Fundamental British values for toddlers

Nicky Morgan hit the headlines by saying that nursery pupils are to be taught fundamental British values to protect them from religious radicals. For toddlers, the teaching of such values is likely to include "learning right from wrong, learning to take turns and share, and challenging negative attitudes and stereotypes". This whole approach is, of course, in direct contradiction to the previous Conservative policy line, which was highly critical and dismissive of the “nappy curriculum”.

Now, I really don't have any problem with nurseries being challenged on issues of extremism and fundamentalism - whether they are non-sectarian, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, or any other faith. And while I understand the Jesuit maxim "Give me a child for his first seven years and I'll give you the man" I don't really believe that EYFS provision falls into this category. While there might, for example, be improper segregation by sex, and quite possibly some conscious or unconscious stereotyping, these practices should already be being challenged.

Where I do have a deep problem is the mantra that Nicky Morgan has inherited from her predecessor on “fundamental British values”. We had more than enough confused (and widely mocked) spouting from the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and the then-Education Secretary a few weeks ago, and I would have expected Nicky Morgan to have used just a little thought before using the same old, tired, phrase.

I have neither heard nor read any analysis that convincingly identifies anything that I might think of as a set of “fundamental British values”.  It can't, for example, include anything to do with faith - Christian, Muslim, or otherwise. “Justice”, “equality” and “equity”, “fairness”, “democracy” and “human rights” all appeal to me as “fundamental values” but ... British? Really? I think not! And remember that Nicky Morgan is part of a government that is deeply opposed to the European Convention on Human Rights, and that has seen inequality increase year on year, with a deeply unfair benefits system.

Nicky Morgan is reported as believing that "any institution that fails to prepare children for life in modern Britain cannot be sustained with public funding".  That's fair enough as far as it goes, which is not far, as the next step must be to consider what we really mean by "preparing children for life in modern Britain". And, as always, there are the unintended consequences. Some communities in Birmingham, for example, but also elsewhere, now feel deeply excluded and threatened by the tone and content of the debate. The worst possible outcome would be that more and more young children were placed in private, not public provision, and that whole communities become more and more entrenched and inward-looking.

And it's worth saying that the whole Trojan Horse debacle was enabled by the explicit government policies of localism and the big society, with people able to shape local services and provision to meet their needs in the context of a smaller state. All this fuss shows the need for effective checks and balances in social provision - mostly, a role well filled by local authorities - the middle tier - which have a democratic and professional mandate on behalf of all their citizens.
 
John Freeman CBE is a former director of children's services and is now a freelance consultant

www.johnfreemanconsulting.co.uk