SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS
1. THE APPROPRIATE
CONTENT OF
EARLY YEARS
EDUCATION, TAKING
INTO ACCOUNT
THE RECENTLY
PUBLISHED QCA EARLY
LEARNING GOALS
The concept of the Foundation Stage curriculum
While virtually all respondents welcome the establishment
of the Foundation Stage, views differ about the degree to which
this should be seen as distinctive from the National Curriculum,
notably Key Stage 1, even though technically it continues into
the first year of primary school. It is thought that this presents
problems, particularly where young four year olds are taught alongside
older children in reception classes, as their entitlement to the
early years curriculum might be jeopardised.
Under present arrangements, the Foundation Stage
would only last three terms, or as little as one term for some
children, not three years. PLA recommends that the entitlement
to the Foundation Stage should therefore be defined by age, while
for EYCG the best solution would be to extend the Foundation Stage
to incorporate Year 1.
That the first phase of education is from birth
to three is stressed by ECEF and Dr Gillian Pugh, among others:
the early years curriculum should form part of a continuum of
learning from birth. For most professional groups it should have
an emphasis on informal child-led learning, communication and
social/behavioural skills. The NUT is in a minority when it states
emphatically that early education should not be "hived off"
from the rest of primary education. It requires consistency in
the training and qualifications of all those working with young
children.
There is general agreement that the Foundation
Stage should prepare all children for the general learning skills
needed in a classroom setting. The Children's Society wishes to
see parents more involved in its development and wants implementation
of a more proactive information strategy for parents on this and
the Early Learning Goals. Montessori and Steiner Waldorf advocate
pluralism in education and access to models other than the standard
one for low-income families as well as those who can pay.
Most respondents, both those representing professional
groups and individuals, emphasise that teaching and learning in
the early years should be holistic and should not be compartmentalised
into discrete subject areas, and that communication, problem-solving,
representation via a range of media, decision-making and reflecting
should be the core basic skills at the heart of a distinctive
early years curriculum.
Forced achievement in superficially measurable
skills could be counterproductive in both the short and long term,
according to Early Education and many other respondents. Indeed,
Dr Rowland, a retired neuroscientist presents evidence that between
birth and seven, the young brain is unsuited in structure and
mode of operating for much formal learning. Early education should
be broad and balanced, and a holistic pedagogical approach needs
to be adopted within which education and care aspects can be fully
integrated. The child should be enabled to take control of their
own disposition to learn and to develop their capacity to think.
The Early Learning Goals and the role of play
Generally the Early Learning Goals are welcomed as
both a significant improvement on the Desirable Outcomes for Learning
and on the draft version that was consulted upon. However, many
reservations remain. These focus in particular on the literacy
and numeracy strategies, and goals which are said to be too numerous
and to conflict with the general aims and guidelines. The crucial
importance of creative and physical development to children's
literacy and mathematical development should not be under-estimated.
Acquiring preliminary listening and oral language
skills which underpin later literacy should be viewed as a valid
achievement in early learning. Downward pressure from the National
Curriculum is identified in numerous submissions, and blamed for
the effect that the curriculum offered to very young children
is increasingly narrow. Setting targets for three year olds would
be completely inappropriate and it is vital to reiterate the fact
that the goals are to be achieved by the end of reception year,
not before. Creative, physical and spiritual development could
all benefit from more attention in the guidelines for implementing
the Early Learning Goals.
There is emphatic agreement with the high priority
given to personal, social and emotional development among the
goals, as development in this area is seen as a prerequisite for
further successful learning. Too much formality should be discouraged
and the goals must not be employed in such a way that children
are set up to fail and will be "switched off" from learning.
Some respondents also note a dangerous polarisation of views regarding
different ways of learning. QCA is encouraged, notably by NAPE,
to see the goals as a starting point for further debate, discussion
and refinement, rather than regarding them as finalised, while
NDNA warns that the goals will only be achieved if taught in a
setting that reflects both the care and educational needs of young
children.
