Examination of Witnesses (Questions 287
- 299)
WEDNESDAY 14 JUNE 2000
DR NICK
TATE AND
MS LESLEY
STAGGS
Chairman
287. Good morning. Can I welcome Dr Tate and
Lesley Staggs to our proceedings and say that I do not know if
it is an advantage or a disadvantage but this Committee has been
looking at this for some time now and has just come back from
looking at the Danish experience which we found extremely interesting.
One of the advantages or disadvantages as far as our witnesses
are now concerned is we seem to know more about the subject than
sometimes in the past, for good or ill, but can I first of all
welcome you both and congratulate Dr Tate on his new appointment.
That is probably why we have so many people in the public gallery
today! Can we start by saying that many of us have been very impressed
by the Curriculum Guidance and, indeed, so impressed that we left
a copy of it in Denmark for the Institute of Educational Research
who seemed to be devouring it as we left. What was interesting
is that they were certainly going through a period of transition
in the way they were looking at matters. May I also say that,
although this is a formal proceeding, we tend to be reasonably
informal because we think we get the best out of our witnesses
by being relatively informal. Can I start by going for the jugular
and saying all this seems to be very well accepted out there in
early years but the one thing that rubs is literacy and numeracy
and that it seems to strike a discordant chord in what are otherwise
good, sound—not common sense but professional—standards.
You must have heard, in terms of consultation, certain voices
about literacy and numeracy but still we are hearing this and
picking this up as we go round the country, talking and listening.
Could you tell us why you think you had to stick with the literacy
and numeracy part of your recommendations?
(Dr Tate) Thank you very much for the
introduction and we are delighted for the opportunity to talk
to the Committee. Looking back over the last few years, I think
the place of literacy and numeracy in the early years curriculum
has always been the most difficult to resolve at every stage.
Going back to the early development of the desirable learning
outcomes which was done by our predecessor body, the School Curriculum
and Assessment Authority, there was a great deal of debate and
a fair amount of dissension about the relative importance of literacy
and numeracy in those desirable outcomes and we finally reached
a resolution. When last year we were asked by the government to
consult on turning those desirable learning outcomes into early
learning goals, yet again the most difficult issue to resolve
was quite what to say about literacy and numeracy and how it related
to the rest of the early years curriculum. Similarly, in the very
wide consultations and discussions which took place to finalise
this curriculum guidance document, what held it up at various
points was deciding exactly what we said to the system out there
about literacy and numeracy. We have come to the view that we
have reached a sensible compromise between the various pressures
on the early years curriculum. We are very keen to promote literacy
and numeracy in the early years curriculum to make sure that children
reach key stage one at age 5 appropriately prepared; the evidence
from OFSTED inspections suggests that a lot of children in reception
year are able to cope with the demands of the national frameworks
for literacy and numeracy as part of the national literacy and
numeracy strategies, certainly towards the end of that year; but
we were very keen in particular in developing our curriculum guidance
to ensure there was maximum flexibility for settings to meet the
needs of very different groups of children of that age. The compromise
we have reached, and it is on page 27 of the document—and
that page is engraved in our hearts and minds because the crafting
of those words was particularly difficult—is a sensible
compromise in terms of stressing how vital it is by the end of
the reception year that children are prepared to move on to the
literacy and numeracy hour requirements which will come in at
the beginning of key stage 1. But how quickly, during the reception
year, settings move to implement those strategies and how they
do so for different groups of pupils is very rightly left up to
them. OFSTED inspection evidence, however, does suggest that most
children by the end of reception year are able to benefit and
benefit substantially and we do not feel that there is necessarily
a conflict between those pressures on the early years curriculum
and all the other elements. One of the things we were very keen
to do both in the guidance that accompanied the early learning
goals and in this larger curriculum guidance was to clarify the
crucial role of play in the early years curriculum and how play
is the basis for learning of many different kinds. So we have
a good framework and we think that flexibly we have a framework
that schools and other settings will be able to adapt to meet
a wide range of very different needs. My colleague, Lesley, works
full time on this and may wish to add.
288. Before she comes back on that, Dr Tate,
it is a fact that what concerns members of the Committee is that
this is only recommended in reception classes, not in other settings.
It just seems to be odd that you have this dichotomy between the
two.
(Ms Staggs) It is certainly true to say that the literacy
strategy framework and the numeracy strategy framework only operate
in reception classes. We have very carefully developed here guidance
that works for children wherever they are. To build on that, what
we have tried to set out in the guidance are the types of literacy
and numeracy experiences, but as part of a much broader curriculum,
that are appropriate for children throughout the foundation stage.
