Inside the foundation stage (full report)

INSIDE THE FOUNDATION STAGE R ec r eati n g th e recepti o n yea r

FINAL REPORT

R e po r t c om m i s s i oned and p ub l i s hed b y th e A s s oc i at i on of T eac her s and Lec t ur er s A ut hor s : Si Ã¢n A d am s , E l i s e A l ex ander , M a r y Jane D r um m ond and Janet Moy les

and

Lecturersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;

publications

catalogue, please call the ATL publications despatch line on 0845 4500 009.

C ON T EN T S

IN T RODUC T ION

S EC T ION 1

Background to the research

S EC T ION 2

Findings

S EC T ION 3

Recommendations

S EC T ION 4

Questionnaire phase

S EC T ION 5

Interview phase

S EC T ION 6

Classroom observations

S EC T ION 7

The continuum of practice

S EC T ION 8

Discussion

A PPENDI X A

Research design and data collection

A PPENDI X B

Questionnaire

103

A PPENDI X C

Questionnaire

114

REF ERENC ES

125

F ORE WORD ATL welcomed the Foundation Stage when it was first introduced in England, establishing the principle of a play-based curriculum as part of school provision for young children. Since then, continuing pressure on schools to meet national targets for 11-year olds in English and mathematics has increased the focus on the higher end of the primary school. ATL feared a clash of priorities, and has seen worrying differences in the way learning and teaching is conceptualized in policies for younger and older primary school children. We commissioned Mary Jane Drummond and Janet Moyles (both extremely experienced researchers and practitioners in the early years) to find out if and how the Foundation Stage was changing practice in school reception classes. The research began early in 2002, two years after the Foundation Stage was introduced. We knew implementation had not been easy, but we hoped for signs that the Government’s aspirations were beginning to be met. We sought indications that the introduction of the foundation stage was enabling the profession to argue more strongly for the play-based, principled early years provision that best suits children. We wanted to see that a reflective and knowledgeable teaching profession was beginning to feel trusted and supported by Government, their school leadership, LEAs and early years partnerships (EYDCPs) and that practitioners were feeling more confident to move away from a formal approach towards good early years practice in reception classes. We hoped this report would be a celebration and a sharing of good early years practice. Sadly, the research shows that this is not yet the case. ATL believes that many reception teachers feel unable to provide the kind of curriculum which their professional expertise tells them is right for young children. Government pressure on children to perform and teachers to deliver – manifested through high-stakes tests, performance tables, and targets – is a major concern. Although the methods used to implement the Foundation Stage were very different from those supporting the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies, we believe that many of the findings hold here too: a lack of opportunity for reflection and deep understanding; limited understanding of the principles underpinning the changes; and too much focus on particular subjects at the expense of a whole and coherent curriculum. However, the researchers also found grounds for optimism. Early years staff do recognise that they are on a developmental journey; they are committed to the well-being and the learning of the children in their care and to giving those children the best foundations. ATL, too, is optimistic. We believe that the time is right for a move towards a more reflective and holistic pedagogy, based around our growing understanding of children’s development and learning. This research report will be challenging reading for policy makers and teachers alike. I hope it will lead to renewed debate about the purposes and principles underpinning learning and teaching across the whole of the education system.

Dr Mary Bousted, General Secretary

IN T RODUC T ION In what ways has the reception class teacher’s work been affected by being part of the Foundation Stage? In what ways has the introduction of the Foundation Stage affected the quality of reception class children’s learning experiences? When reception class teachers reflect upon their planning and practice, how do they think about the teaching and learning process? What is the significance of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships (EYDCPs) in reception class policies and practices? In what ways has the Foundation Stage contributed to the integration of services for reception age children?

The announcement in October 1999 of a new stage of education for children from the age of three until the end of the year in which they turn five, the Foundation Stage, was followed by the publication (DfES/QCA 2000) of the document Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. This was introduced into schools and other settings for children between three and five in September 2000, and was generally welcomed by teachers and other early years practitioners. The first part of the document (pp.5-25) sets out ten aims for the Foundation Stage, which are closely related to the six areas of learning that form the basis of the main body of the document. It also includes a brief section on ‘Parents as partners’, which is followed by a statement of 12 principles, ‘drawn from and evident in good and effective practice in early years settings’ (p.11). There are further sub-sections that include ‘putting the principles into practice’, ‘children with special educational needs’, ‘children with English as an additional language’, and finally, half a page on ‘play’. The remainder of the document (pp.26-116) sets out in great detail the Early Learning Goals, a full description of what children are expected to have learned by the end of the Foundation Stage, a time at which the vast majority of children will find themselves in a reception class in a primary, infant or first school. A framework of ‘Stepping Stones’ identifies the sequential, but not age-related, achievements that are expected of three to five year olds across all Foundation Stage settings, maintained, independent and voluntary. These substantial changes to the structures of care and education for children before they reach statutory school age raised many questions for professionals and academics in the field. Some of these we have listed at the head of this introduction. The questions above were not the first ones that came to mind, however. We began by asking ourselves broad questions about the care and education of young children in reception classes in order to clarify our thinking. These questions included:

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

What is the current situation in reception classes in England?

What is happening in terms of Foundation Stage policy and practice?

How are headteachers, early years educators, school governors, EYDCP and LEA personnel construing curriculum provision for young children, particularly in the second year of the Foundation Stage (the year that most children spend in a reception class)?

Overall, we wanted to know how early years practitioners and other professionals have taken up the challenge of establishing a whole new phase of education, which is distinct from Key Stage 1 and is grounded in the principles of early childhood education. The Foundation Stage is intended to replace the bewildering variety of pre-school experiences available to children under five with a newly defined, coherent and consistent approach to the care and education of children in the two years before they enter Key Stage 1, whatever kind of provision they attend. The establishment of the Foundation Stage constitutes a significant challenge to all those involved in the care and education of young children. In the past, Key Stage 1 was understood to include not just Year 1 and Year 2 children (children turning six and seven respectively) but also, more or less by default, the preceding year, the reception class year, in which children turn five. But now these children are to be seen as members of a new and separate phase of education. What does this change mean for children’s learning? In particular, how do practitioners understand the new place and purpose of the reception year? How have they reconstructed their pedagogical purposes in these classes? It seems clear that the establishment of the Foundation Stage, with its associated guidance, has the potential to bring about significant changes in the way that reception year children are construed by their teachers and other practitioners, by other professionals, by policy makers and by wider society. One part of this challenge is for early years practitioners to change their view of reception year children, from being the youngest children in Key Stage 1, to being the oldest children in the Foundation Stage. In the first year of the Foundation Stage, children are three years old and becoming four, and in the reception class they are four years old, becoming five. The reception year is no longer to be seen as an anomalous, somewhat ambiguous year in a child’s life, in terms of its relation to Key Stage 1, but is explicitly designated as part of the Foundation Stage. All practitioners involved in implementing these changes have to face the demanding task of coming to terms with both the differences and the connections between the Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1. But it is not just school-based professionals who will need support in understanding the new structures and their implications for teaching, learning and curriculum. Because of the diversity of English early childhood provision and practices, and the emphasis on localised services (DfES 2002), there are likely to be differences across geographical regions in the way that providers view the overall provision made for Foundation Stage children, across a wide variety of settings. The degree of ‘joined-up’ thinking, particularly in relation to the continuity and coherence of experiences for young children and their families across the Foundation Stage, is likely to vary

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

considerably, from partnership to partnership and from authority to authority. The Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships in themselves were set up to try to rationalise the provision for young children and their families but, in reality, they have struggled to work within an ill-defined system of collaboration and co-operation. The Guidance document that accompanied the establishment of the Early Years Development Partnerships (DfEE 1997) specifically recommends that the relationship between the Partnership and the local authority ‘should be characterised by a genuine, open and collaborative approach between all early years providers and services’ and goes on to define one of the aims of the Partnership as bringing together ‘the maintained, private and voluntary sectors in a spirit of co-operation and partnership based on existing good practice’. But recommendations and aims, however aspirational or fluently expressed on the page, are not always fully realised in practice. As the new structures become more familiar, and the Foundation Stage becomes a recognised part of the early years landscape, we want to know more about the impact of this restructuring. Has the early years professional community taken up the challenge of establishing a whole new phase of education? Or are reception age children and their teachers caught between two very different approaches to pedagogy, curriculum and learning, being pulled in two directions at once? Our enquiry set out to examine the current state of provision across England and, where possible, to identify the most effective practice within both the partnerships and the reception classes themselves. As we planned the enquiry with ATL staff, our questions were refined and reshaped until we settled on those stated at the start of this introduction. This process of refinement was inevitably mediated through our professional experience and accumulated understanding of the field, so it seemed important to us that we should be clear about who we are as researchers, and that our values and beliefs about early years education should be made explicit at the outset. The next section is devoted to setting out our stall as researchers. The four researchers involved in the study (two based in Cambridge and two in Chelmsford) are qualified teachers who have specialised in investigating and documenting early childhood education and care for many years. We are experienced researchers in early years classrooms and other settings. This depth of experience and breadth of knowledge enabled us to empathise with teachers and other practitioners, and also to develop appropriate, effective research instruments (see, for example, Alexander 2003; Drummond 1993; Drummond 1998; Moyles, 1989, 1994, 2001; Moyles and Adams 2002; Moyles, Adams and Musgrove, 2003). In our various research studies we have explored effective practice and observed, interviewed and surveyed practitioners and children. Over time we have developed strong opinions and values about the kinds of experiences we believe young children should have in the early years of schooling, based on our constructions of young children. We see children as rich, powerful learners, and so we look for teachers and other educators who are passionately committed to these learners and who value their independence.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

We want early years educators to construe children as capable and richly involved in their project of learning. Above all, we want them to value children as co-constructors of knowledge and understanding, rather than treat them as passive recipients, dependent upon the adults around them (Alexander 2003). Our understanding of effective practice in early years education is founded upon this particular construction of children, so we share long-standing concerns about the highly prescriptive but essentially unprincipled nature of recent early years policies and initiatives. We are concerned by the tendency towards convergence and conformity we find in recent policy documents, which underestimate the competence of young children as learners and place constraints upon their drive to explore, experiment and act upon the world. On the other hand, we recognise a long tradition in England of thoughtful, perceptive early years practice, stretching from the pioneering observations of Susan Isaacs to the ambitious Quality in Diversity (Early Childhood Education Forum 1998). We approached this enquiry with a sense of optimism and a desire to seek out and document best practice. In collaboration with staff at ATL, we drew up a set of aims to help us address our research questions. These were: l

to establish an overall picture of the implementation of the Foundation Stage in reception classes, and its impact on the quality of teaching, learning and curriculum

to document the pedagogy of a small group of strong, articulate, reflective practitioners, working in reception classes

to identify the key constructs at the heart of these reception class teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; work

to explore the practices that embody those constructs and the impact of their work on reception class children (four and five year olds).

The research was undertaken in two phases, from February 2002 to August 2003. Phase 1 was a survey of headteachers, reception class teachers, teaching assistants, Foundation Stage governors, local authority and EYDCP personnel across England. It included a questionnaire with a sample of follow-up interviews, conducted by telephone and by e-mail. Phase 2 consisted of in-depth case studies of a small sample of selected reception classes. The data collected in the two phases, taken together, constitute the evidence upon which we have based our findings, recommendations, conclusions and discussion. The stages of the research process were: l

design, distribute and analyse a questionnaire about reception class policy and provision, which builds on, but significantly extends, the questionnaire already distributed to primary members by ATL staff

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

extend the questionnaire responses, through telephone/e-interviews, with a small sample of those involved in reception class policy and provision

document the work of a small sample of authorities who we believed, from their questionnaire responses, to have effective partnership practices, including an account of the individual and combined roles of all those involved and how these impact upon quality

undertake an in-depth study of eight to ten reception classes, identified as of the highest quality, where the practitioners are committed to the principles of early childhood education, and are articulate and reflective in their practice

outline exemplars of quality practice at school, community and local authority level for dissemination to ATL members

produce a full and detailed set of findings and recommendations together with a final report on the research and its implications.

This Report outlines the processes and outcomes of each stage of the research in five sections. The Appendices offer more in-depth information about the research design, methodology, research tools, the sample of participants and geographical locations. As well as presenting our processes and outcomes, our findings and recommendations, we discuss a variety of issues that emerged in the course of the enquiry, and that continue to concern us. In particular, we examine: 1.

