http://schoolsweek.co.uk/too-few-recept ... ads-claim/Too few reception pupils are ready for school, heads claim
Jess Staufenberg
The vast majority of headteachers do not believe their reception pupils are “school-ready”, according to a survey by the National Association of Head Teachers, as the government prepares to announce its latest plans for primary testing.
Of the 83 per cent of heads who said there was a problem, 97 per cent said it lay with pupils who arrived with speech and language skills that are too poor to participate properly in classroom activities, and 86 per cent said the problem had got worse in the past five years.
I have some background knowledge about this topic having been a teacher in England through the period when official guidance for the early years (the 'Foundation Stage') became increasingly complex and planning and assessment became hugely more onerous for early years providers.Mark Lehain, the director of the campaign group Parents and Teachers for Excellence, said teachers would get a better idea of pupil readiness if the EYFS was less broad and focused more on reading and phonics.
The current EYFS framework has 13 headings, ranging from washing hands to recognising sounds, he said, adding: “It’s trying to cover so much – by asking for less we might get a much clearer idea of where pupils are at.”
Whilst official guidance/training documents were rolled out, one of the big mistakes in my opinion was linking the details of the guidance about children's developmental steps to parallel assessment for every detail per child. In other words, the level of the detail of assessment and accountability was never practical, necessary or truly doable without causing great hardship to providers.
Worse than this, has it inadvertently caused hardship to the children themselves with notions of 'child-initiated activities', 'free-flow indoor/outdoor provision', 'following the child's interests', 'planning for the unique child'?
Unfortunately (again this is my opinion), some early years providers felt the level of official guidance, assessment and accountability increased their status as professionals and therefore happily fell in line with the observation and assessment culture that has developed in England in the past couple of decades.
So, the direction of travel for many years has been hugely complex creating an official early years ethos based on the unique child, personalised learning, following children's interests and developmentally readiness.
This is in contrast (arguably) to keeping things simple, assessing and reporting in simple ways, and in contrast to valueing specific 'teaching' rather than just going with the flow of the children. Many children, for example, don't bring 'interests' to their early years settings - or are very limited in their interests and capabilities so there is little 'to follow'.
Is this because the children are not developmentally-able to show greater capability or because they have never been taught and given the chance to develop further in the first place?
Which children are more likely to present as developmentally-ready for certain next steps? Surely the children who have experienced teaching at mother's knee and had greater expectations in their home environment?
Further, no account seems to have been made regarding the size of the settings. It is not unusual in England to find early years settings with 60 to 90 four to five year olds, or 120 three to five year olds, in an open plan, free-flow setting. Is it really 'right' for so many young children to be in such big open spaces flowing around? What a huge contrast from being at mother's knee in the home.
And imagine the logistical arrangements for the staff in such huge settings - trying to plan, observe and account for the development of the unique child where each child is running around amongst 59, 69, 119 other unique children?
Is this not crazy?
Worryingly, our IFERI committee member, Anne Glennie, reports that Scotland is now travelling in this very same direction in the early years that England started two decades ago. Will this close the tragic 'gap' for children in Scotland in less-privileged circumstances? I cannot understand why those in educational and political authority in our various countries think that teaching our young children explicitly and collectively is inadvisable.
Somehow, officials don't seem to realise that we can teach young children explicitly and collectively as well as understanding the maturity of the children - and whilst also establishing relationships with the children as unique and important individuals.
Quite frankly, there is much to discuss and re-consider in the sector of early years provision in the UK.