We know that towards the end of that stage many of those children
will be in reception classes. Those types of experiences would
be just as appropriate for children if, for example, they continued
to be in a nursery or if, indeed, parents continued to work with
the childminder or whoever, so the guidance is appropriate for
children wherever they are in the foundation stage in funded settings.
What we have tried very much to do, though, is pick up on what
certainly has come through both formal consultations and all the
informal dialogue we have had, which is that people have said
to us that literacy and numeracy are clearly important for young
children. But what is important is we have to get the way in which
it happens appropriate and most of the concerns voiced have not
been about the objectives of the strategy—the idea of children
experiencing sharing big books, doing some work around sounds
and letters, beginning to experience writing, shared writing and
so on—the issues have almost always been about the way in
which that happens which is why it felt so important to make clear
that there is not an expectation that that will be happening through
a literacy hour or a daily mathematics lesson throughout the reception
year. The flexibility is already there in the guidance; we have
taken this opportunity to remind people of that to give it to
them in written form in the guidance because that is what people
said they wanted.
Charlotte Atkins
289. So you would be happy for the hour to be
split up into smaller components?
(Ms Staggs) Absolutely.
290. Because a lot of later years find that
is appropriate as well so what you are saying categorically then
is it does not have to be delivered as an hour either in literacy
or in numeracy as long as there is an hour of literacy and numeracy
taking place in any one day?
(Ms Staggs) Yes, and that is on page 27. The elements
can be delivered across the day in different contexts and really
it is then for teachers to make decisions about what is appropriate
for the children they are working with.
Chairman
291. But it is interesting as we go round the
country that perception is not percolating down. Many of them
think they have a literacy and numeracy hour that they are committed
to and they feel quite resentful about it. We met some pretty
strong-minded heads who said "I do it my way", and do
understand what page 27 tells them but the perception is out there
that they have what they regard as a millstone round their neck.
(Dr Tate) The curriculum guidance went out fairly
recently and there is a great deal of local authority in service
work going on at the moment and I am hoping that that message
on page 27 will be disseminated widely as a result of that.
Mr Marsden
292. Can I pursue the questions about literacy
and numeracy for a moment? When you were drawing up the views
expressed here, how far were you guided or influenced by the obvious
varying socio-economic backgrounds of the children affected but,
in particular, their ability to access outside this process materials
for literacy and numeracy and, indeed, varying degrees of parental
support.
(Ms Staggs) We have tried very carefully throughout
the document to reiterate again and again that children are different;
that children when they come into an early years setting, whether
at 3, 4 or 5, will have had a whole range already of different
interests, experiences and opportunities. We have talked about
the need to involve parents in the process of children's learning
both in terms of what goes on in the setting but also an understanding
of how much goes on outside the setting, and throughout the document
we have very carefully tried to reflect the range of children
who take part in early years provision. We have avoided at any
point talking about all three-year-olds or all four-year-olds
because clearly we know that children are very different and that
is partly because of maturity and interests but also very largely
because of the opportunities that happen to them outside the setting.
293. Do you see, in any way, what you are laying
out here as a compensatory factor for the fact that some of the
children to whom you have referred may not get the degree of parental
support or, indeed, access to the sorts of materials that would
enable them to respond as positively as you might like to these
sorts of materials?
(Ms Staggs) I think early years educators and practitioners
have always understood that part of what they need to plan for
is to build around what different children's needs are and certainly
we feel very much that this would support practitioners in doing
that. But we also need to be clear that parents, almost without
exception, want the best for their child and will want to be supportive
of their children, so one of the other strong messages that comes
through the guidance is about the importance of that partnership
with parents and about supporting parents in that role because
sometimes what parents need and welcome is the sort of support
that helps them provide all sorts of experiences you are talking
about. Certainly, however, any setting is going to plan its provision
based on what children's needs are, and they are going to be different.
Helen Jones
294. Could I take you to another topic? We have
looked in this inquiry at the age at which children should formally
start school and whilst we recognise there are a lot of parents
who would like their children to be in formal schools quite early,
we also come across a number who feel that, because of the admission
dates that authorities are now setting, children are starting
formal school very young—only four. We wondered if you had
any views to give the Committee on the age at which formal schooling
should start and how admission dates should be managed for very
young children?