The extent to which the findings of earlier studies, which documented considerable and damaging weaknesses in reception classes (King 1978, Tizard et al. 1988; Bennett and Kell 1989; HMI 1989; Cleave and Brown 1991; Dowling 1995) have been rendered obsolete by the introduction of the Foundation Stage. We are, at present, unconvinced that the new structures have had the desired effect of eliminating inappropriately formal instruction in the reception class and replacing it with practices more attuned to the distinctive characteristics of these exploratory, imaginative and energetic young learners.

The constructions of children and childhood that seem to inform both policies and practices in the reception class. Is there general acceptance of a view of children as powerful and self-motivating learners? - a view that owes much, but not everything, to the Reggio Emilia approach (Edwards et al. 1998; Nutbrown 1999).

The extent to which the movement towards integrated and co-ordinated services for young children and their families, exemplified in a range of trail-blazing early childhood centres (Pugh 2001; Whalley 1994), is beginning to reach into maintained infant/primary schools. Do the new purposes and functions of the reception class include the provision of extended services for families and their children?

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

The concept of partnership and how the most effective Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships realise their policies in practice. In particular, we are concerned with the extent to which reception class teachers have recognised their new roles as professional educators in partnership with the whole community of Foundation Stage practitioners, in a variety of different settings.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

S EC T ION 1

BACKGROUND T O T HE RES E A RCH

‘The more a child… runs about and plays, the sweeter its sleep… the more quickly does it grow and flourish, both in body and mind… It is better to play… for during play the mind is intent upon some object which often sharpens the ability. In this way children may be early exercised to an active life, without any difficulty, since nature herself stirs them up to be doing something.’ 1 ‘The child’s life is an integral, a total one… the things that occupy him [sic] are held together by the unity of the personal and social interests which his life carries along. Whatever is uppermost in his mind constitutes for him, for the time being, the whole universe; that universe is fluid and fluent, its contents dissolve and re-form with amazing rapidity. But, after all, it is the child’s own world. He goes to school, and various studies divide and fractionize the world for him’. 2 ‘The principle ‘life teaches’ lays down that the faculty of speech is a means of putting to use the knowledge acquired through sensory experience… Just as the child requires many years to get clear ideas of the objects in his [sic] environment through varied contact with them, so it requires many years to bring him to the point of being able to express himself with accuracy about them.’ 3

Introduction 1.1

Apart from the gender bias of the pronouns, these words could have been written now, in the 21st century, about the young children who, in the years of the Foundation Stage, show so much energy and emotion in their learning, if only we will let them! These extracts also remind us just how long we have known about what constitutes quality experience for young children, especially those who are four and five years old, the children we have learned to call reception class children. Once, the British infant school, and all it represented of the very best of early childhood education, was the envy of the world (Davis et al. 1986), drawing as it did on the great traditions of the early pioneers and progressives.

1.2

Our experiences as researchers and early years educators have given us a deep commitment to early years education and to the child as a powerful, important, imaginative young person, whose natural development should be the guide and stimulus for all educators. We are also committed to the development of multi-professional, integrated and co-ordinated services for children and families and to the concept of the community of Foundation Stage practitioners in both maintained and non-maintained settings. As we saw in the Introduction, the aims of this enquiry centred around the identification of ‘best practice’ in the Foundation Stage for both children and practitioners.

Comenius, J. (1592-1670) (1956) The School of Infancy. Boston: Heath and Co. (p.65)

Dewey, J. (1859-1952) (1906) The School and the Child. London: Blackie. (pp. 19-20)

Pestalozzi, J. (1746 - 1827) (1912) Pestalozzi’s Educational Writings. London: Edward Arnold. (p.300)

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

1.3

It is clear that such ‘best practice’ has its basis in a number of principles, theories and philosophies that have emerged over many decades, which have impacted upon early years thinking and helped develop beliefs and values amongst all those involved, about the most appropriate practices to bring to our reception classes. Therefore, in this first section we feel it is vital to lay out for readers just some of these major historical and political issues and influences on thinking and practice. No research takes place in an historical or political vacuum: the history of early childhood education, and the traditions of progressive pedagogy, no less than our current social and professional concerns, have shaped our questions and concerns.

1.4

In this section, therefore, we review a selection of issues in the field of early childhood education today, which we need to take into account as we research and report on contemporary reception class practices within the framework of the Foundation Stage and its curriculum guidance. In order to make this review manageable, and in accordance with the aims of our research, we feel it is useful and important to focus on four main issues: l

the children themselves, with associated constructs of childhood, curriculum and early learning

the reception class as a distinctive phase of schooling

reception class teaching and the place of play in the constructs of (playful) pedagogy

the construct of ‘partnership’, particularly in the context of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships.

1.5

The discussion of these issues will serve to explain the backdrop against which we conducted this research into reception class practices and enable readers to interpret and understand our surprising (and sometimes disturbing) findings and recommendations, which follow in Sections 2 and 3.

Reception class children and constructs of childhood and curriculum 1.6

The ways in which children, childhood and early education are construed by policy makers, early years educators, parents and other stakeholders are major factors in the development of care and education services for young children in this country. In this section we show how these constructions have influenced developments in the recent past, and how they continue to influence the ways young children are educated now after the introduction of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (DfES/QCA 2000) and the establishment of the Foundation Stage as a distinct phase of education. The Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage aims to give educators a framework within which to work with young

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

children in what the Early Years Curriculum Group (2002) has called a ‘learner-centred style’, an aim that comes as quite a surprise when we acknowledge that children as learners have largely been absent from recent initiatives and strategies designed to raise standards of education across the board. 1.7

The landscape of early years care and education has undergone profound changes in recent years. In government policy there has been a range of initiatives that suggests that early childhood is increasingly being recognised as an important stage of childhood and that attention should be paid to the care and education of our youngest children. These initiatives have included the National Childcare Strategy, the Sure Start programme and the introduction of the Foundation Stage, the subject of this report. However, these recent initiatives form part of a long chain of reports, strategies and legislative instruments stretching back to the Hadow Report (Board of Education 1933), the Plowden Report (Central Advisory Council for Education 1967), and including more recent reports such as the Rumbold Report (DES 1990) and the authoritative Start Right Report (Ball 1994). This last includes a comprehensive and scholarly review of the research evidence for the effects of high quality education and care on young children’s learning, and indeed upon their later lives, and makes firm recommendations about the future of early education. While this Report may have been significant in the world of early education, validating much of the thinking and development that was going on at the time, it had precious little impact upon the legislators at whom it was aimed. The Rumbold Report (DES 1990), too, offered a rigorous and challenging framework for the education and care of young children, but was sidelined for what appeared to be political and economic reasons.

1.8

In the 1990s there was increasing political pressure to improve standards in education, and part of this pressure was directed at early years education in all its forms. The prevailing message was that if the teaching of young children began earlier, standards would rise (despite evidence to the contrary, for example, Elkind 1988). At the same time there was a rapid and substantial increase in the number of pre-school places for three and four year olds in a variety of settings in the independent and voluntary sector. It was important, then, that there should be a common framework for all kinds of provision to help ensure that young children were taught the right things before they started compulsory schooling. That way, the argument went, young children would have a flying start and standards of later achievement would inevitably rise. So the controversial framework for early learning, Desirable Outcomes for Children’s Learning on Entering Compulsory Education (SCAA 1996) was launched.

1.9

This framework attempted to establish a set of common standards across all early years settings based upon developmentally appropriate education and care. The document set out what all young children should be able to do on entering compulsory education, in six key areas of learning: Personal and Social Development, Language and Literacy, Mathematics, Knowledge and Understanding of the World, Physical Development and Creative Development. It

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

is worth remembering that these ‘areas of learning’ did not originate from any psychological or educational research, nor from professional consensus, but were originally formulated in the HMI series ‘Curriculum Matters 2’, in the long-forgotten publication The Curriculum from 5 to 16 (DES 1985). While the Desirable Outcomes document did not constitute a prescribed curriculum, and had no statutory force, it did form the basis for the Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED) inspections conducted in all early years settings, both maintained and non-maintained. As a result it was used by early years educators as the source of much of their practice and, in many settings, acquired similar status to that of the statutory National Curriculum in primary schools. 1.10 In the Desirable Outcomes document, children were explicitly depicted as important in their own right and as a resource for the future. On closer examination, however, and as practitioners across a range of settings gained familiarity with the framework, it became apparent that the constructions of childhood, children and the purposes of early education that underpinned the document were not the ones that early years educators subscribed to. 1.11 The children envisaged in the Desirable Outcomes document were quite extraordinary. A close analysis of the constructions of children underlying the framework reveals that children were required to be preternaturally mature (Alexander 1999). For example, the category of Personal and Social Development describes how children are expected to form effective relationships, be sensitive to the feelings of others and to understand the different points of view held by those around them. Clearly this is a tall order for adults, let alone children who are only just five years old. These children are also expected to be obedient, show perseverance in tasks set for them by adults and only to express ‘appropriate feelings’ (SCAA 1996). Inappropriate feelings, the colourful, difficult feelings that adults experience as challenging, such as anger, frustration or grief, have no place in this document. The over-riding impression is of children as a homogeneous group, all growing and developing at the same rate, who carry the weight of society’s expectations for a brighter and better future. Furthermore, these children were to have reached the prescribed standard on entry to compulsory education. Unfortunately, although this requirement technically refers to the term after a child’s fifth birthday, it was almost universally interpreted as referring to the beginning of the term in which a child enters school, which for the great majority of children is when they are only four. This was an unfortunate misinterpretation, because it seemed to reinforce the divide between pre-school and school in a most undesirable way, and to ignore the fact that most children in the reception class are still of pre-school or nursery age; indeed at least one third of them, those born in the summer months, do not turn five until towards the end of the academic year. These expectations for early and measurable achievements seemed to position the reception year as closer to Year 1, the first year of National Curriculum requirements, than to the curriculum and pedagogy of the nursery years, before the age of statutory schooling.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

1.12 No wonder then, that early years educators were delighted when plans for the establishment of the Foundation Stage were announced in September 1999. To accompany this new phase of education, the QCA, in association with the DfEE, published the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, which has been generally and enthusiastically welcomed by early childhood specialists, notably by the Early Years Curriculum Group (EYCG 2000). There are similarities between the two documents, but there are also striking differences. Like the Desirable Learning Outcomes, the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage was not statutory but is a framework for early years educators. The Foundation Stage is designated as a distinctive, separate phase of education for children between the ages of three and five; it is not merely a preparation for Key Stage 1. The six areas of learning have been retained with minor modifications in the labels attached to them. The major difference is that the Desirable Learning Outcomes have been replaced by Early Learning Goals that children should have achieved by the end of the Foundation Stage, at the end of the reception year, the academic year in which they turn five. In spite of this considerable change in emphasis, which seems to go some way towards accepting that most children in the reception class are still of nursery/pre-school age for most of the year, one major concern remains, which is relevant to both the (now obsolete) Desirable Learning Outcomes and to the Early Learning Goals. The concern is that there are more ways than one of reaching a specified goal or outcome: however desirable or appropriate the goal or outcome might be in itself, it always remains possible for it to have been reached through teaching and learning experiences that are damaging to children. Specifying a large number of end points to a process, however highly they may be valued, can never guarantee the quality of the process itself. The formulation of the Early Learning Goals cannot ensure the quality of children’s experiences as they live and learn in the Foundation Stage. 1.13 Another significant difference between the SCAA (1996) document and the current guidance is the presence in the latter of an extended commentary on ‘Principles for early years education’, which, as we noted in the introduction, includes sub-sections on children with special educational needs, children with English as an additional language, learning and teaching, and play, none of which featured in the earlier document. 1.14 The implicit model of learning in the Foundation Stage is one of progression, presented in the form of a large number of so called ‘Stepping Stones’. These are organised sequentially, from age three, to the end of the Foundation Stage, but are said not to be age-related (rather a tenuous distinction, in our view). As well as identifying the Stepping Stones that children ‘achieve’ on the way to the Early Learning Goals (which form the final Stepping Stones), the text sets out to help practitioners in assessing, by giving ‘examples of what children do’, and to help practitioners in teaching, by identifying ‘what does the practitioner need to do?’ This accent on what educators need to do to promote children’s learning was reinforced not long afterwards by the introduction of a supplementary document on planning for the Foundation Stage (QCA 2001). And then, two years after the introduction of the Curriculum Guidance

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

for the Foundation Stage, came the Foundation Stage Profile, with 117 points of assessment for each child, derived from 13 aspects of achievement, each to be graded against a ninepoint scale. The profiles had to be completed for the first time in July 2003, and thereafter at the end of the reception year for every child in the Foundation Stage. During the course of this research, assessing children’s learning against the 117-point profile was causing great anxiety to Foundation Stage practitioners (Neill 2003). 1.15 Implementation of the Foundation Stage has been problematic in other ways. The Early Years Curriculum Group, a nationally recognised group of early years specialists, has identified a number of factors that have placed constraints upon the whole-hearted implementation of the Foundation Stage within the primary school context (EYCG 2002). These factors include: l

the false assumption that the earlier children learn something the more highly achieving they will later become

fear of the inspection process, which has resulted in a strong emphasis on literacy and numeracy targets

the top-down pressure of Year 2 SATs, which has created inappropriate expectations about early success in particular aspects of literacy and numeracy

confusion about the principles of early years pedagogy, and an erosion of the practitioner’s commitment to the importance of play as a vehicle for learning.

