Memorandum from the Peers Early Education
Partnership (PEEP) (EY 20)
I am writing in response to your paper about
the Education Sub-committee's inquiry into aspects of Early Years
Education. Before addressing the specific questions you ask, may
I say how much I welcome the new Early Learning Goals. It is good
to know that the process of consultation following the first revision
of Desirable Outcomes has produced a document which will be enormously
helpful in Early Years settings in raising standards and supporting
children's learning. One aspect of the document that I particularly
welcome is the concept of the Foundation Stage as a distinct Key
Stage, as important as the other Key Stages.
In relation to your four questions:
1 AND 2. ABOUT
CURRICULUM CONTENT—AND
PEDAGOGY
We welcome the emphasis in the document on the
importance of children's self-esteem and their dispositions to
learning.
The first four bullet points on p 8 of the Early
Learning Goals are vital requisites for children's success in
the other areas. I believe, though, that they raise important
questions about how practitioners teach at this Foundation Level.
Practitioners can readily subscribe to these points, but what
needs to happen to make them a reality? Children's personal, social
and emotional well-being, their attitudes and dispositions towards
their learning, their social and attention skills and their persistence
all need the development of particular pedagogies which will be
essentially cross curricular. All relate very closely indeed not
only to what is taught, but also to the way it is taught. I would
suggest two extremely helpful documents in this area: The Rumbold
Report "Starting with Quality" is an obvious starting
point. The other is more "hot off the press" here in
Oxfordshire—Oxford Early Years Development File, promoting
learning for children 0-8". I do recommend it most strongly
for its very high quality, coherence and inclusive, collaborative
approach. It would seem to be entirely consistent with current
thinking on best practice in early education which the government
would wish to support; and it will, I know, be enormously helpful
to practitioners here in Oxfordshire. Perhaps it could be useful
in a wider field also? I would be most willing to make sure you
receive a copy if that would be helpful.
3. ABOUT
STAFF AND
QUALIFICATIONS
Again I would suggest a recent publication as
immensely helpful in this field. The reference is: Abbott L, and
Pugh, G (Eds), 1998, Training to Work in the Early Years Developing
the climbing frame, OUP. In general terms there are both strengths
and weaknesses in the very diverse variations of training and
experience to be found in settings for children 3-6. Clearly this
first Key Stage will need the best possible practitioners to lay
the foundations for life-long learning. Realistic investment in
the training and support for this Stage will be vital for its
strength and effectiveness. I believe such an investment could
transform our education outcomes.
4. ABOUT ASSESSMENT
Clearly baseline assessment at the start of
formal education is vital. May I suggest that any systematic assessment
of children's outcomes at an earlier stage is very likely to prove
counterproductive in terms of good practice? Also, the wide range
of normal development in the Foundation Stage means that assessment
of children at three years would not be particularly helpful.
However, much could be done to assess the quality of provision
and of the role of the adult, for 0-3s as well as 3-6s. I know
of at least two very solid studies currently being undertaken
in this area. In a general way, I would welcome a greater tendency
to make a distinction between on the one hand our goals or aims
(we should reach for the sky), and on the other what we can reasonably
expect of children, taking a range of factors into account. I
strongly believe in high expectations but not in unrealistic ones.
5. ABOUT THE
AGE AT
WHICH FORMAL
SCHOOLING SHOULD
START
All the evidence both from our own studies in
the UK and from other countries points to the likely wisdom of
embarking on some degree of "formality" (but perhaps
there needs to be clarity about what this means) around the age
of six, at the start of Key Stage 1. An enormous amount of learning
needs to be achieved in the Foundation Stage in an informal way
in order for formal schooling to start successfully at Key Stage
1.
You ask about other relevant early years issues
including the potential impact of Sure Start on early learning.
I believe that Sure Start will prove to have been a very major
step forward in this provision for children's learning. Although
the focus of Sure Start is 0-3 it is likely to make a major impact
on UK learning outcomes in the long term, provided that dissemination
issues can be addressed effectively and at the appropriate time.
The 250 projects starting in the first three years 1999-2002 are
very much engaged in developing excellent innovative practice
in their own areas. However, there has been general agreement
throughout the setting up of Sure Start that such work will take
time to develop and bear fruit. The long-term question is how
that work can be made to impact on education outcomes generally.
There would appear to be (at least) two issues:
1. The capacity of the current projects
to disseminate their practice as widely as possible. No allowance
has currently been made for this in funding terms at the moment.
If Sure Start is to continue beyond 2002 (and it will be vital
that it does if the impact is to be made), perhaps the decision
not to fund dissemination needs re-examining.
2. The expectation is that where Sure Start
initiatives—or elements of them—are seen to have been
effective, it will be appropriate to "roll out" such
good practice with local funding. Perhaps it is worth mentioning
that this work with 0-3's is entirely new work and therefore will
need new funding, even at a local level. The potential impact
of Sure Start will necessarily be greatly restricted if this issue—the
concept of completely new 0-3's work in education which will need
funding—is not addressed.
Finally, I wonder if I may raise a more general
point about the processes of education currently in the UK. Teachers
have come through an important period of greater accountability
together with more openness about their practice. In many ways
our schools have been transformed for the better and many would
acknowledge that such a process was urgently needed. However,
I am sure there is a general awareness that a heavy price has
been piad. I wonder if we now need a subsequent period in which
we address the culture and process of practitioners' learning
and development? It is very inspection-driven at the moment, with
external assessments and rewards to the fore. This does not help
teachers to reflect critically for themselves on their own practice
and plan how to develop it incrementally.
We know that—in a variety of ways—the
process of learning throughout life is by making (manageable)
mistakes and improving as a result: from "giants" of
learning theory such as Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner and Popper; our
grandmothers knew it; our own professional experience reflects
the "plan, do, review" cycle that leads to positive
change. But the stress and pace of the current situation in schools
makes it very diffucult for teachers to develop their practice
in this way. It is the essential culture of reflective practice
that is now at risk.
Perhaps an important task for education in the new
millennium is to address our culture of learning, both for practitioners
and parents at all levels, as well as for children.
I do hope these points will be of some use.
Please do let me know if there is anything further that I can
provide.
Rosemary Roberts
PEEP Director
January 2000
| 