(Ms Staggs) One of the problems is the way in which
we describe admission to primary school as going into formal schooling
because that has all sorts of connotations with it and from the
beginning I do not think that it is helpful to have assumptions
about provision, for example, that a reception class will be formal
in the accepted sense of the word in a way that is not so in other
sorts of provision. What we have set out to do in the guidance
is move the debate on in a sense and say that what is really important
is that, within this foundation stage, children have a curriculum
that is appropriate for them, practitioner support that is appropriate
for them, resources that are appropriate for them wherever they
are, so in a sense try to move the debate on from focusing on
whether children should be in one type of provision rather than
another. As I have said, it is not always helpful to think about
school as formal provision because my experience is there is some
very rich early years provision that goes on in our reception
classes in schools. It is not always helpful to think of it using
terms that have all the connotations of children sitting very
passively being talked to for most of the day.
295. Can I follow that up with you because,
if that is the case, does that not have implications for our teacher
training programmes? If you look at the way that our teachers
are trained and you look at the qualifications of those dealing
with reception classes, there are not many of them trained to
deal with under 5s, are there? How would you want to redress that
and alter teacher training to ensure that there is that richness
of provision that you are talking about?
(Ms Staggs) I think teacher training has moved on
in the last couple of years. We now have the early years specialism
recognised again as having the same status as a specialism as
a subject of the national curriculum and that was a hard fought
battle and one that people felt was very important because we
now have had a whole generation of teacher training that has not
had that opportunity. Clearly that early years specialism will
very much support making sure that people who work and choose
to work, whether it is in nursery reception classes or not, have
the opportunities for training that link very much with the foundation
stage, the guidance, the early learning goals, and I think that
is also needed to be supported by on-going in-service training
for people who currently do work in reception classes as well
as other groups. Certainly there is a lot of enthusiasm in my
experience amongst reception teachers to take hold of that and
use it and they are very positive about what they see happening
at the moment, so I think it is getting initial training right
but also on-going professional support for those teachers already
working in reception.
(Dr Tate) If I might come in on that, the other side
of the coin is, given the diversity of the children's needs and
settings in which they are placed and the wide range of practitioners
in those settings, there is also a vital need clearly to improve
the training and the qualifications and the expertise of those
not in reception classes but who are dealing with children with
very advanced needs of that age. One of the other responsibilities
that my organisation has is to try and develop a framework of
nationally accredited qualifications for people working in early
years education to clarify the jungle of occupational and vocational
qualifications that we currently have, and in doing so in particular
to make clearer the lines of progression between those qualifications
and that training and people moving on to getting formal accredited
teacher status.
Chairman
296. Those of us who were in Denmark were impressed
by the fact that children do not really get into formal education
till 7 and they are looked after by a highly trained group of
professionals called pedagogues and they go into being looked
after by teachers and taught by teachers only at 7, so there are
two established professional groups of people. What we find as
we look at this area is the patchiness of provision. You can go
to part of the foundation stage and find a child being looked
after by someone who was untrained on the minimum wage, and a
couple of miles down the road you find someone in a school setting
with the children being looked after by someone properly paid
and properly trained as a teacher. So there seems to be this dichotomy.
On the other hand, having looked at the Danish system, you do
have at least the confidence of a highly trained group of pedagogues
supervising stimulating creative play and, in a sense, ensuring
there is a lengthy childhood. Some people looking at what you
are up to can see people moving into childhood in terms of curriculum
and literacy and numeracy and so the child really is losing its
childhood. Do you not get worried about the role you are playing
in that?
(Ms Staggs) I do not think there is anything in this
guidance that takes away from children's childhood. They are the
sorts of experiences that do not just support learning; they are
the things children want to do. There are children playing, experimenting,
responding to stories, talking with each other and so on. I do
not think that is taking away childhood.
297. We have seen children tracing letters of
the alphabet at 3?
(Ms Staggs) Not in this guidance.
298. But that is what we have seen. The provision
that is out there is one unfortunately where most of the people
do not seem to have read this. There is a pretty patchy provision
of some pretty untrained professionals out there.
(Ms Staggs) We only published the guidance a month
ago. There is now a very substantial DfEE funded training programme
in place to familiarise people with the guidance. If we are honest,
some settings in schools will only have got their guidance when
they came back from the half-term break. I do not think we would
ever say that things will instantly change. Clearly the guidance
will be the reference document against which there is going to
need to be a reflective programme for practitioners, a training
programme, that is going on be on-going. It is not going to be
something which is immediately going to address those issues about
training and practice. In terms of what you have just described
one of the things it will do is support those practitioners who
perhaps have gone in for ways of working with children because
they believed it was expected of them because they did not have
the training and experience to understand how better you might
do that with young children, so we think that another role of
the guidance will be, in a sense, supporting those practitioners
in helping them to do the sorts of things they would probably
have wanted to do anyway.