1.16 Whilst we agree that the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage is an improvement on the Desirable Learning Outcomes document because of its emphasis on the importance of play and on the necessity of working in partnership with parents, the description of children in the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage does not match the children we have observed in the course of our various research studies over the last 15-20 years. The children we have observed are, in general, more capable, more divergent, more imaginative and have greater knowledge and understanding in almost every area than the ‘Stepping Stones’ allow for, suggesting that children’s capabilities as learners are seriously underestimated in the Guidance. While the early part of the document states that children should be offered experiences ‘mostly based on real life situations’ (p. 15) and advocates the provision of ‘rich and stimulating experiences’ (p. 14), the text in the main body of the document seems to focus on some very superficial learning outcomes from these experiences, the tip of the iceberg, so to speak, in terms of children learning to communicate, to know and understand the world, to relate lovingly and sympathetically to those around them, to imagine new possibilities and fabulous narratives of their own invention. We wanted to investigate more than the tip of the iceberg, as described in the ‘Stepping Stones’, and look at the richness of children’s learning, below the surface, as the foundations of all later learning are laid down. We were less interested in the achievement of single ‘Stepping Stones’ for example,

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

‘Sort objects by one function’ (p. 88), ‘Sing simple songs from memory’ (p. 122), ‘Hear and say initial and final sounds in words’ (p. 60), than in evidence of how children in the Foundation Stage were becoming more and more accomplished investigators, explorers, creative artists and musicians; lovers of books, stories, poems; independent writers and emergent mathematicians. The methods of analysis we used, described in section 6, reflect both our interest in deep, holistic learning, and our shared construction of young children as accomplished learners in their own right long before they can be classified as Foundation Stage or reception class children.

The reception class and constructs of playful pedagogy 1.17 Reception classes in infant and primary schools have been the subject of research over a significant period of time; even so, they have always been an ambiguous and problematic area of study, in the sense that they have never quite fitted into a nursery framework, nor into Key Stage 1. Even 20 years ago, the reception class was seen as something a little different (Davis 1986). This sometimes had more to do with confusion and muddle in admission policies to these classes, than with a carefully formulated conception of what being a reception child (or a reception class teacher) might mean in terms of teaching and learning, pedagogy and curriculum. 1.18 Many concerns have been raised that the demands of the reception class curriculum are incompatible with teaching and learning through play, traditionally seen as a basic requirement in reception classes (Blenkin and Kelly 1994; Hurst 1994; Wood 1999; Moyles and Adams 2001). These concerns were raised in the light of evidence that not all children have the opportunity to learn through play, and that not all practitioners know how to teach through play (Wood and Attfield 1996). Concerns about the inappropriateness of early years provision are well documented (e.g. Blenkin and Kelly 1998; Nutbrown 1994; Anning 1995). Wood and Attfield (1996) argue that practitioners need a more conscious, clearly defined basis to their pedagogical knowledge that makes explicit the links between play, teaching and learning. Blenkin and Kelly (1998) warn of the dangers of teaching without a secure theoretical base and insist that theory must inform playful teaching and learning. The fact that reception classes have never been either theorized or conceptualized in a way that determines what their basis should be for children and educators adds to the challenges and dilemmas that reception class practitioners face in their daily work. 1.19 Even when policies and initiatives have been seen to promote a child-centred ideology there remains a need for practitioners to justify play, its inclusion in the curriculum and its role in assessment to themselves and others (Meadows and Cashdan 1988; Anning 1991; Bruce 1991; Bruner 1996; DES 1990; Moyles 1989; Wood and Attfield 1996). Research suggests that reception teachers often plan to be involved in more directed activities with small groups or individuals while other children are engaged in unsupported play (Bennett

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

and Kell 1989; Cleave and Brown 1991; OfSTED 1993). Even where play was considered to be important in early learning (Moyles 1989), its relationship to pedagogy has still been shown to be problematic and lacking in clarity (Bennett et al. 1997). It has been argued, for example, that adult intervention should be skills-oriented not curriculum-focused, and that it should take account of each child’s level of play, ensuring it is congruent with children’s development and the content of the curriculum (Bennett and Kell 1989; Cox 1996). Kliebard (1995) and Fisher (2002) also suggest that the most effective learning occurs when the curriculum is in harmony with the child’s real interests, needs and learning patterns. Certainly, this principle is at the heart of the renowned Reggio Emilia approach (Edwards et al. 1998). How far this is the case with Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage and how far the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage is ruled by outcomes, we discuss in later sections of this report. 1.20 It is difficult to determine the conceptual basis of observed practices in reception classes if, for example, practitioners are unsure of the relationship between play and cognitive development. Wood and Attfield (1996) argue, as we have seen above, that practitioners lack a conscious, clearly defined pedagogical knowledge, which would enable them to make explicit the links between play, teaching and learning. The StEPs project (Moyles and Adams 2001) also shows clearly how practitioners struggle with articulating some quite basic aspects of practice (for example, why a domestic play or home area is often provided in early years classrooms). Tizard et al. (1988) and Bennett and Kell (1989) all reveal discrepancies between practitioners’ aims and practices in the early years phase, findings which continue to raise questions about the current strength of pedagogical understanding in reception classes. Blenkin and Kelly (1998) argue that teaching not informed by theory and without a conceptually secure theory is dangerous. How far the practitioners and other professionals investigated during this research understood the theoretical underpinning of reception class pedagogy is a main focus of this report. 1.21 One significant issue for reception teachers is their capacity to work with spontaneity. It has long been a principle in early years classrooms for educators to respond sensitively and immediately to children’s interests and to extend these (Isaacs 1930, 1932; Plowden Report (CACE) 1968; Rumbold Report (DES) 1990; Montessori et al. 1997). This approach is also represented in Steiner philosophy and practice (Oldfield 2001). One outcome of the current levels of prescription for both curriculum and assessment has been the gradual disappearance of spontaneous reactions to children and their abiding or pressing concerns and this was certainly an issue in this enquiry.

Constructions of Partnership 1.22 One of the challenges of partnership, for all those who have been encouraged into partnerships over the last few years (for example, initial teacher education, Early Years

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Development and Childcare Partnerships, the Connexions service) has been the definition of the term. What does it actually mean? Does it mean the same thing to all the many participants (partners)? What should be the structures of a partnership? How is equality across members to be achieved? According to Fullan and Hargreaves (1992: 63) words like collegiality, collaboration and partnership have become ‘imbued with a global sense of virtue’. What are the virtues in relation to the EYDC Partnership and reception class practices? 1.23 Partnership, as defined by the DfES for EYDCPs, appears to relate more to strategic plans, targets and goals than it does to being partners in a joint enterprise to promote more effective provision for young children (DfES 2001). Strategic Target 29, for example, is a broad brush target ‘to ensure Partnerships… develop a clear protocol for working together effectively so as to deliver coherent training, advice and information services that build capacity and strengthen the quality, choice, accessibility and diversity of provision’ (p.60). Most of the strategic targets focus on quantity of provision, rather than quality of provision. None focuses on establishing a clear partnership framework; it seems to be assumed that this will just happen in the context of meeting targets. Other strategic targets suggest that partnerships should: l

‘ensure consistency, sensible community planning and efficient use of resources’ (No. 27, p.58)

‘develop a clear protocol for working together effectively’ (No. 29, p.60).

1.24 Moreover, the original Partnership Planning Guidance, issued in 1999, details (in Section 2.2) 18 different groups who should be included in the EYDC Partnership, one of which is maintained schools. In the same document (Section 2.1) it suggests that the partnerships should ‘bring together the maintained, private and voluntary sectors in a spirit of co-operation and genuine partnership, based on existing good practice’. The 2000 document (Section 2.10) outlines clearly what the requirements of partnership are in relation to their strategic plans: The plan must show evidence of a genuine, open, collaborative approach between all early years and childcare providers, services and other interests. The Partnership must have access to enough information to be able to decide on different options within an atmosphere of reasoned debate where all partners are respected and invited to give their views. (p10/12) Interestingly, the new Sure Start document – intended essentially to be about partnerships between a wide range of different bodies, mentions EYDCPs in only one short paragraph (see DfES/DWP 2003: 16); this is surprising, as EYDCPs were originally seen as the key structure in ensuring effective early years services for children and parents.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

1.25 By 2000, the number of partners had increased to 19 (to include the Sure Start and other related partnerships), with the potential inclusion of many more local groups that each EYDCP may feel to be relevant. This document (DfES 2000) suggests (Section 2.5) that ‘no one group should have significantly higher levels of representation than any other’ (p.10). The Partnerships are also warned that they must ‘guard against the possibility of the local authority inadvertently dominating the proceedings’ (p.41). However, this may be one reason why teachers from maintained sector reception classes appear to be underrepresented. According to Fitzgerald et al. (2002) and the DfES statistics, we can be reasonably certain that between 58% and 88% of the four to five year old population of children are in reception classes. This means that if those who represent them directly on the EYDCP only constitute one-nineteenth of the overall constituency, reception classes are definitely under-represented. 1.26 So what is partnership and what underpins the concept? Partnership, as we define it, is a relationship between various people manifested as some kind of joint venture. As such, it is a dynamic and mutable process. For this reason, asking people to operate in partnership is asking them to undertake an extremely difficult task because it has few boundaries, except those generated by the individuals or groups concerned. Like all processes (for example, play), the word cannot be readily defined. Yet, without definition, it is difficult to construct a model of partnership which is likely to work strategically, its main function being, in the view of the DfES, to develop strategies and ways of working together for specific purposes. The purposes of the EYDCPs are to benefit children and families through the services involved in the partnership, namely local education authorities, pre-school providers, feeder schools, healthcare, social services and others. It is clear that there is likely to be a range of multi- and uni-dimensional models: these have been explored by various writers in different contexts, especially in initial teacher education where the concept of partnerships has existed since 1992 (for example, Slick 1997; Bines and Welton 1995). 1.27 Partnership requires that those involved mutually recognise the differences and similarities in the positions of others. It is also a genuinely voluntary affair in so far as the groups and individuals in partnership are intended to stay together over an extended period of time. For this to happen, time has to be invested in building and maintaining relationships. But time is always a limitation and EYDCPs had to be up and running extremely quickly, without such an investment in the basic building blocks of partnership. Year on year they have had to respond to tight deadlines, targets and outcomes, which have left little time for in-depth work on partnership structures and relationships. Individuals on the EYDCPs are not directly funded and, apart from generally working under the auspices of the local authorities, they do not have definitive support structures (for example, administrative) to underpin their work.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

1.28 Honesty and openness are also key factors in a partnership, but when different groups come together, they have their own vested, territorial interests. Bringing these together cannot be done overnight: it takes time, energy, resources, goodwill and a mutual concern for the focus of the partnership, if it is to happen at all. It means that some will have to step down from some of their most precious values, if the values of others are to be allowed to prosper. 1.29 Whilst partnerships are also intended to thrive on equity, people and groups do not start equal. When we add to this the general low status of all early years sector work, again this has the potential to cause conflicts and tensions between those who feel they have a clear view of what is needed from years of a particular experience and those who have their particular traditions and norms which have acquired a status quo over time. 1.30 These are the issues of partnership. We hoped that, as the EYDCPs had been in place for nearly five years at the advent of this research, we would see some benefits to the new reception classes (as part of the Foundation Stage), in the bringing together of an integrated range of expertise, particularly in relation to ‘joined-up’ thinking across the maintained education and other sectors. It was important for us in this enquiry, then, to establish how far the partnership was supporting and, we hoped, enhancing the work of reception classes and their staff more than a year into the new structures. How far had the concept of ‘partnership’ reached in relation to four-year-olds? Were teachers feeling the benefits of having a wider range of ‘partners’ on whom to draw for support? Did all the partners bring equal knowledge of reception class practices and their relationship to the Foundation Stage? Were there benefits accruing for reception class children and teachers in being involved in local EYDCPs?