The NUT warns that
the absence of the requirement, currently, that
all providers of early years education employ qualified staff—and
in particular full-time qualified teachers—coupled with
the limited resources available for training, means that there
is a danger that unqualified, inexperienced staff will view the
"goal" statements as a complete curriculum.
NEYN shares this view. It is concerned that
the literacy hour may be adopted for children as young as three.
Young Minds welcomes the goals and well-structured
settings in principle, but sounds a warning about some aspects
of the numeracy and literacy goals and the impact that achieving
them may have on the overall early years educational environment.
Young Minds advocates a mainly oral and aural approach in early
education, which takes account of developmental needs—a
view widely shared.
All comments made so far must be interpreted
in the light of the widespread agreement that the importance of
play and physical activity in the early years cannot be over-stated.
Playgroup Network notes that structured but informal learning
through play is best in the early years, while NEYN asks for a
more explicit recognition of the important role of child-led play
in early learning. There are particularly passionate pleas for
play opportunities from parent respondents: "Early childhood
should be a time of security and discovery," and a warning
of introducing learning goals too soon.
To achieve the goals, the concepts of sensitive
periods and readiness to learn must be better understood by early
educators. This will help them grow in confidence in relation
to the role of play in early learning. Play-based learning is
needed both indoors and outdoors, and children should be encouraged
to make choices not only about activities but also about who they
play and work with. However, it is difficult to see how a play-based
curriculum can be delivered to four year olds in a school setting,
given the staffing ratios that apply there.
According to the 22 professional organisations
concerned with children's mental health which are represented
by Young Minds:
Many young children are over-stimulated by television,
have too little physical exercise—which is important for
mental as well as physical development—and have insufficient
direct attention for adults.
It is argued that a play-based curriculum for
the early years can provide a counterweight to these pressures.
Personal, emotional and social development is strongly fostered
by play activities.
Equal opportunities
EYTARN and NUT, in particular, welcome the fact
that the most recent documents on the Early Learning Goals contain
strong principles concerning disadvantage and exclusion on the
basis of "race", culture, religion and home language.
However, according to EYTARN, the principles are not followed
through in the goals, which:
do not provide opportunities for children to
begin to consider the effects of racist attitudes and behaviour
and to unlearn any racist attitudes that they may have already
learned.
It recommends that the action points from a
EYTARN Framework for Action for early years settings should form
the basis for reviewing the goals in the light of addressing racism
in more positive ways. The needs of children with English as an
additional language need greater recognition.
According to MENCAP, children with SEN and those
with limited language require a more inclusive education system
in which there is no place for formally defined early learning
goals. Learning outcomes must be agreed with parents and carers.
Educators need access to specialist SEN advice and support, as
special skills are required to adapt the early years curriculum
for some children. Similar views are expressed by other specialist
agencies in these areas, while the early years curriculum overall
must value diversity and difference.
Several respondents see the lack of a discussion
about the role of gender in the early years as significant. The
EOC notes that
the extent to which gender currently determines
early learning experiences and outcomes is not widely recognised
or identified as an issue of concern by educational policy-makers
and practitioners. Without some intervention in the early years
sector, the outcome will continue to be underachievement of boys,
stereotyped subject, option and career choices, inequality in
work, skills shortages and continuing pay gap.
This is echoed by Young Minds, which warns that
too much formality and resulting failure may be implicated in
the fact that boys display far more behavioural and later learning
problems than girls. This is not the only agency to draw attention
to boys' greater educational underachievement compared to girls.
The issue of social class divisions is raised
in the response from Dr Jacqui Cousins, an early years expert
submitting evidence on behalf of the parents, children, staff
and volunteers using a family centre in rural Devon. Welcoming
the revised Early Learning Goals she expresses their understanding
that:
they will now reflect the combined inter-agency
discussions of specialists and practitioners' interpretations
of "a quality of teaching and early learning" rather
than be based on narrow, outdated and seriously misinterpreted
theories of early learning which perpetuate social class divisions.
