I can agree with most of what you have said here but without a greater knowledge of the differences between the UK and here (Australia), I can't be certain if I agree about the bit about the early years framework. We have a framework that by the looks of those statements sounds very similar (it covers all early learning / childcare though, not just 3+ but obviously the way these skills present in a baby is different to a 3 year old) and we mostly look at it in a positive way by seeing how the children are developing in line with these important developmental areas and also as a whole group working on helping the children to develop important skills, but to really help a child, sometimes we not only have to look at strengths and the leaps and bounds they are making with development, but also at the areas where they appear to be struggling, so we can implement activities to help them develop in those areas and likely be more happy and handle social situations etc easier both now and in the future. It is great to encourage kids to use their strengths, but we would be doing them a disservice if they were struggling in an area and we ignored it rather than helping them. It's not really about "labelling" children though, as it is to help them develop. Also when it does come to labelling (like when you go beyond this to talking about disabilities etc), that can be positive or negative depending on how it affects the person and in the case of the child, the parent. Some people finally understand and can get help and getting "labelled" is the best thing that ever happened to them and some people take labels and go down a downwards spiral because of it instead. Labels on the level you are talking like "needs help communicating with others" shouldn't be presented as a label and if they are doing that, they are doing it wrong as it should just be an area to work on, not a label, but the intention is likely good, like how I stated how we help children with both further enhancing their strengths AND improving upon the areas they are struggling with. I've worked in inclusive support before, and in that area, you really need to focus on both and you do need to identify the areas that need help so there's no way around that really. The Early Years Learning Framework doesn't require us to go academic in childcare, even preschools in childcare, which is good as academics shouldn't be forced on children early (but play based activities that happen to teach language and early maths skills are great and often get used), though some do focus on "school readiness" and push academics a bit, but it isn't required and we shouldn't be pushing it, because the Early Years of actual school should be more hands on or play based, rather than overly academic too, but unfortunately that often (not always but often) isn't the case and our curriculum from the year before year one onwards makes it hard to do so unfortunately. I love the Early Years Curriculum here and I've worked with it quite a bit (and the curriculum for OSHC too which is similar but more age appropriate for school aged children), but our actual schooling system isn't the worst but is far from the best too. We should be looking towards places like Finland.

There are alternatives though. I wouldn't touch Steiner / Waldorf with a ten foot pole, but when done properly (as the name isn't trademarked so anyone can claim they are Montessori but not really be following it correctly) Montessori aligns well with what we know about child development and is based on scientific observation of children, rather than nonsense, and some of the time even aligns better with child development than traditional schooling systems and is way more individualised, so I think Montessori, when done correctly, is a suitable alternative if people can afford it, and I'd consider sending my future children to one that is nearby us. It actually kind of sucks that both Steiner and Montessori are alternative as it means they get lumped in together, but Montessori aligns with child development and came about through observation of children and is a legitimate option but Steiner is just nonsense about stuff like spirits and it is full of racism.

Montessori works on 3 years in one classroom, rather than everyone in the classroom being the same age, and is more individualised and tends to have bigger classes than what you are describing but has a teacher and an assistant so the ratio is actually lower and having two people allows for a different teaching style. Montessori schools typically don't have homework either. The kids are expected to get stuff done though, just through an individualised plan (it's not like some say "the kids do whatever they want" - I studied part of a "Learning Management" degree at one point and they tried to crap on Montessori by saying that but not really understanding or explaining how it really worked and at that point I didn't know much about it either - the children have a lot more choice and the education is more individualised but they still meet the curriculum but in a different more flexible way and they must meet their end of the plan they and the teacher make together).

That said, people must also check these things out first. I worked a day in a Montessori childcare centre (which only really makes sense above 3 anyway as the Montessori system starts at 3 years old but centres apply it to babies anyway) and it was terrible and I didn't even agree morally with how they did some things, but that isn't a reflection on Montessori but just a reflection on that centre. As I said, it isn't regulated or trademarked. No matter what school or childcare people are sending their kids to they really need to do their research. Don't assume because a system is good, it means individual schools and childcare centres are good.