(Dr Tate) We would, however, accept your basic point
that there is a skills gap in terms of the people who at present,
in many early years settings, have a crucial responsibility for
young children and the training and the qualifications and the
skills that they need to have, and I think the government recognises
that and that is why last year we were asked, working with the
two national training organisations which have responsibility
in this area, to produce a national training and qualifications
framework and to look again at all the qualifications that non-teacher
practitioners are using in this area, make sure they were up to
scratch and clarify the relationship between them. I am confident
that over the next couple of years there will be a combination
of trying to produce a higher quality, more coherent qualifications
framework and there will be a big push on training for this sector,
led by the national training organisations and encouraged by the
annual reports of the Training Standards Council, who last year
produced a very interesting survey of training providers for people
working in early years and identified many deficiencies. Many
of those training providers are getting their act together as
a result of that, so I think the guidance by itself will be helpful
but it will only have the effect it is intended to have in terms
of sending the right signals to practitioners if it is used as
part of an emerging training network.
Mr St Aubyn
299. I am sure you would agree that the experience
in Denmark was also that the intensity or educational content
of the early years provision varied enormously from one setting
there to another but what did come out of it was there did seem
to be a one-stop shop. Virtually every family was giving their
children a form of child care, in some cases all day long, from
a very early age. On the other hand, you describe parents as partners
and describe them as children's first and most enduring educators.
In this country we see parents as being the early educators/developers
of children, certainly up to ages 2 or 3, and your settings really
only start from the age of 3. What do you see is the way of resolving
potential conflicts between what parents want for their children,
who have indeed given them this real start in life, and what is
on offer through the local provision? If parents say they want
one thing and practitioners following your guidance are saying,
"Well, I have to do something else", how is that conflict
to be resolved?
(Dr Tate) In very general terms, that is a fundamental
question about state-funded education—about the responsibility
of the state in relation to the responsibility of parents—and
I think it applies not just to early years education but to schooling
after the age of 5 as well. The state, in deciding what is an
appropriate education for the children for which it is responsible,
has to above all take into account parents' concerns but also
a whole range of other considerations which have to do with the
interests of the children which may sometimes conflict with the
wishes of the parents and with the interests of society and the
interests of the economy. It is a careful balance, therefore.
The nature of the balance shifts with the different years. At
pre 5, because people are not obliged to send their children to
school, the rights and the views of parents are probably rather
more important and stronger at that age, or should be, than they
are post 5.
(Ms Staggs) Clearly one of the things that that first
and enduring role is about is recognising that however much setting
based provision children take part in, parents will continue to
be the first and enduring educators. That is a given, I think.
In terms of what the setting is providing and what parents are
asking for, when we did our consultation we tried very much to
seek as many parent views as we could. The views consistently
coming through from parents were that they really wanted their
children to get a very good start but they wanted that to be within
the context of children who were happy and confident and enjoying
what they were doing. That was really important to parents and
what we have given them in the guidance is just that. What practitioners
perhaps feel—and certainly it would have been what I would
have felt when I was head of a nursery school—is that there
are times when what parents need is the sort of help I need when
I go, say, to the optician—I know what I want but I need
someone to say to me sometimes, "But actually if that is
what you do that is not going to have the outcome you are wanting".
That is why we feel that dialogue, that sharing of information
with parents by practitioners, is really important. Certainly
what we have tried to do in the guidance but only begun to do,
because as Nick said, this can only be a start for training and
further development, is to begin to help people to see not just
the sorts of things they might be doing with children but also
the reason why they might be doing it because it helps parent
enormously if they can see that all this enjoying themselves has
a real purpose and real rigour behind it and is very important
in terms of children becoming literate, numerate, confident—all
the things parents want.
Mr St Aubyn: It does seem, at the moment, that
there is a very patchy provision but as the curriculum gets more
widely recognised and implemented there will be increasing uniformity
in a provision. Up to a point that may be a good thing but it
may also limit choice. Is there not a different between going
to the optician to get your eyes fixed and the right approach
to bringing children on in the early years? There is a debate
about different ways of doing that as we have seen on other trips.
You have gone no doubt sincerely for one particular approach but
parents could quite legitimately say, "Well, we believe in
an alternative approach; we believe in less structured settings.
We do not want our children to learn about literacy and numeracy
until they are somewhat older". We may both think they are
wrong about that but is that not their right and, if they have
been the ones who have brought the children on and who can point
to other countries where this alternative approach is working,
should we not in the long run be aiming for a more diverse system
of early years provision rather than the conformity we are aiming
for at this stage? Is this an end or is it just a staging post
on to an even better system later on?
|