2. THE WAY
IN WHICH
THE EARLY
YEARS CURRICULUM
SHOULD BE
TAUGHT
General points
Many of the points made in response to the sub-committee's
question regarding curriculum content are reiterated under this
heading. These include: the important role of play; the limitations
that may be imposed by curriculum goals; the need to avoid formality,
especially for three year olds; and the need to resist the Foundation
Stage becoming a kind of hot-housing stage for Key Stage 1 (due
to the distinct type of brain development taking place between
the ages of birth to seven).
Ratios should reflect the ages of children in
the Foundation Stage. For some respondents, this should ideally
be a ratio of 1:10 in all settings for three to seven year olds
and, at the least, argues NDNA, there should be consistency of
ratios between providers. Playgroup Network, however, feels that
only Children Act ratios are acceptable in any early years setting.
Early Education notes that children learn much from the example
of more experienced children as well as from adults. NEYN shares
the widely expressed view that care must be taken not to compromise
children's confidence in their own ability to be successful learners.
It also notes that the early years learning environment should
stress physical development and active exploitation indoors and
out, as do Devon Curriculum Services.
A number of respondents—notably NAHT,
Case, Lifestart, CARE for Education, Dr Gillian Pugh and PLA—stressed
the value of gaining parental involvement and interest, if parents
are to support their children's learning at home. PLA proposes
that, in the planned expansion of early education, there is an
opportunity to develop a model that is fundamentally parent-centred
as well as child-centred. Dr Pugh notes the important contribution
of the Early Excellence Centre model in this respect.
The role of the educator
There is general agreement that teaching methods
should be learner-centred, and that child-initiated as well as
adult-directed learning opportunities are needed. To promote children's
social, emotional and personal well being, cross-curricular teaching
approaches are needed, and all learning must take place in a challenging,
well-resourced and well designed environment. NUT recognises the
importance of integrated care and education but argues that learning
is planned, not incidental, and that the distinct traditions in
caring and teaching should be respected and developed further,
retaining their different emphases.
Maintaining children's innate drive to learn
is the main challenge for early educators. Teaching should be
directed by an understanding of how young children learn through
play, exploration, experimentation and talk. Young Minds note
that:
between the ages of three and six children are
engaged in key developmental tasks: they need to be able to separate
confidently from their parents and carers and to play both alone
and with others in a way which increases self-confidence . . .
Their ability to cope will be determined by a combination of physical
and emotional readiness heavily influenced by their home backgrounds.
TACTYC notes that "risk-taking is a major
factor in quality life-long learning and there is no place for
shame and blame". The unsuitability of most primary school
reception classes for four year olds is stressed by a majority
of respondents. Each step of early years development should be
valued in its own right, not just as a preparation for school.
To this end it is vital that all early years options are supported
equitably, according to CARE for Education.
Equal opportunities
Formal directive teaching situations, according
to EYTARN, are unlikely to present children with opportunities
to evaluate their attitudes and beliefs in an atmosphere of mutual
respect, acceptance and openness in which their ideas are listened
to and respected. Materials used in the early years should be
free from stereotyping, the EOC emphasises, and more efforts should
be made to change staff attitudes towards gender.
The fact that direct instruction in the early
years is rarely meaningful is considered particularly relevant
to SEN children by the specialist agencies representing their
interests. The delivery of early education needs to recognise
a wide range of individual learning styles and a range of abilities:
visual, aural and others. Educational and therapeutic plans for
individual children may need integrating.
The EOC is concerned that staff need greater
awareness of the evidence for the damaging ways in which boys
and girls may get treated differently by staff.
As the sub-committee's remit does not explicitly
address the policy implementation aspects of early education,
issues such as the particular delivery problems in rural areas
do not get addressed. An exception is the submission from Dr Jacqui
Cousins, in which she draws attention to problems with staffing
and premises specific to rural areas.