Conclusion 1.31 In this section, we have attempted to outline just some of the issues related to reception age children, policy, curriculum and pedagogy as we see them. The picture is inevitably a complex one, characterised by ongoing debates and dilemmas, some of which we have briefly summarised here. Sections 2 and 3 outline our findings and recommendations, before we turn to Sections 4, 5 and 6, which set out what we did in this enquiry, why and how we did it, and present the evidence for our findings and recommendations.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

S EC T ION 2

FINDING S

In this section, we lay out our findings, followed in Section 3 by our linked recommendations. As we have indicated, we intended to identify ‘best practice’ in reception classes within the new Foundation Stage, including Partnership arrangements. The basis of the research was essentially to measure provision against an ‘ideal’ of best nursery practice that has been well researched and evaluated over the last few years (see particularly Section 1). However, as we gathered and analysed our data during the various phases of the research it became clear that, whilst the implementation of the Foundation Stage was intended to extend the best practices of early years education to reception classes, the rhetoric and the reality currently do not appear to agree. Our data suggests that the reasons for this are many, not least the dilemmas faced by teachers in being caught between two competing systems, i.e. the Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1 (see Section 8 for further elaboration and discussions). The findings represent all phases of data collection within the research: questionnaires, interviews and observations. We present our findings in two specific ways. Initially we identify five principal findings that appear to be central to understanding current reception class policies and practices. These are mainly the issues that emerge from interpreting the full, collated data. A number of key findings are then shown under sub-headings related to the three different data collection methods. These both exemplify and illustrate the principal findings and offer a more detailed understanding of the emerging issues. The key findings also show clearly how differences emerged within different phases of the research between perceived, constructed and actual reception class practices. Equally, it will be clear that certain comparable issues surface across the key findings that strengthen our principal findings. It is worth noting that all our findings must be understood on the basis that our sample is small and the Foundation Stage and Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage were only in the second year of implementation during the period of the enquiry.

Principal findings 2.1

There were significant discrepancies between the questionnaire data, the interview data and the observation data. The questionnaire data showed that both the Foundation Stage and the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage were welcomed by practitioners, and had presented few difficulties or challenges to practice in schools. The interview data showed that the implementation of the Foundation Stage had not been quite as straightforward as the questionnaire data suggested, and there was evidence of some confusion. Then the classroom observations provided evidence that everyday practice in classrooms does not adequately reflect the principles of early childhood education, even as set out in the Guidance document. There appears to be a fundamental lack of understanding of the place of the reception year in the education of young children, and what its priorities and principles should be.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

2.2

If the purpose of the Foundation Stage was to extend to four and five year olds in primary/ infant schools the best practice in the education of three and four year olds (as exemplified, for instance, in the work of Early Excellence Centres across England), then it has not succeeded. There is a demonstrable gap between the quality of children’s experiences in the reception classes in our sample, the second year of the Foundation Stage, and the quality of their experiences in the first year of the Foundation Stage in our best nurseries and family centres as highlighted in other research, e.g. Bertram et al. 2002; Whalley 1994.

2.3

There was evidence that reception class practitioners experienced pressure from their Key Stage 1 colleagues to prioritise particular kinds of achievements (for example, literacy, numeracy and familiarity with particular school routines, such as lining up in the playground).

2.4

There was evidence that the function of the reception year was seen exclusively in terms of the whole school context and the start of statutory education; there was a relatively low level of awareness of the relationship of the reception year to the education of all Foundation Stage children, within the structures of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships. Indeed, the working model of partnership evidenced in this enquiry, across all respondents, is weak, underdeveloped and largely unrealised in practice.

2.5

There was extensive evidence of a perceived need for a variety of different kinds of training. As we will see in Section 4, some kinds of training were, surprisingly, not identified as necessary or even desirable. Taken together, these five findings suggest, at the very least, a certain incoherence inside the Foundation Stage, and, at worst, an unacceptable degree of internal contradiction and misunderstanding. There appears to be little consensus among our respondents about the priorities, purposes and underpinning philosophy of the reception year in the newly defined context of the Foundation Stage.

Key findings from the analysis of the questionnaire responses (Section 4) 2.6

The Foundation Stage and its associated guidance are welcomed by a majority of respondents, because it appears to provide a focus for the practitioners who work with these young children. Over a third of respondents thought that the Guidance will affect the way teachers plan for learning and teaching and that it will change teachers’ priorities for learning.

2.7

A majority of respondents said that they believed that the quality of children’s experiences would be raised by the implementation of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. In this context they frequently mentioned the importance of curriculum coverage, and the value they ascribed to children ‘achieving’ the Stepping Stones and other significant targets.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

2.8

Respondents were asked about likely influences on teachers’ practices. Half the teachers appeared to be unaware of the influences on early years practice of theorists such as Piaget and Vygotsky. The great majority of teachers claimed to be influenced mainly by their own experiences, the ethos of the school, schemes of work and school policies.

2.9

Outdoor play appeared to be perceived by all involved with the reception year as an essential and integral part of the curriculum because of the emphasis placed upon it in the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage.

2.10 There was evidence of the high value placed upon learning through play. For example, half of all respondents said it was necessary to promote literacy through play. However, over half the responding teachers also said that they would like more training in teaching through play. 2.11 A small number of teachers and heads claimed that the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage had changed the way language and literacy were taught, whereas half of the governors and a quarter of the teaching assistants felt this was the case. Only a very small minority indicated that the approach to literacy teaching in the reception class reflected the requirements of the National Literacy Strategy. This finding is not borne out by evidence from the classroom observations. 2.12 Working closely with parents is a high priority for many respondents and they approved of the emphasis placed upon partnership with parents in the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. Meeting with parents, asking them for information, discussing progress and recognising the parents as the child’s first educators were given high priority by all respondents. Again, the interview data tell a different story (see below 2.21). 2.13 A majority of LEA advisers stated that ‘understanding pedagogy’ and ‘child development’ were vital topics for training, but less than a fifth of other respondents, including teachers, rated these areas highly. 2.14 Only one in ten respondents overall said that training to work with other professionals was important. Regular, sustained contact between practitioners located in a range of provisions that educate and care for children across the three to five age range appears to be unusual. Yet once more, the interview data suggest a significant level of incoherence and inconsistency in this area of practice.

Key findings from analysis of the interviews (Section 5) 2.15 Although questionnaire responses had indicated that change was welcomed, the interviews suggested that many interviewees had not made significant changes in their practice to bring about improvements in the quality of children’s learning experiences.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

2.16 The interview data reveal inconsistencies and contradictions in the practitioners’ perceptions of teaching and learning. For example, they emphasised the need for spontaneity and independence in children’s learning, but also worried about whether children would achieve the specified targets, especially in literacy and numeracy, and planned tightly structured tasks to ensure that they did so. 2.17 All interviewees expressed the view that children need time to play and to engage in active, practical, first-hand experiences. However, some degree of confusion is revealed in the comments of one teacher, for whom giving children opportunities for play was clearly distinguished from giving teachers time for teaching: these were seen as distinct, not complementary aspects of the reception year experience. The observation data suggest that this perception of the value of play may be widely shared. 2.18 Practitioners value play, but they perceive that play is valued less by policy makers. Practitioners reported that the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies consume time that could be better used for play. Similarly, school-based personnel reported that OfSTED Inspectors often give the impression that they do not approve of play. 2.19 The issue of the need for training in play-related pedagogy and the outdoor curriculum was raised by a majority of interviewees. Issues about funding for training were raised in most of the interviews. 2.20 Effective partnership appears to be dependent upon already established clear and strong relationships. The majority of school-based staff showed little evidence of commitment to their local EYDCP or of an understanding of its relationship to their own work in the Foundation Stage. This finding suggests that there has been little attention paid, to date, to creating a culture of shared understanding within individual local partnerships, for all their members. 2.21 The concept of partnership with parents also appeared to be underdeveloped and incoherent, with more evidence of a one-way flow of information from the school to the home, than of practices that genuinely affirmed the significance of parents as the child’s first educators. 2.22 The governors interviewed expressed the view that they were not fully aware of their roles, nor were they familiar with the wider context of young children’s early education. None had knowledge of training opportunities available for early years personnel.

Key findings from analysis of the observations (Section 6) 2.23 As we illustrate in Section 6, many aspects of quality are highly variable in this small sample of observed classrooms. On any one of the dimensions we have identified from the

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

observation and interview data, any one school may be placed close to either one of the extremes of the continuum of practice (discussed more fully in Section 7). 2.24 Both child-initiated and adult-led activities were found to be conceptually and emotionally ‘impoverished’, offering little opportunity for cognitive challenge, emotional engagement or children’s acts of personal meaning-making. 2.25 A variety of analytical approaches were used to examine the data, and these provided converging evidence that there is a dominant emphasis on the teaching of certain aspects of literacy and numeracy. This emphasis is reflected in children’s self-chosen activities, which often had a narrow numeracy or literacy focus. 2.26 Opportunities for high quality learning experiences for the children were few and far between. Overall, we observed few opportunities for: l

sustained, shared and purposeful talk

sustained, complex imaginative play

authentic, engaging, first-hand experiences.

2.27 The quality of relationships in the sample schools was impressively high. The observed interactions between staff and children demonstrated warm, caring, secure relationships in supportive classroom environments. 2.28 These key findings, presented here in summary form, could be seen as damagingly judgemental, and unconstructively critical of reception class educators and their practice. They should be read in the context of the full analysis of the observation data given in section 6, in which the grounds for these judgements are established, and the concepts of ‘high quality’ and ‘impoverishment’ are fully illustrated and justified.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

S EC T ION 3

REC OMMENDAT IONS

We have developed a number of recommendations from the findings of this enquiry. These recommendations refer to both practice and policy and are the outcomes of our analysis of the data, our interpretations and our reflections on the current position of the reception class, in the context of the Foundation Stage. Our recommendations are presented below, starting with recommendations from our principal findings (as in Section 2) and then moving to the key findings from the questionnaire, interview and observation data. Some recommendations arise from clusters of findings from across the enquiry, but, as we have indicated previously, the relationship between the various phases of our research frequently showed differences mainly related to the rhetoric and the reality of reception class practices.

Recommendations from our principal findings 3.1

Our first and most significant finding suggests an urgent need for coherence, clarity and co-ordination in the work of all those involved in provision for children in the year in which they turn five. This coherence and clarity will not come about through statute, by desire, or as a result of writing or reading urgent words on a page. Many of our respondents were well aware of the need for joined-up Foundation Stage thinking but were less clear about how this might be achieved. Our recommendation is that training courses, conferences and seminar opportunities for Foundation Stage/EYDCP practitioners and personnel are predicated on the need to foster a clear and coherent approach to the care and education of all children between three and five, instead of continuing to treat this cohort of children in discrete categories. These currently include three year olds, independent pre-school or playgroup children, day care children, nursery children, children in family day care and children in primary/infant schools. The new community of Foundation Stage children are everybodyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s responsibility now, even when, as in the reception year, the vast majority of them are in maintained primary/infant schools.

3.2

There is an urgent need for a shared understanding of the nature and purposes of the Foundation Stage: a distinct and separate two-year phase of early education. It is not a preparation for the formal schooling that starts in Key Stage 1, but an extended period of time in which these young children (who would not be attending school in most other European countries) have time and space to play, explore, experiment, talk, make friends, imagine, solve problems and actively engage with the world. The best practices to be seen in the years before the reception year should characterise the whole of the Foundation Stage, and should not give way in the reception year to the provision of meaningless adultdirected tasks, with a narrow literacy and numeracy focus. The second year of the Foundation Stage should be seen in relation to the first â&#x20AC;&#x201C; as an extension and continuation of the best of early childhood care and education.

