtle balance of free play,movement, rhythm, repetition and imitation.An overly formal, academic and/or cognitivelybiased curriculum, however carefullycamouflaged, distorts this learning experience;and an early head start in literacy is now knownto precipitate unforeseen difficulties later on,sometimes including unpredictable emotionaland behavioural problems.Legally enshrining a model of child develop-ment allows no space for very different butequally plausible developmental frameworks.The age bands and associated age-related goals

in the EYFS are alsoquite arbitrary, withlittle if any coherentdevelopmental ration-ale; and to impose acompulsory legalframework on whatare pre-compulsoryschool-age childrenmay well haveprofound civil rightsimplications.Caring for babiesand toddlers is deeplypersonal, involvingimmeasurablequalities suchas attunement andresponsiveness. A one-

size-fits-all framework that needs copiousrecord-keeping risks substituting bureaucracyfor care. So we call on the Government tocommission an urgent independent review ofEYFS, allowing diverse conceptions of childdevelopment to flourish without unduecompromise, and to reduce the status of EYFSto professional guidelines, free of legalcompulsion, so safeguarding the professionalismand freedom of practitioners who haveprincipled objections to the framework.Many feel unable to speak out against EYFSfor fear of career reprisals; others feel helplessto influence government thinking. So theDepartment for Children, Schools and Familesmay be unaware of the level of opposition. Wecall on practitioners, academics, administrators,teacher-trainers and parents to join our OpenEye campaign for the very heart of childhood.l For more details or to join the Open Eyecampaign, email: r.house@roehampton.ac.uk

26Send your letters (maximum 300 words) to: The Editor, TES,

26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQemail letters@tes.co.uk; fax 020 3194 3202. Include your school or other

professional details and home address and telephone number. Letters may be cut

Priority is inclusionI am extremely saddened, yet not surprised,that some schools behave in such a mannerthat results in a pupil exclusion described inyour article “Governors in mass walkoutover biting boy” (TES, November 23).Some schools (too many) are so set in theinstitutional practice of exclusion that theyseem never to take a step back and reflecton the traditional procedures they employ.At our school, we support and attemptto understand children with challengingbehaviour, employing many strategieswhich keep these children in our school.Inclusion is top of our list and due to thesuccess of our procedures over the pasttwo years, we have had no fixed orpermanent exclusions.How do we manage this, even though wetermly accept two or three “managed cases”of pupils with challenging behaviour fromother schools? We manage through ournurture group, an extremely effective andintelligent behaviour support team, closeliaison with the two pupil referral unitsin the city, pastoral support plans withagencies for individuals, and respectfor these pupils and their parents. Aboveall, it is the corporate vision towardsinclusion held by all who work andgovern in our school.One day last week I asked all the supportstaff who work in many one-to-onesituations with children with challengingbehaviour to remain after school for 10minutes. I wanted to acknowledge andpraise their work, which may mean thatthey are often spat at or hit by childrenunable to understand and cope with theirextreme emotions, yet which throughemploying Team-Teach ensures our pupilsremain safe and secure.We are the adults. We are the ones whoaim to develop effective relationshipsinvolving forgiveness that possibly will helpa child’s life to improve through inclusion atCaldecote Primary.

Independent voiceThere was one small but very importantomission in William Stewart’s otherwiseexcellent reporting (“Adviser says his ideashave been ‘perverted’”, TES, November23). It failed to point out that I was a non-Conservative member of the review group.Though the Conservatives are to becongratulated on using independentadvisers such as Alan Dyson and myself,and though their “green paper” containsa good many interesting and challengingideas, I do not want be associated with someof their dafter notions, such as the extensionof ability grouping across the curriculum,the repeating of Year 6 by so-called “failing”pupils and the party’s fetish for schooluniform, let alone its simplistic ideas onthe teaching and testing of reading.

ProfessorColin RichardsSpark Bridge,Cumbria

Hazel PulleyHeadteacher,CaldecoteCommunity

Primary School,Leicester

Politicians are priceless. Since KennethBaker first gathered subject specialists andshut them in separate rooms, ensuring theycame up with a national curriculum whichcouldn’t possibly be delivered in the timeavailable, people have been appointed atthe highest levels to ensure the decisionsof politicians were put into place.These people appointed like-mindedpeople and the training cascaded downthrough a range of initiatives to the literacyand numeracy hours, with those trainingteachers using approved scripts and teachersbeing forced into a “one size fits all” methodof teaching. This resulted in teachers deliv-ering the politicians’ vision of good teachingmethods over at least the past 10 or 12 years.Now that the evidence is beginning toshow that this investment hasn’t mademuch real difference to standards, the “edu-cation establishment” and teachers are sud-denly to blame for “causing damage throughthe teaching methods they have used”.But are not these methods the very onespoliticians ensured we were trained to use?

Teachers’ friendPeter Wilby (“Why Prince Charles isabusing his position”, TES, November23) has misunderstood the nature of thePrince’s Teaching Institute. His criti-cisms are baseless and nonsensical.The Prince’s Teaching Institute is byteachers for teachers. It works in partner-ship with Cambridge University and hasthe support of the Training and Devel-opment Agency, Ofsted and the Chil-dren, Schools and Families Secretary. Itwould not have been established withoutthe enthusiasm of the teachers who haveattended the summer schools. Unlikeother professions, there is no mandatoryrequirement for teachers to refresh theirsubject knowledge. The summer schoolsdo just that, and teachers tell us howpositively it has affected their teachingand improved the attainment andenthusiasm of their pupils.The institute was established tosupport teachers. It is not in any wayan accrediting body, nor a cynicalexercise in influencing the curriculum.

Chris Popeand BerniceMcCabe

Co-Directors,The Prince’sTeachingInstitute,London

Mike WrightTeacher,

St Edward’sPrimary School,

Plymouth

Doing as taught

TimBrighouse,MargaretEdgington,RichardHouse,PenelopeLeach,

Bel Mooney,Lynne

Oldfield,Sue Palmerand others

inboxThe Times Educational Supplement

Friday November 30, 2007

We call for review of early years law

‘Young children learn most naturally and effectively through a subtle balance offree play, movement, rhythm, repetition and imitation.’ Photograph: Michael Hall