3. THE
KIND OF
STAFF NEEDED
TO TEACH
THE EARLY
YEARS CURRICULUM
AND THE
QUALIFICATIONS THEY
SHOULD HAVE
General skills and experience needed by early
years staff
The majority of under fives are currently in the
care of staff with little or no educational content in their training;
indeed, over 60 per cent of the early years workforce has had
no relevant training. Increased training and understanding of
young children's social and emotional development is a priority
for those working with them. For some respondents the contents
of the numeracy and literacy strategies provide strong evidence
of an ignorance about early developmental processes and a neglect
of major educational theories on the part of QCA and DfEE. Without
a proper understanding of how young children learn, a curriculum
remains worthless. Staff need to be sympathetic and responsive
to the needs of young children, and able to value and acknowledge
them as individuals. Suitability to work with children should
be assessed at the earliest opportunity.
Several parents express their concern that their
input as the main educators of their children is being devalued
and should be recognised in educational budgets. Many agree that
partnership with parents requires both knowledge and skill to
work with parents' very personal perspectives. According to Young
Minds, training for early years staff should include an understanding
of other support services and how to achieve effective working
relationships with them. Most respondents make a strong case for
greater recognition of the early years professions through better
pay and conditions.
The issue of ratios is raised here again, because
ratios and their interaction with qualifications are seen as key
influences on staff performance. However, opinion varies as to
the most favourable ratio. NAPE stresses that the ratio of children
to adults needs to reflect the wide range of developmental stages
of the children in early years settings. NUT calls for legal limits
to ratios, referring to a 1997 DfEE survey which confirmed that,
in a quarter of nursery schools and classes, ratios were worse
than the recommended 1:13 for children under five. To illustrate
this, NUT points out that staff teaching two part-time sessions
may need to record details for over 50 children and liaise with
over 50 sets of parents.
Many recommend the Children Act ratio of 1:8
for any setting not employing qualified teachers, and stress the
need for additional support where children with SEN are involved.
Others recommend a ratio of 1:10 (qualified staff to children)
in pre-school settings where the Foundation Stage is delivered,
or one qualified teacher and two nursery nurses for any class
of 30.
Qualifications needed and the QCA climbing frame
The majority of respondents see it as essential
that all those working in the Foundation Stage should have a recognised
early years qualification. However, independent day nurseries
take a different view and the Children's Society believes that
it is "vital that education in the early years is not seen
as the prerogative of teachers". Opinion varies as to the
appropriate qualification for those in charge of early years settings
delivering early education, but the majority of respondents, including
PLA, come down firmly on the side of a qualified early years teacher
being the appropriate person. Alongside this person, qualified
support staff such as nursery nurses and classroom assistants
should be employed. The sub-committee is urged not to overlook
this "invisible professional".
A specialism in early childhood education needs
to be recognised as a discipline in its own right and afforded
parallel conditions of service to all other areas of teaching,
according to TACTYC, Early Education and NAHT. ECEF stresses the
need for new early years and childcare qualifications that allow
for a diversity of philosophical approach, and is among those
noting that the specialism should embrace the age range of birth
to seven. Problems with the current three-tier qualifications
system for teaching in the early years provide another case for
the introduction of unified qualification for teaching the Foundation
Stage.
If primary teachers are to take on the job of
teaching the Foundation Curriculum, they should be specially trained
for this. Too many four year olds in reception classes are taught
by those without relevant training. Many respondents recognise
the problems with the low level of training in the current workforce
and the urgent need to promote the status of early years practitioners,
to invest in their training and improve their pay and conditions.
PAT/PANN sound a strong warning that
new minimum standards for early education and
childcare are urgently needed in order to prevent the risk of
childcare establishments being flooded by inexperienced, untrained
people working alongside overstretched professionals.
While the work on the "climbing frame"
is warmly welcomed, the need for a simplified system of qualifications
and for greater coherence in the associated employment conditions
is stressed by many, as is the need for an adequate supply of
accessible courses. Early Education calls for every training course
to have a taught element so that students can build up the necessary
underpinning knowledge and understanding. The links between early
years degrees and other qualifications need further attention
as part of the development of the climbing frame. These and graduate
teacher status are generally agreed to be appropriate qualifications
for those in charge of early years settings and there is also
support for the position that all early years practitioners should
eventually be qualified up to NVQ Level 3.