3.3

If teachers and other practitioners are to resist inappropriate pressures from their Key Stage 1 colleagues, they would undoubtedly benefit from the support of a document offering a

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

clearly argued rationale for the Foundation Stage. The present Guidance is, essentially, a ‘how to do it’ document, and does little to enable practitioners to develop a deeper understanding of children’s learning, the principles of early childhood curriculum, and effective pedagogy in the early years. The Curriculum Guidance document used throughout early provision in New Zealand (Ministry of Education 1996), Te Whariki, demonstrates how quality provision can best be fostered and developed by a principled curriculum model, based on explicit theoretical underpinnings, which enables practitioners to understand the thinking behind what they may do. In this country, by contrast, the level of prescription in the equivalent document has undermined practitioners’ capacity to think for themselves and to build on children’s capacity to learn through play, talk and meaningful first-hand experiences. We recommend that teachers and other practitioners should be trusted to build, with this supportive rationale, their own principled and well-informed understanding of the necessary characteristics of effective early education. 3.4

High quality, funded training, or, more appropriately, opportunities for continuing professional development, should be provided for all those involved with reception classes, right across the partnership. These opportunities should be multi-disciplinary and collaborative, as they currently are in some effective local authorities, where a variety of courses (both long and short) is offered, led by skilled educators with experience of working across sectors, with practitioners from diverse backgrounds. Moreover, partnership members and officers should encourage, indeed ensure, that all involved in the Foundation Stage attend such courses. It is difficult to imagine how ‘joined-up thinking’ can ever become normal, accepted practice, until all kinds of practitioners have regular opportunities for shared debate, discussion and a growing mutual understanding.

3.5

A shared working definition of partnership is desperately needed (an attempt is made in Section 8). It is clear that the ideas that underpin the term are not well understood; it is a word that currently means all things to all people and is insufficiently well defined for any clear understanding to be shared between the different groups involved. One particular aspect of the partnership concept as it applies to the Foundation Stage needs to be emphasised: all sectors of the education system should recognise and explicitly affirm that the reception classes, where the oldest Foundation Stage children are educated, fall within the brief of the EYDCPs, and are not the exclusive concern of the primary or infant school where they are sited.

Recommendations arising from the questionnaire data 3.6

We recommend caution in relation to the current emphasis on detailed planning (short, medium and long term) in order to achieve maximum curriculum coverage. The curriculum is now recognised, officially by QCA, and independently by other authorities (for example, Blenkin and Kelly 1988; Drummond et al. 1989; Cleave and Brown 1991; Nutbrown 1999)

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

to be made up of everything that children experience. While the guidance and its ‘Stepping Stones’ may be a useful reference point, they may also be seen as both limited and limiting for competent, powerful young children, seriously underestimating the diversity and richness of their learning. ‘Achieving’ the ‘Stepping Stones’, and covering the curriculum are of little value if children’s learning is impoverished by water-tight planning for highly specific and standardised outcomes. We recommend a greater emphasis on open-ended provision, where the learning outcomes are unpredictable, highly individualised and often wildly exceed the cautious educator’s expectations. 3.7

Several of our findings relate to the need for training of various kinds, including the need to raise awareness of the work of early years theorists (2.8). Other themes that respondents specifically mentioned as appropriate for reception class practitioners and others included outdoor play, literacy learning through play, and, more generally, teaching through play. To these expressed needs we would add the necessity, unrecognised to date by our respondents, for training to work with other professionals, and working in partnership with parents. We also endorse the views of local authority advisers who called for courses on child development and early years pedagogy. Our claims above (3.3 and 3.4), that practitioners are capable, with appropriate support, of thinking for themselves, and of building a stronger, deeper understanding of their work, lead us to make a strong recommendation for courses in all the areas listed above, and time for practitioners to meet and share good practice with each other. These are measures that we are confident will contribute to the growth of a truly reflective community of practitioners.

Recommendations arising from the interview data 3.8

We have found evidence, in both interview and observation data, of inconsistencies in practitioners’ thinking and a lack of awareness about the changes in practice that need to be made, if the Foundation Stage is to be effective in its aspirations. This evidence, once again, has serious implications for training, both in-house and off-site. Practitioners cannot reasonably be expected to respond instantly to the complex and unfamiliar demands of the new structures; they must regularly be given time and space to stand back and review critically the impact of their present practices on these young Foundation Stage children. Training opportunities should include all those we have already mentioned (3.1, 3.4 and 3.7) and, in addition, some support and encouragement for the difficult task of becoming more reflective, moving more slowly and thinking more deeply – qualities that may seem unattainable in the hurly burly of the reception classroom. We have sufficient evidence from a range of studies (for example, Wood and Attfield 1996; Wood 1999; Moyles and Adams 2002) to show how difficult early years educators find it to reflect on their own practice and articulate their tacit, embedded knowledge and understanding. But just because it is difficult, we should not give up on our aspirations for a community of extended professionals, committed to the practice of rigorous self-evaluation.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

3.9

We noted two aspects of partnership that, in our view, need to be developed: first the relationship between the EYDCP itself and all those who work in reception classes; and, secondly, the essential partnership between parents and school-based staff that is advocated in the Foundation Stage guidance. We have already suggested (3.4) some ways of enlarging our shared professional understanding of the first aspect; here we specifically recommend that school-based staff critically review their partnership arrangements with parents, particularly in discussion with governors and EYDCP personnel. In particular, they should seek to find an alternative to their present ‘information giving’ approach which, while it must be useful to parents, serves also to ensure that parents are recipients rather than equal partners, and does not recognise parents as the child’s first educators.

3.10 While a number of schools have governors for early years or, increasingly, for the Foundation Stage, currently these people are not well informed about what is happening in the partnership context in relation to reception class policy and practices. We recommend that governors be offered more funded training, as they cannot be expected to pay for their own training to do the voluntary job of a governor. Governor training should be included as a significant feature of EYDCP training funds, which should also be offered to members of management committees and boards of other Foundation Stage settings, thus ensuring cohesion and continuity of perspective across the Foundation Stage. Governors seem to be the ideal people to help integrate provision given that they often occupy other relevant roles, for example, as parents. Their training should encompass a range of issues to do with current understanding of early years pedagogy, children’s learning and the wider context of the care and education of young children.

Recommendations arising from the observations 3.11 We recommend the use of our model of the continuum of good practice (presented in Section 7) as a self-evaluation tool for reception class practitioners, supported by their headteachers and advisory/pedagogical support staff. With this tool, small groups of practitioners can begin to establish a regular and critical cycle of enquiry, observation and review. The extremes of the continuum, for any of the 22 aspects of quality they represent, can be used as the starting point for focused observations, as practitioners ask deceptively simple questions about themselves and their children, looking for evidence of good practice. 3.12 We recommend an equally critical enquiry by practising reception class professionals into the quality of both the activities they devise for children and the spontaneous activities initiated by the children. This will not entail increased time spent on planning teacherled activities or provision for child-initiated activity. It will entail increased time spent on observing and reviewing both kinds of activity, scrupulously and critically mapping the learning for which there is observable evidence. We recommend that practitioners use the criteria of cognitive challenge, emotional engagement and the expression of children’s

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

individual acts of meaning-making, in order to make evaluative judgements about the quality of what is on offer. 3.13 We recommend that reception class professionals re-examine the values and priorities of their approaches to literacy and numeracy learning. With appropriate support from other professionals and a wealth of recent publications (for example, Sheahan 2003; Worthington and Carruthers 2003), practitioners should be encouraged to consider whether their current emphasis on the smallest and most basic mechanical units of literacy and numeracy learning is altogether appropriate. 3.14 A similar recommendation is appropriate for perhaps our most worrying finding: the limited opportunities for sustained, shared, purposeful talk; for complex, imaginative play; and for authentic, engaging, first-hand experiences. We recommend that practitioners audit the time that children actually spend in these three intrinsically motivating and meaningful pursuits, in order to satisfy themselves that these real ‘basics’ of the early childhood curriculum are properly represented in the daily lives of children. They may discover that they need to review the balance of time allocated to these crucial aspects of children’s lives, indoors and outdoors, across a day, a week, and a term in the reception class. We note in passing that a similar recommendation was made in the sadly neglected and long forgotten Rumbold Report (DES 1990). 3.15 Our finding that the quality of relationships in the sample schools was high is encouraging and very welcome. However, positive relationships are not enough (Bettelheim 1950). These relationships are only a part of the whole, and it is the quality of the whole that must be continuously reviewed and evaluated. When children are demonstrably secure, happy, confident, even joyful, it is not necessarily an easy task to ask oneself whether they are, in fact, experiencing a challenging and worthwhile curriculum. But we recommend that this question, and others like it, become part of practitioners’ regular practice in self-monitoring and evaluation.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

S EC T ION 4

QUES T IONN A IRE PH AS E

Background 4.1

Since the creation of early years partnerships in the late 1990s (DfES 1998), there are many people with the capacity to influence practices and policies in reception classes. These classes are also affected by different staffing regimes and requirements: for example, the government has pledged to ensure a maximum ratio of one teacher to 30 children in Key Stage 1 classes, and in nursery classes a ratio of no more than one adult to 15 children. It would appear that there should be no doubts about the staffing of reception classes, but until the introduction of the Foundation Stage, the status of the reception year in relation to nursery classes and Key Stage 1 was ambiguous and confused. This ambiguity and confusion persist. The Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage states clearly that all children will remain in the Foundation Stage until transfer to Key Stage 1 in the September after their fifth birthday, but, of course, both admission and transfer will be at different ages because of different birth dates. 4 The reception year as part of the Foundation Stage is subject to both EYDCP and LEA partnership arrangements, will be accountable to the headteacher and governors and will have one or more class teachers and the support of classroom assistants or nursery nurses.

4.2

These people may all be involved in various ways and to different degrees, and so represent a rich source of information and perceptions about reception class policies and practices on which this research was designed to draw. For this reason, the first phase of the research was a Questionnaire Survey with a sample of people from six groups of professionals (headteachers, reception class teachers, teaching assistants, Foundation Stage governors, local authority and partnership personnel). Because, as we have seen in the Introduction, it is likely that practice is differentiated across England, it was decided to survey a range of geographical locations (full sampling details are given in Appendix A).

4.3

At the time of our survey, reception class teachers had already received a lengthy questionnaire sponsored by the DfES (see DfES Report 350), and ATL members had also received a brief questionnaire (ATL 2002). Additionally, two other DfES funded projects â&#x20AC;&#x201C; SPEEL (Moyles et al. 2002) and REPEY (Siraj-Blatchford et al. 2002), both involving practitioners in the three to five age range â&#x20AC;&#x201C; had recently been conducted. It was important, therefore, that we did not overload potential respondents or appear to revisit ground that had already been covered.

4.4

The ATL questionnaire had already established that: l

most Foundation Stage teachers reported having made changes in their practice since the introduction of the Foundation Stage

the most frequent changes reported were to policies and schemes, outdoor areas and planning. Teachers also reported an increase in teamwork and in paperwork

Children born up to and including 31 August each year will start their Key Stage 1 experience in September. This means that some children whose birth dates were in the previous September will be nearly six at transfer, and other, summer-born children, barely five years old.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

use of outdoor areas was a problem for many

training and support for teachers was seen to be inconsistent, with a majority saying they felt unsupported by senior management

teachers expressed a desire for more support and guidance, both nationally and from their LEA and/or EYDCP.

This questionnaire was sent to all ATL members who work in primary, infant and nursery schools, with the expectation that it would be answered by Foundation Stage and Key Stage 1 staff. Approximately half the respondents work in reception classes, with another 20% in mixed age/mixed stage classes. The remainder work in nursery or Key Stage 1 classes. 4.5

The Taylor Nelson Sofres et al. Report for the DfES (2002) aimed to investigate and quantify issues raised by a number of different bodies and individuals who had reported anxieties to the DfES via regional conferences about the successful implementation of the Foundation Stage in reception classes. The research covered teacher characteristics, different reception class practices and headteachers’ and reception class teachers’ views, attitudes and concerns and is described as providing ‘a snapshot of both practices and opinions regarding the Foundation Stage in Reception classes during the autumn of 2001’ (p.1).

4.6

Clearly, there are similarities here with parts of our investigation: the major differences are that we were a) trying to explore and identify good partnership practices to support reception class practices, and b) examining children’s experiences in the ‘new’ reception class structures informed by the Foundation Stage principles. Therefore, our study intended to compare the views and perceptions of different groups of people within the broad partnership and then to observe practice to see what benefits there might be to children (and practitioners) in the potentially more cohesive and coherent system.

