Further memorandum from The National Early
Years Network (EY 74)[1]
INTRODUCTION
SUMMARY OF
MAJOR POINTS
The response to the establishment of the Foundation
Stage curriculum is very positive, but stresses that it should
be viewed as a stage distinct from Key Stage 1. While it should
prepare all children for general learning skills eventually needed
in a classroom, it should be valued as a stage in its own right,
and this should not lead to a compartmentalisation into discrete
subject areas.
The Early Learning Goals are broadly welcomed,
in particular the emphasis given to personal, social and emotional
development, but strong reservations remain that insufficiently
trained staff will view the goal statements—notably those
concerning literacy and numeracy—as a complete curriculum
for children younger than six. This would be particularly inappropriate
for children with SEN.
Downwards pressure from Key Stage 1 to introduce
greater formality into the Foundation Stage curriculum should
be resisted, because of the adverse consequences of an early experience
of "failure" on later educational achievements, particularly
for boys.
To maintain and encourage young children's drive
to learn, the early years curriculum should allow children an
active role in their own learning and be play-based; this makes
the demands on staff particularly complex. Care and education
aspects should be fully integrated in the early years curriculum.
Currently over 60 per cent of staff working
with young children have no relevant training. Eventually, all
those delivering the Foundation Stage should have a recognised
early years qualification, with qualified teachers and early years
degree graduates being seen as most suited to lead early years
settings. They would be supported by appropriately qualified early
years staff. Ratios remain a contentious issue.
While the QCA climbing frame is welcomed, the
need for a simplified system of qualifications, greater recognition
of the demands of SEN teaching, and for greater coherence and
improvement in the associated employment conditions are seen as
crucial conditions for its success. Continuing professional development
for all early years staff is key to the quality of provision and
such training should be made more accessible.
Systems of assessment should be based on children's
individual need and stage of development, should weigh many different
sources of evidence and involve regular observations. Once the
Foundation Stage is in place, there is general agreement that
Baseline Assessment should be moved to the end of the reception
year.
The new arm of Ofsted—preferably to be
directed by an early years specialist—should ensure that
the inspection process validates the ongoing assessment of children,
is undertaken by staff teams trained and experienced in early
years care and education, and employs a single and integrated
inspection framework.
There is remarkable unanimity about the desirability
of raising the school starting age to six and, in the interim,
of reinstating the rising-fives policy as soon as possible. European
educational outcomes are quoted widely in support of these proposals
and of flexible entry to compulsory schooling, possibly on the
basis of school readiness tests.
Regardless of the professional perspective from
which they are provided, the most vociferous criticism is reserved
for the policies responsible for four year olds entering reception
classes, especially summer-born ones. Current practice denies
many four year olds their entitlement to early education delivered
by appropriately trained staff in suitable premises which operate
relevant ratios.
For this summary a total of 68 responses were
analysed. More than half of these, 43, addressed all questions,
while the other 25 focused on some particular questions or just
one (as in the case of the school starting age), or raised concerns
related to issues explored by the sub-committee. There were more
submissions from the voluntary sector than from the statutory
educational sector, and they included a number from larger agencies
in the SEN and disability fields. No submissions were received
from black or ethnic minority organisations.
Some submissions came from organisations encompassing
members from the statutory, voluntary and independent sectors,
such as PAT/PANN, NEYN, ECEF and a couple of Early Years Development
and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs). A number came from individuals,
including academics, nursery head teachers and other early years
practitioners, and several respondents wrote as parents. Responses
also came from a number of agencies representing professional
organisations indirectly related to education, such as British
Music Rights and the Publishers Association. The National Association
of Day Nurseries was the only major organisation representing
the private early years sector to submit evidence. None of the
private nursery chains used this opportunity to comment on early
education policies.
For the analysis, the views of those who responded
to all questions posed by the committee were summarised in considerable
detail. The views on specific issues expressed by other respondents
were also used to illustrate the main arguments. The responses
were not weighted in relation to the number of individuals represented
in the submission, but the analysis concentrated on identifying
the major themes that emerged from the submissions.
As it became clear from the submissions that
very few respondents had sufficient experience of the development
of Sure Start programmes to do more than express sincere hopes
for its success, no summary of comments on this aspect of early
years services has been provided. The sub-committee's recent announcement
that it will now consider evidence on the birth to three age group
may open up another opportunity to consider the potential impact
of Sure Start.
A similar format was chosen for the summary
of responses to each of the five questions, with a subsection
being devoted to equality issues, given the universal nature of
the provision that forms the subject of the sub-committee's inquiry.
1 Summary of 68 responses to the sub-committee produced
on behalf of the DfEE. Back
| 