Virtually all respondents stress the need for
opportunities for continuing professional development for all
early years staff during the working day and the need for accreditation
of prior learning and experience. NEYN calls for the establishment
of INSET days for early years workers, equivalent to those for
teachers. Regular opportunities must be provided for in-service
training and support from specialist advisers. A realistic investment
in training is recommended by the majority of respondents.
Equal opportunities
Positive action is needed to ensure that early
years staff who are disabled or from ethnic minorities have the
chance to gain qualifications. EYTARN notes with concern that,
while both further education and voluntary-sector courses nearly
always have a requirement to address equality issues and anti-discriminatory
practice, this is not so in initial teacher training. This serious
gap should be addressed by TTA as a matter of urgency. All staff
working with and caring for young children should be committed
to implementing racial equality, and all early years qualifications
should feature equality training that also includes SEN, disability
and gender issues.
The proposed qualifications structure has significant
weaknesses in respect of SEN. Disability and SEN training should
be a mandatory part of early years qualifications. Increased funding
is needed for specialist support for children with SEN in inclusive
settings, and to extend special schools' knowledge to those settings.
An early years supplement to the 1997 SENCO guide would be invaluable,
according to MENCAP. According to RNIB, a multi-agency approach
to the needs of children with disabilities is crucial in the early
years, especially where there are relatively few children with
a particular disability, such as visual impairment. SCOPE, the
National Autistic Society and the other specialist organisations
all argue for systems to be improved for the earliest possible
identification of and response to SEN.
There is an urgent need to address the gender
imbalance in the early years workforce, according to NEYN, Dr
Gillian Pugh and EOC. Men have an important role to play in the
care, education and support of young children.
4. THE
WAY IN
WHICH QUALITY
OF TEACHING
AND LEARNING
IN THE
EARLY YEARS
IS ASSESSED
Assessment and Baseline Assessment
General ongoing assessment in early years settings
is clearly distinguished from Baseline Assessment. While the key
reason for assessment is acknowledged as being diagnostic and
an aid to planning and future learning, there is a continuum of
views on the form it should take. At one end of this continuum
are:
— a statement by concerned parents
that the culture of assessment is at odds with the way we want
to raise our children;
— the view that variability of early
brain development makes measuring progress problematic;
— PAT/PANN's view that the most important
dimensions of early education cannot be measured; and
— Young Minds' opinion that the style
of interaction between the educator and the child is a critical
factor in the effectiveness of the learning experience.
Further along the continuum, it is noted by
many that a system of assessment should be based on individual
need and should weigh many different sources of evidence. Value-added
criteria are the only true measures of success in the early years,
according to one submission. ECEF reflects generally shared views
in its observation that:
Assessing quality demands complex systems of
evaluation and related developments which should include: self-assessment
and continuing development programmes; external inspection which
is entirely independent but which is informed by self-assessment
at the point of inspection; ongoing and meaningful partnership
with parents and children; [and] qualitative methodologies which
vigorously document every child's progress and help parents and
teachers to support children better, possibly in the style of
the Learning Stories model being developed as a national system
in New Zealand.
Strong misgivings are expressed about the current
stage at which Baseline Assessment takes place in reception classes,
as some four year olds will not have received more than a single
term of early education at this stage, and individual variability
is still considerable—especially as the age at which Baseline
Assessment takes place also varies substantially. Baseline Assessment
requires progress to be measured before children have adapted
to their new setting. Once the Foundation Stage is in place, Baseline
Assessment at this early stage should be seen as inappropriate
and it should be moved to the end of the reception year.
A collaborative approach between teachers and
parents is advocated by NAPE, and by TACTYC, which also points
out that the current format is based too heavily on paper-based
exercises. Those allowing educators to interpret children's practical
experiences as the basis of their learning are preferable.