Questionnaire development 4.7

An initial literature search, alongside e-communication between researchers and ATL staff, was used to establish an early conceptualisation of key issues and arrive at the questions to be asked. In the light of the complexity of early years pedagogy and the known difficulty experienced by practitioners in readily articulating their reflections on practice (Moyles and Adams 2001), it was agreed that a small initial pilot would be conducted to determine how effective the first draft questions were in eliciting informative responses from practitioners and providers. It was expected that the initial questionnaire, distributed to ten supportive practitioners who would not later be involved in the full questionnaire, would help ascertain: 1.

their interest in and awareness of early years issues related to reception class practices and policies

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

whether our understandings of these issues were shared by practitioners

what types of question were preferred (for example, multiple choice, open response, rating scales).

4.8

The initial questionnaire was aimed solely at teachers and included questions referring to the impact of the Foundation Stage, if and how changes had been implemented, the status of early years teachers, relationships with parents, provision of resources, time use and possible changes, major influences on practice, training needs, literacy issues and the types and quality of communication across providers and services.

4.9

From these responses, the final draft questionnaire was developed for teachers. Alongside this, a similar questionnaire was developed, with comparable content, except that the wording was re-worked to be suitable for respondents other than teachers. (The questionnaires for both reception class teachers and others are shown in Appendices B and C.) The revised and final draft questionnaire also requested biographical information from all respondents, so that we would be able to see whether responses were influenced by, for example, length of service, initial qualifications, role or age.

The main questionnaire 4.10 The contents of the main questionnaire were largely unchanged from the second pilot, with only the question about time being slightly changed. (Full information about the development and piloting of the questionnaire is shown in Appendix A.) 4.11 At the beginning of September, questionnaires were distributed to schools and authorities who had agreed to take part. To try to ensure a better return rate, all authorities and schools involved had previously been contacted, their agreement to being included sought, named schools and individuals identified and the return date for the questionnaire communicated to them. Significantly, three represent the east of England, the chief geographical location of the two research teams in the project (as we will see, the challenge of gaining responses meant that the researchers had to draw on convenience sampling more than had originally been intended â&#x20AC;&#x201C; see Appendix A).

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Table 4a: Authorities involved in the research Authorities (n=11)* Birmingham Cambridge** Camden Devon Essex Lancashire Leicester Peterborough West Sussex Wirral Worcestershire * Six other authorities were approached in the initial stages of the research (Kirklees, Milton Keynes, NE Lincolnshire, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Oxfordshire and Sheffield) but declined to be involved mainly due to pressures of work, too many initiatives or too many questionnaires. ** Cambridge joined the project after the questionnaire distribution stage.

4.12 Each school and local authority contact acted as the distribution point for questionnaires to try to ensure, through the covering letters, that each person understood the importance of their role in understanding the partnership and interactions embedded in implementing the Foundation Stage for reception classes. The distribution was as follows: l

headteachers, with a copy in an addressed envelope to the reception class teacher, a Year R teaching assistant, and the governor responsible for the early years or Foundation Stage (whichever was appropriate in that school)

the main local authority early years adviser/ inspector, with a copy in an addressed envelope to the main EYDCP person with whom the adviser had contact.

All individuals were sent stamped-addressed envelopes for return of the completed questionnaire. Thus we hoped that this â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;personalâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; delivery would improve the response rate and mean that potential respondents might feel empathy with the research. The total number of distributed questionnaires was 438. 4.13 Three follow-up reminders were sent and the date of return was extended twice to try to accommodate questionnaire returns. Questionnaires were sent out in early September and returns remained open until the end November. The total number of responses was 180 questionnaires in three months. This represents an overall response rate of 41%. The numbers of potential and actual respondents and their roles are shown in Table 4b.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Table 4b Respondents

Potential respondents

Actual respondents

% return for each group

Teachers

137

50%

TAs

137

31%

Heads

64%

Governors

30%

LEAs

33%

EYDCP

11%

438

180

Total

4.14 This response rate is reasonable in terms of expected returns from a postal survey, now believed by most researchers rarely to exceed around 20-25% (Sim and Wright 2000). Because of the low numbers of LEA and EYDCP respondents, however, and because the latter often found it difficult to answer the questions posed (see 4.16 below), most of our findings are based on data from only the four other groups (teachers, headteachers, learning assistants and governors).

Findings from the questionnaire 4.15 The questionnaire gathered some basic data about respondents. For example, 93% across all six groups were female. Nine headteachers were male, as was one teaching assistant. 76% of all respondents were over the age of 36 years. More than half the teachers (54%) had been in post for over 11 years, whilst LEA personnel had only been in role for between three to six years. This fact probably reflects the recent expansion of early years provision and the new posts which were generated as a result of this. 4.16 In general, teaching assistants, governors and EYDCP personnel showed a greater reluctance to answer some questions than the other groups, either leaving a number of question responses blank or writing comments such as ‘difficult questions’, ‘don’t know’ or ‘can’t answer this’. 4.17 Impact of the Foundation Stage and Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage: The vast majority of respondents welcomed the Foundation Stage as a separate phase and the introduction of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (see Table 4c). Over 80% of all teachers thought that the ‘Stepping Stones’ would be helpful for planning and assessment. Seventy-two percent of all respondents suggested that its greatest impact was likely to be in increased provision for outdoor play.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Table 4c: Impact of the Foundation Stage and its Guidance Response to…

HTs

Govs

TAs

LEAs

EYDCPs

Welcome the FS/CGFS

97%

91%

94%

87%

100%

Quality of children’s experiences will be raised by CGFS

86%

94%

83%

100%

(no resp)

4.18 Changes to practice: Overwhelmingly, respondents ‘strongly agreed’ (67-71%) that there is now more provision for outdoor play in reception classes. At the other end of the spectrum, asked whether it had changed the way teachers and governors work together, whilst 29% of governors felt it had, only 3-7% of other respondents shared this perception. 4.49 Asked about teachers’ planning for learning, 39% of all respondents agreed there had been changes. A question about changes in planning for teaching gave a slightly higher response (44%). Thirty-five percent of all respondents said that the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage had changed teachers’ priorities for children’s learning. 4.20 Written comments from teachers were taken as evidence for these changes in their practice: ‘We’re now able to plan for each objective – this makes life easier.’ ‘I refer to the Stepping Stones for medium term planning to ensure coverage.’ ‘Stepping Stones helps to focus you on age appropriate activities when thinking about planning.’ ‘Stepping Stones helps to focus on learning needs of children at different stages of development and give ideas for the next stage.’ (These comments about ‘coverage’ and the Stepping Stones are referred to specifically in Recommendation 3.6) 4.21 Considerable differences were found between respondents in the ways in which they saw that the Foundation Stage and the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage had changed the teaching of language and literacy. Whereas only 5% of teachers and 8% of headteachers claimed that it had, 47% of governors and 26% of teaching assistants reported that teaching was different. Perhaps there is a suggestion here of governors’ lack of involvement and, therefore, a lack of reliable knowledge about what is actually happening in reception classes. The difference in teaching assistants’ perceptions is probably connected to changes in their own roles since the introduction of the Literacy Hour and the National Literacy Strategy.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

4.22 Working with parents: Respondents were asked how far the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage would support working with parents (see Table 4d). Neither of the partnership respondents completed this question, although a majority of all other respondents were enthusiastic. Table 4d: Working with parents Ts

TAs

HTs

Govs

LEA

Guidance will support work with parents

86%

67%

80%

82%

100%

Guidance will not support work with parents

10%

17%

10%

12%

Declined to comment

17%

Written comments from respondents indicate the strength of some feelings: ‘CGFS encourages more of a partnership with parents.’ (Teacher) ‘Parents are the primary focus in CGFS.’ (Teacher) ‘CGFS enables parents to gain a clearer understanding of the early years curriculum.’ (Governor) ‘The new Foundation Stage profile will help parents become more aware of Early Learning Goals and where their children are at.’ (Teacher) ‘CGFS clarifies reception as a specific stage – not just as preparation for KS1.’ (Headteacher) ‘Parents that want to be involved will be; those who don’t won’t.’ (Teacher) The Quick et al. (2002) study for the DfES found that reception class teachers perceived that parents’ understanding of the Foundation Stage and the guidance was generally low to moderate (p.9). It would have been interesting, if time had permitted, to collect parents’ own responses to this question as part of the survey. 4.23 Resourcing reception classes: We asked respondents which resources they thought reception classes must have and which were of lower priority. This was a question to which the majority of respondents other than teachers, teaching assistants and headteachers declined to respond. Priorities amongst teachers included a themed area, for example, shop, bus (57%), books and text resources (53%) and a home area/dressing up (53%). Low priority was given by teachers to clay and jigsaws (only one teacher gave them priority), and only 10% of teachers said that puppets were vital equipment. None of the teachers or teaching assistant respondents said that they needed to have woodwork or television; one teacher wrote: ‘Reception class teachers do not need woodwork tools because they need a high level of supervision and would be better introduced later’. Headteachers and teaching assistants agreed with this selection and also included large wooden construction blocks as a low priority.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Headteachers and teaching assistants made similar responses, the notable differences being: Headteachers

Teaching Assistants

70%

34%

Large wheeled toys

20%

Paints and brushes

60%

23%

Home area/dressing up

4.24 Low priority for all was a large climbing frame which, given the emphasis all respondents placed on outdoor play, is perhaps surprising. It may be explained in that respondents had to select a few items from an extensive list in this part of the questionnaire. It might also be that outdoor play is now less conceived of in terms of gross motor skills and more in terms of an extension of the indoor learning environment (Bilton 2002). It is more difficult to understand why large wooden construction blocks are not favoured by headteachers, but it may be to do with the initial cost and storage space required for these. 4.25 Changes in time use and needs: Respondents were asked whether time use in reception classes had changed since the introduction of the Foundation Stage. None of the respondents felt that less time was needed and only one teacher felt that time use had not changed at all. A third of all other respondents felt that time needs had not changed. All respondents indicated that overall more time was needed to observe children (74%), play with children (66%) and talk with children (58%). Given that the Guidance puts an emphasis on observation, play, language and communication, it is perhaps unsurprising that respondents felt more time was needed on these aspects. In the observation phase (see Section 6), it was interesting to see how far these particular perceptions were borne out in practice. 4.26 Influences on thinking and practice: Both the StEPs project (Moyles and Adams 2001) and the SPEEL project (Moyles et al. 2002) found that there are many influences on teachers’ thinking which impacted upon their practice with three to five year old children. In this survey, respondents were offered a long list of potential influences on their practices and asked to rate from the most highly influential down to those which had little or no influence on them. Tables 4e, 4f, 4g and 4h, show responses from four different groups. These charts show substantial differences between the various groups. We argue that these differences suggest that they rarely, if ever, talk together about the big ideas that underpin policy, pedagogy and curriculum in the reception class. Teachers appear to rely heavily on their own experiences and initial teacher education plus school-focused policies, yet the interview data suggest that they rarely challenge these experiences or school-based norms, simply continuing to overlay new practices on old. Headteachers equally emphasise these aspects, both groups looking outwards relatively infrequently. Teaching assistants are clearly mindful of OfSTED although this concern is less frequent in teachers’ and headteachers’ lists of influences on practice.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Table 4e: Influences identified by teachers Own experiences

100% 90%

Ethos of School

80%

Initial Teacher Education

70%

Schemes of work

60%

School Policies

50%

LEA

40%

Community OfSTED

30%

Higher Education

20%

Influence of Partnership

10%

QCA Schemes 0% %age

Table 4f: Influences on teachers identified by headteachers 100%

Ethos of School

90%

School Policies

80%

Schemes of work

70%

Teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; own experiences

60%

LEA

50%

OfSTED Partnership

40%

QCA Schemes

30%

Higher Education 20% 10% 0% %age

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Table 4g: Influences on teachers identified by governors 100%

Higher Education

90%

Ethos of school

80%

Ofsted

70%

Schemes of work

60%

LEA

50%

Initial teacher education

40%

School policies

30%

Teachers’ own experiences

20%

Partnership

10% 0% %age

Table 4h: Influences on teachers identified by teaching assistants 80%

Ethos of school

78%

Schemes of work/policies

76%

Ofsted

74%

Teachers’ own experiences

72%

Initial teacher education

70% 68% 66% 64% 62% 60% %age

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

4.27 It was interesting how many of the various groups responded ‘don’t know’ to some of the items, particularly in relation to more theoretical aspects of the list we provided. Taking the top ‘don’t knows’, the responses were: Teachers (don’t know) High/Scope (66%)

Piaget (50%)

Vygotsky (50%)

Headteachers (don’t know) Te Whariki (63%)

Isaacs (54%)

Schema (49%)

Governors (don’t know) Vygotsky (82%)

Te Whariki (71%)

Scaffolding (59%)

Teaching Assistants (don’t know) Te Whariki (67%)

Isaacs (63%)

Vygotsky (57%)

4.28 Other influences named by respondents included other colleagues (35% teachers), early years books/articles read (15% teachers), acknowledgement of reception teachers’ status by LEA inspectors, colleagues, heads (10% teachers) – ‘A headteacher who is willing to implement structures that provide the best education for our children.’ Only one teacher commented on current research as influential – a lone voice! 4.29 Training needs: The main areas identified by respondents are shown in Table 4i. The two EYDCP personnel declined to answer this question, despite their important role in providing early years funded training. With the exception of the LEA advisers/ inspectors (75%), only 19% respondents said that ‘Understanding pedagogy’ was a necessary training topic. An equal proportion of LEA advisers (75%) also saw ‘Child development’ as a vital area, whereas only 18% of all other respondents perceived this to be important. Only 10% of all respondents said that ‘Working with other professionals’ was an important training focus. The high rating for play probably reflects the emphasis on play given in the Guidance. Table 4i: Training needs Training needs

TAs

Heads

Govs

LEA

Teaching through play

53%

80%

60%

59%

75%

Social/emotional development

50%

63%

49%

71%

20%

Planning/assessment

53%

30%

46%

59%

60%

4.30 Literacy: A question was asked about what things affect the way that literacy skills are taught to reception age children. Respondents were asked to select the four most important aspects. The results are presented in Table 4j. The aggregated score for all respondents (which showed very little variation between groups) is given first, and then the teacher-only responses are given second as a comparison.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Table 4j: Most important aspects of teaching literacy Most important aspects of teaching literacy

All

Encouraging parental involvement in children’s literacy

56%

55%

Ensuring literacy learning is enjoyable for children

53%

48%

Planning literacy opportunities through play

47%

40%

Using play to promote literacy

46%

45%

4.31 Once again, an emphasis on play can be seen. Headteachers and LEA personnel responded more positively than others to planning literacy opportunities through play (63% and 75% respectively, compared to only 40% of teachers). Less than 5% of respondents overall indicated that the requirements of the National Literacy Strategy were important in the teaching of literacy. Only 3% of all respondents said that parents should leave teachers to teach children to read and only 5% said that learning how to spell affects literacy skills. 4.32 Individual comments about literacy and the National Literacy Strategy were also informative: ‘The structure of the Literacy Hour is not wholly suitable: aspects of it can be used.’ (Teacher) ‘At four and five children’s literacy teaching has to be adapted on a very regular basis to suit their capacity for learning in any given day.’ (Headteacher) ‘NLS simply does not indicate an understanding of how young children acquire literacy skills.’ (Teacher) ‘Children need immersing in literacy… all through the day in amounts they can cope with.’ (Teacher) 4.33 Working with parents: We have already seen (in 4.22 above) that many respondents felt that the guidance would affect the way they work with parents. Working closely with parents is a significant part of early years education; teachers and their assistants regularly meet every day with parents and carers who bring children into the reception class. There was general agreement across the whole cohort of respondents on certain vital aspects of this work: l

The need to meet parents – range 93-98%.

The need to ask parents for information – 88-96%.

Discussing progress with parents – 93-97%.

The recognition of parents as first educators – 89-97%.

Parents welcome to come in and work with children – 80-95% (headteachers least in agreement).

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Parents welcome to teach children – 16-40% (governors most in agreement; headteachers least).

Parents should make an appointment to see the teacher – 57-83% (teaching assistants least agreement; local authority personnel most agreement).

4.34 These responses certainly reflect the different positions of those who made them. For example, many teaching assistants are themselves drawn from the parent population so it is not surprising that they are less inclined to insist that parents make an appointment to see the teacher. Similarly, governors are often drawn from the parent population so being welcome to teach children might be more important to them than other groups, the teachers, for example. It is strange that while parents are recognised by most respondents as the child’s first educator, other responses are at odds with this one. Specifically, although at least 80% of all respondents welcomed parents working with children in the classroom, only around 16% (respondents other than governors) gave any priority to parents actually teaching children. Interestingly, 40% of governors endorsed the possibility of parents teaching children. The situation appears to be that teachers and headteachers, in particular, are positive about parental partnership but only on their own rather limited terms. Governors seem to value parents more highly as the child’s first educators. 4.35 Communicating across providers and services: Arguably, this is the most telling of the questions and responses. We wanted to find out how often communication takes place between multi-professional groups and the individuals who are involved in the Foundation Stage. l

46% of headteachers do not usually share policies across EYDCP settings (neither do 24% of teachers).

72% (teachers), 66% (headteachers) and 87% (teaching assistants) do not usually work with people in pre-schools.

64% (teachers) and 46% (headteachers) do not work with others to link with Year 1 classes.

28% teachers have termly meetings with other professionals and 39% have daily meetings with other professionals.

66% of headteachers have termly written communication with other professionals.

60% of teachers, 67% teaching assistants and 46% of headteachers participate in combined training events termly.

There appears to be some confusion in some of these responses, as we shall see when we look at the interview data for the same issue, in section 5.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Comment 4.36 Our initial impression of the questionnaire responses suggested an emerging picture of different personnel gradually coming together in their thinking about reception class practices. There was, however, even at this stage, evidence of some significant discrepancies between respondents, which, as we have shown in section 5, became even more marked in the course of the interview phase.

Main findings from the analysis of the questionnaire 4.37 The Foundation Stage and its associated guidance are welcomed by a majority of respondents, because it appears to provide a focus for the practitioners who work with these young children. Over a third of respondents thought that the guidance will affect the way teachers plan for learning and teaching and that it will change teachers’ priorities for learning. 4.38 A majority of respondents said that they believed that the quality of children’s experiences will be raised by the implementation of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. In this context they frequently mentioned the importance of curriculum coverage, and the value they ascribed to children achieving the ‘Stepping Stones’ and other significant targets. 4.39 Respondents were asked about likely influences on teachers’ practices. Half the teachers appeared to be unaware of the influences on early years practice of theorists such as Piaget and Vygotsky. The great majority of teachers claimed to be influenced mainly by their own experiences, the ethos of the school, schemes of work and school policies. 4.40 Outdoor play appeared to be perceived by all involved with the reception year as an essential and integral part of the curriculum because of the emphasis placed upon it in the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. 4.41 There was evidence of the high value placed upon learning through play. For example, half of all respondents said it was necessary to promote literacy through play. However, over half the responding teachers also said that they would like more training in teaching through play. 4.42 A small number of teachers and heads claimed that the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage had changed the way language and literacy were taught, whereas half of the governors and a quarter of the teaching assistants felt this was the case. Only a very small minority indicated that the approach to literacy teaching in the reception class reflected the requirements of the National Literacy Strategy. This finding is not borne out by evidence from the classroom observations. 4.43 Working closely with parents is a high priority for many respondents and they approved of the emphasis placed upon partnership with parents in the Curriculum Guidance for the

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Foundation Stage. Meeting with parents, asking them for information, discussing progress and recognising the parents as the child’s first educators, were given high priority by all respondents. Again, the interview data tell a different story. 4.44 A majority of LEA advisers stated that ‘understanding pedagogy’ and ‘child development’ were vital topics for training, but less than a fifth of other respondents, including teachers, rated these areas highly. 4.45 Only one in ten respondents overall said that training to work with other professionals was important. Regular, sustained contact between practitioners located in a range of provisions who educate and care for children across the three to five years age range appears to be unusual. Yet once more, the interview data suggest a significant level of incoherence and inconsistency in this area of practice.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

S EC T ION 5

IN T ERV IE W PH A S E

Introduction The findings from the Questionnaire Phase were largely very positive, as we have shown in the previous section. The degree of consensus in the responses was not altogether unexpected, as research suggests that experienced practitioners have difficulty in articulating the values, beliefs and understanding of their own practice; partly because, with experience, their actions become automated and intuitive (Geddis et al. 1998). 5.1

This research aimed to identify the key constructs at the heart of teachers’ and policy makers’ work in relation to reception classes. We considered that deeper pedagogical understanding was likely to be accomplished through using the outcomes of the questionnaire as the basis for the interviews (see, for example, Van Manen 1977; Kagan 1990) so that all those involved would be familiar with the concepts we were investigating and with our approach.

5.2

As with the questionnaire respondents, the interviewees were drawn, as far as possible (see Appendix A), from clusters of people whose work was likely to impact on reception classes. Amongst the interviewees, we also included a small number of experienced teachers, in whose classrooms the observations were carried out. It is known that teachers in particular have a rich repertoire of experiences on which to draw, offering opportunities for creative, critical reflection in and on their practices and for resolving dilemmas relating to, for example, their values and beliefs (see, for example, Schön 1983; Ghaye and Ghaye 1998: 36). We hoped therefore to see in great detail through the eyes of these reflective individuals how the Foundation Stage and Guidance had impacted upon their practices.

Development of the interview schedule 5.3

Using the questionnaire responses as a basis for further articulation and pedagogical discourse, the researchers adopted a critical role in scaffolding deeper thought. The value of talking is well documented in research. For instance, Johns and Freshwater (1998) found that talking helped practitioners to surface their own theories. In the bustle and business of the school day it is difficult for respondents to capture immediately deeper aspects of their practice in a structured and purposeful conversation (Kvale 1996). In this enquiry, through sensitive and informed listening, the researchers were able to facilitate mainly open-ended interviews with all those involved. Jensen et al. (1997: 863) also suggest that through having opportunities to talk about practice or tell stories about daily experiences, practitioners begin to ‘locate their voices and become more aware of their pedagogical intentions’. Dahlberg et al. (1999) confirm this and suggest that, unknowingly, theories are embodied so that ideas, understanding and actions spontaneously and fluently inform theories. Through capturing interviewees’ ideas (Denzin and Lincoln 1994) we aimed also to conceptualise their understandings about reception classes practices and the roles of partnership personnel.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

5.4

The open-ended, personalised questions demanded something of an intentional naiveté on behalf of the researchers, who were open to tales of the unexpected, and refrained from prejudicial or preconceived schemes of interpretation. Being curious about what was said – or not said – was an important aspect of the researchers’ approach to the interviews and to the research outcomes (Kvale 1996).

5.5

Generating ‘stories’ of practice through talking was prompted by the interviewers. For example, when asked about a vision for the future (inviting a conceptual response), one teacher interviewee talked about hoping to ‘take a few children to the seaside’ – responding at a pragmatic level before then elaborating and exploring aspirations at a more philosophical level. The complex activity of teaching and learning becomes such an intuitive response that surfacing these beliefs – the ‘invisible pedagogy’ – is a difficult process (Bernstein 1975; Spodek 1988: 14). Through talking about practice – focusing on the ‘doing’, describing what teaching looks and feels like, and defining what will be the evidence of children’s learning – practitioners can begin to recognise and understand the impact of their teaching on children’s learning (Kroath 1989).

5.6

The principle of talking about practice – about what children and teachers do – was also a helpful prompt for all the non-teaching interviewees, who found it easier to talk first about what they saw and did before confronting the deeper underpinning principles of practices in which they were (albeit peripherally in many cases) involved. The exceptions to this principle were the governors, who often had little practical experience of being involved with young children, and commented along the lines of: ‘I’m new to all this so I don’t know’ or ‘I don’t really know enough to answer that’.

5.7

All other groups of interviewees (headteachers, teaching assistants, EYDCP personnel) were able to draw on their own experiences of working or being with children. Their personal stories were often the prompt for deeper thinking.

5.8

Once involved, interviewees began to provide some evidence of their deeper pedagogical values. It appeared that once the process of articulation had been initiated, further deeper reflective thinking was stimulated. For example, two respondents (one EYDCP, one LEA) contacted a researcher after the interview to ask for an additional opportunity to share further thoughts on the impact of Foundation Stage on children’s learning.