According to NAHT, neither Baseline Assessment
nor Key Stage 1 tests succeed so far in providing reliable data
on process and outcomes.
Inspection and regulation
The principles, aims and guidelines for the
Early Learning Goals should form the basis for assessment and
inspection. However, care must be taken in training of early years
workers and inspectors that the goals do not come to be seen as
a rigid framework against which children are to be inspected.
The inspection process should validate the ongoing assessment
of children and should be undertaken by appropriately qualified
and trained early years inspectors, working corporately rather
than on their own. If these conditions can be guaranteed, the
new arm of Ofsted should be welcomed. Even so, a problem remains
with the lack of understanding of the early years at the highest
level in Ofsted and it would be very helpful if an early years
specialist were to be recruited to head up its new early years
arm.
A single and integrated inspection framework
is urgently needed. The continuing discrepancies between Section
10 inspections under the Schools Inspection Act and Section 122
inspections under the Nursery Education and Grant Maintained Schools
Act must be removed, while the most useful aspects of each type
of inspection is preserved. Common standards should apply to all
early years settings. The anomaly that any care and education
setting for three and four year olds, except schools, require
a third inspection under the Children Act provision, is frequently
raised as an issue. There is general agreement, however, that
the proposals for new inspection arrangements constitute an ambitious
programme which will only bring all provision up to the standards
of the best if there is sufficient investment in training and
other resources.
Child-centred inspection and registration regimes
are now needed, according to the Children's Society, reflecting
the emphases in the Foundation Stage. Ofsted must take account
of the previously exaggerated emphasis on target-setting which,
in the recent past, has been inappropriately applied to the very
young. The regulatory regime must also pay due attention to the
health and welfare of young children and their need for secure
attachments.
Equal opportunities
Ofsted inspectors must be recruited from a wide
range of communities, EYTARN urges. It also recommends ethnic
monitoring of applications to be Ofsted trainers and inspectors.
Inspectors should be trained in equality issues and the inspection
framework should require them to inspect these effectively. All
inspectors should understand how equality can be addressed in
practice throughout early years practice and procedures, following
the McPherson Report's emphasis on the need for action on racial
equality in the early years.
With the extension of Ofsted's remit, valuable
SEN experience and expertise among SSD and LEA staff may be lost.
Locally based inspection teams, which are key to promoting good
practice in a range of early years settings, may also disappear.
Transitional arrangements are needed where their skills are employed
alongside Ofsted staff. There is a need for a clear framework
to underpin the inspection of SEN work in schools.
While Ofsted inspectors and trainers need training
on gender issues as part of their equal opportunities training,
the issue of the gender balance among Ofsted inspectors should
also be addressed.
5. THE
AGE AT
WHICH FORMAL
SCHOOLING SHOULD
START
The age of statutory entry to school
No other question posed by the committee generated
such strong statements, reflecting serious concern about the conditions
currently encountered by three and four year olds in school. Indeed,
it is even recommended that the committee take the school starting
age as the starting point for their inquiry.
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. Only
NUT explicitly dissents, arguing that raising the school age to
six could be seen as reducing an opportunity to reduce investment
in early education. Many respondents point to European experience
with later school entry at six or seven, where educational achievement
at ages eight and nine far outstrips that of British children.
Young Minds quotes the findings of the International Educational
Achievement Study in 32 countries, which support the argument
for six as the age of school entry.
Several submissions are entirely devoted to
arguments for raising the school entry age to six. Professor Wolff
provides detailed arguments from the perspective of attachment
theory, while Caroline Sharp's research review of studies in this
area produced for Ofsted concludes that
there would appear to be no compelling educational
rationale for a statutory school age of five or for the practice
of admitting four year olds to school reception classes.
David and Clare Mills, who produced a Channel
4 film on the issues in 1998, provide the most detailed examples
of European practice. NASUWT and a few other respondents express
their regret that the new early education policies favour part-time
provision and that this policy issue is not being discussed in
more depth.
The possibility of introducing flexible entry
to compulsory schooling on the basis of European-style school
readiness tests is raised by numerous respondents, among them
NEYN, Young Minds, the Barking Educational Inspectors writing
in tandem with the National Institute of Economic and Social Research,
the Children's Society and PLA. However, the issue of who bears
the cost of keeping places open needs addressing and there might
be a role here for Admissions Forums. The latest neuroscientific
research on the dense neural-pathways formation in the early years,
and other research findings on the rate of physical maturation
in the early years, are also quoted in support of later school
entry. In practical terms, early entry to school may effectively
deny four year olds their entitlement to early education. The
establishment of a distinct period of education before the start
of more formal schooling, according to Early Education, could
ensure that all children receive the support that they need, as
a right.
Formality in teaching and learning
A significant number of respondents deliberately
distinguish between formality and compulsory school entry, as
there appears to be a genuine risk of downward pressure from the
National Curriculum and Key Stage 1 tests on how the Foundation
Stage curriculum is taught. An emphasis on abstract concepts should
be avoided until age six or seven, in favour of learning grounded
in concrete, practical and context-rich experiences. It is noted
that the introduction of the literacy strategy has done much to
undermine early learning, especially where four year olds are
taught alongside older peers in reception and Year 1 classes.
There, young children may receive a diluted form of the Years
1 and 2 curriculum, and "given that this is viewed as inappropriately
formal for Year 2 children, it is proving catastrophic for four
and five year olds", according to EYCG.
It is also noted that Ofsted inspectors have
been stressing formality despite guidance to the contrary on the
value of self-directed learning. TACTYC relates the point at which
children become more emotionally independent to the time where
they are ready to undertake more formal learning, which is certainly
not at four. Parents' submissions are particularly vocal on the
issue of children's need to enjoy their childhood without any
emphasis on comparison or achievement, with one mother expressing
her belief that: "Parents nowadays are brainwashed into believing
that the sooner their children start school, the more successful
they will be".
NAPE believes that parental choice must be preserved
with regard to provision for under fives. Young children aged
five and under appear to do best when they have opportunities
to socialise, make their own choices and take responsibility for
their own learning. This constitutes the complexity of early years
teaching and learning.
Irrespective 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, with one respondent
commenting that: "It is fraudulent to talk about nursery
education and then to consign four year olds to larger classes
in reception and to a formal curriculum."
NCNE notes that the reasons for early admission
to reception classes are not usually based on consideration of
children's educational needs. Reception-class teachers have been
made to feel that they are undertaking an impossible task, while
nursery teachers feel devalued. Attention is drawn to the observation
in the 1999 Review of Pre-schools and Playgroups, that early entry
may harm children. School entry at four appears to have occurred
by default, without any public or parliamentary debate. NAPE goes
as far as warning that the establishment of a curriculum for children
as young as three may eventually lead to a statutory requirement
of attendance at school. Dr Gillian Pugh draws attention to the
potential adverse effect on young children of lack in continuity
of early care and education experiences, both during each day
and in the course of the early years. This is one of the unintended
consequences of the way in which early education and childcare
policies are being implemented.
Equal opportunities
EYTARN makes the point that a later school starting
age will give children not only more opportunities to discuss
and explore racial attitudes and equality issues as part of activities
related to the Early Learning Goals for personal, social and emotional
development and in a context of more favourable staff: child ratios,
it will also allow many to gain more confidence in their use of
English as an additional language.
High-quality provision in the early years will
support an effective inclusive approach to SEN. Many problems
can be averted through proactive early interventions. The transfer
of information between the early years setting and primary school
is important, but this does not only apply to children with SEN.
Several respondents note that boys are more
affected than girls by early formalisation and that this should
be taken into account in teaching styles. EOC recommends, with
special reference to boys, that research be undertaken to provide
clear evidence regarding the optimal starting age for entry into
formal schooling, with a view to securing the best opportunities
for learning for all young children.
| 