Sample for interviewing 5.9

Originally, it had been intended that clusters of interviewees would be selected from the questionnaire responses. By ‘cluster’ we mean that one set of people – reception class teacher, teaching assistant, headteacher, governor, LEA adviser/inspector and EYDCP person – from each of eight responding authorities, would be interviewed and reception class practices observed. Each cluster would be built up on the basis of a full set of

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

responses being received, which we assumed would indicate an effective partnership supporting reception class practice and policy. As it transpired, the responses to the questionnaires were much less neat and tidy than this, with many incomplete sets of responses, due to the failure to respond of one or more people. This meant a slight change of research strategy in that we had to take responses where the majority had returned their questionnaires and contact these respondents to be involved in the interview and observation process. 5.10 We contacted nine people in each of our categories (teachers, headteachers, teaching assistants, governors, LEA advisers/inspectors and EYDCP personnel) as potential interviewees. The total number of interviewees in each category is shown in Table 5a. We are well aware that opinions from such small numbers of people have to be viewed with some caution. Nevertheless, because of the initial questionnaire and the follow-up observations, the opportunity for triangulation in terms of findings is useful. We discuss this aspect of the research again in Appendix A. Table 5a: Interviewees Teachers

Heads

TAs

Governors

LEA

EYDCP

Totals

5.11 Significantly, EYDCP people often chose to respond through the LEA person, as they thought they would have nothing to add to what the LEA adviser/ inspector could and would tell us. This was the case in half the authorities. For example, one respondent told us: ‘Whatever she says, I’ll go along with as she knows what’s happening in reception classes and the EYDCP don’t have anything to do with the education side of it all.’ Teaching assistants were also sometimes reluctant to be interviewed without the teacher present as they felt that the teacher would be able to answer the questions ‘better than I can – she takes the responsibility and knows exactly what she wants to happen in reception.’

Findings 5.12 As we have already noted in the principal findings in section one, we found that the questionnaire responses, generally very positive and upbeat, were not always echoed in the interviews, where there was evidence of a number of tensions and inconsistencies. These are discussed below, as well as some substantial areas of agreement, under the following headings: l

training

funding

changes in practice

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

perceptions of teaching and learning

tensions and dilemmas

the role of early years governors.

These headings emerged from our use of the ‘constant comparison’ method of narrative transcriptions (Maykut and Morehouse 1994) as issues which were raised repeatedly by different respondents. 5.13 Training for all those involved: While all respondents agreed on the need for properly funded, quality training, and prioritised play-based pedagogy and the development of the outdoor provision/curriculum as key topics for this training, there were also variations across respondents in terms of the kind of training they saw as relevant and worthwhile. 5.14 Governor training was an area of concern to many respondents. In particular, governors’ poor understanding of early years appeared to be an issue. One governor confessed it was difficult having to think about nursery provision – adding that ‘four year olds are little tots really’. There was no evidence of governors respecting young children as learners – with one stating that, in her school, the teachers were all friendly and dynamic, ‘… they still cuddle the little ones, all the things they are not supposed to do’ with no reference to teaching and learning as being critical in effective early years practice. 5.15 There appeared to be no expectation by governors that they should receive training about the Foundation Stage and the guidance. One stated that she was aware that teachers had received training on ‘Literacy… or curriculum stuff [but] I don’t know anything about their training.’ One governor said there was no opportunity for her to receive training and that, as training was limited, it was more appropriate for the teachers to attend courses – especially as the training being offered was ‘excellent’. This comment was echoed by another governor who said ‘I don’t know much about training… the school has curriculum training for staff… I think.’ Overall, the governors appeared to have little awareness or, indeed, opportunity to undertake training. 5.16 Perceptions of the training needs of other respondents were varied. Practitioners’ responses were interestingly polarised, with some describing in detail what they wanted and others asserting that they did not need any additional training. Two individual comments beautifully illustrate this difference in opinion: ‘It would be good to be able to go on a course and see what’s happening.’ (Teaching assistant) ‘I used to go on lots of courses but always came back feeling very defeated and confused. So now I just do what I know is right for the children.’ (Teacher)

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Unsurprisingly, with the emphasis on teaching through observation and the advent of the new Foundation Stage Profile, many teachers mentioned training in observational skills, and equal numbers suggested they needed more training in outdoor play: ‘I would actually like some more help with the outdoors’. ‘The use of observation in assessment…’; ‘more focus on observing play’. More contrasting points were made by teaching assistants whose comments ranged from really wanting to pursue additional training (sometimes to become teachers) to feeling that ‘I’m only a teaching assistant so I don’t need training.’ Other respondents shared this view, with one headteacher expressing it in very positive terms, claiming that teaching assistants are so skilled that ‘they don’t really need additional training.’ 5.17 The role of the headteacher in discouraging or promoting additional training, especially where there were financial considerations, was often recognised. There were headteachers who had ‘allocated more Year R resources [funding]’ who similarly felt that ‘training for the Foundation Stage has been vital, especially for the Year R co-ordinator’ and one headteacher who wanted all her staff across the primary school to have Foundation Stage training because ‘There is a huge amount of specialism in the infant stage now and I think we should be celebrating that… I want it to be a way that involved all practitioners: I want them all to be empowered by it.’ There were equally some headteachers who were lukewarm about training, remarking: ‘We find that the teaching staff variously gain or otherwise from courses.’ Others were concerned that funding for training is inadequate and that the quality of training is variable. On the other hand, one headteacher was warmly mentioned by a teaching assistant for her encouragement to attend a local university teacher training course. 5.18 Local authority advisers shared some of these concerns, emphasising that training must be properly funded so that school staff have no difficulty in accessing it, and that it should also be offered to governors and parents. 5.19 Funding: The financial implications of the introduction of the Foundation Stage were considerable, with interviewees stating that they do not envisage that development of partnerships will occur until government policy provides funding for more appropriate provision, especially for improved adult/child ratios within schools. For example, one respondent stated that ‘dicey funding results in lack of confidence in the future of partnership.’ An additional teacher interviewee concluded, with frustration, ‘everyone is going at breakneck speed – running to catch up with ourselves and the infrastructure.’ There was evidence of resignation that funding would not be provided: one headteacher commented that there was no additional funding provided for (expensive) outdoor play even though it was promoted so strongly within the guidance. She added that she had found additional funding to extend the outdoor play area ‘just because it needed doing. No other reason. We aren’t given money just for that.’ However, this view was not shared by one EYDCP representative, who noted that one important change since the introduction of

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

the Foundation Stage was the degree of dedicated funding to ensure release of staff for training across all Foundation Stage providers. Another EYDCP interviewee expressed concern that the lack of extra funding will affect the quality of provision, in particular in terms of the adult/child ratio in reception classes. 5.20 Changes in practice: As we have seen, the questionnaire data showed that a majority of respondents claimed that the new structures and principles of the Foundation Stage had affected their practice in a variety of ways, or would enable them to develop new practices in the future. We were determined, in the interview phase, to examine these claims more closely, seeking to establish what changes had in fact taken place. 5.21 To our surprise, some respondents claimed that no changes were either desirable or necessary. Some were defensive, arguing, for example, ‘We’re doing it anyway’ or ‘We had our Unit up and running well before the Foundation Stage and we just carried on.’ Several teachers maintained that ‘we’ve always worked like this’ and ‘… we were a little bit ahead of the game in that.’ On the other hand, one teacher enthusiastically pointed out: ‘Since we started in the Foundation Stage, we have changed… we are much less structured and we do plan less stuff for them (children). Being that free is quite scary. You have to believe that they will learn.’ This teacher’s confidence and honesty is in marked contrast with the attitudes of others who appeared to be determined to stick with their own familiar ways of doing things. For example, one respondent claimed ‘There’s really been no need to change anything as we are very happy with the way it operates’, and another said ‘There’s little I can see that needs to be done to improve the reception unit’s work.’ Again, there is evidence of dissent within our small sample of respondents with one teacher enthusiastically recounting how her practice, and that of her early years team, has substantially changed. ‘Since we started the Foundation Stage, we have changed… now we do more observations and we really use those observations.’ 5.22 Teaching assistants tended to view changes from the child’s perspectives or from a pragmatic point of view, so that in response to questions about the difference that the partnership had made to them, they commented on the activities they shared with nurseries or playgroups, stating ‘We’ve always had teddy bears’ picnics.’ Across all interviewees, there was little evidence of awareness of the underpinning policies or political climate that may or may not promote partnership between providers. Some teachers appeared to be totally absorbed in the work of their own settings, so that they had little contact with other professionals within the partnership. For example, one said: ‘I don’t know much about the EYDCP – I don’t think it has much to do with us at all. It’s really for the playgroups.’ 5.23 Where there was a history of not working together, it appeared that staff were reluctant to initiate changes: ‘I make occasional visits to the pre-schools but they don’t really welcome it.’ A head also commented ‘We’ve always had bad relationships with pre-school which is historical.’ The governor of this school concurred but did not feel that anything could be

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

done to change the situation. Yet in another school, the pre-school settings were invited to ‘bring their children here for special events – concerts, assemblies, etc. I also go and visit. I take booklets. We advertise open days… we don’t want to segregate ourselves off.’ In the same school, the Head stated her vision as having ‘… more and better links with other settings… that we genuinely talk with them about curriculum and assessment.’ 5.24 The issue of changes in practitioners’ use of time arose frequently in various guises. In one school, the reception teacher commented on the pressure of the new Foundation Stage Profile requirements, and the way they were impacting on the curriculum: ‘The headteacher is pressuring us to record EVERYTHING, so we have to compromise. …It’s all a bit more frantic, but I can’t tell you why!’ 5.25 Overall, these were disappointing responses. We had anticipated that we would hear about two different kinds of change: first, within the reception classrooms, as practitioners adapted their practice to bring it into line with the new play-based principles of the Foundation Stage, shedding some of the more formal teaching and tightly defined activities that had filtered down to them, over the years, from their colleagues in Key Stage 1. The number of respondents who talked about changes of this kind was very small. Secondly, we hoped to hear about changes taking effect outside the classroom walls, as new horizons opened up to reception class practitioners, who would demonstrate a growing awareness of their membership of the whole Foundation Stage community of children and their educators, living and learning in settings of many different kinds. Again, very few respondents, though there were some, provided evidence of this kind of awareness. 5.26 Perceptions of teaching and learning: In general, there was agreement that effective pedagogy in the reception class requires specialist early years teachers, appropriate funding, a low child/adult ratio and the use of observation to inform teaching. There were some notable omissions from this list: in particular, no one identified a relationship between effective pedagogy inside the classroom and a commitment to the partnership of practitioners in the wider community of early years settings across the authority. 5.27 A majority of interviewees expressed in various ways their view that teachers must provide opportunities for spontaneity and independence in children’s learning, together with time for developing speaking and listening skills. At least half commented that teachers must know and understand child development and be able to refer to the principles of the Guidance. As one headteacher put it, ‘The big change we have noticed with the Foundation Stage is the increased speaking and listening. Much more value is being placed on getting children to talk things through and not record them, and that I hugely applaud.’ The same headteacher also commented, ‘I want them [children] to see themselves as someone who is capable of taking on skills and applying them in their own ways… True independent learners are what I want.’

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

5.28 However, in the majority of interviews the responses in relation to other questions suggested that the main focus of the practitioners’ work was definitely on starting children on reading and writing: (‘We do hear every child read every week’ ), getting them ready for Year 1 (‘There are expectations from Year 1… great pressure to read and write, but writing is really hard for them’ ), doing Jolly Phonics or Letterland (‘we do one letter a day’ ) and starting children on the road to Key Stage 1 SATs (‘It’s a struggle because of the top-down pressure and that’s really the SATs and also the Strategies’ ). 5.29 Some interviewees appeared to hold a deficit view of children and their learning, commenting, for example, on the targets children have not achieved, despite pressure to do so, rather than on children succeeding from the basis of what they can do. It seems to us that the two Strategies (NLS and NNS) have much to answer for in regard to this deficit model of children as learners, particularly the former, as many of these comments had a literacy focus. Contrast this with the teacher who commented ‘The biggest influence [on the teacher] is THE CHILDREN! Knowing them and what they need: that’s the key!’ Often, however, this rhetoric was not matched in practice, as we shall see in Section 6. 5.30 The majority of respondents felt that children need time to play, with opportunities for engaging in active practical, first hand experiences as a whole group, in smaller groups, in pairs and alone. ‘We fight to give them a good childhood in here! They need an active curriculum and first hand experiences.’ ‘I am looking all the time to see how children develop and what I can do best to help them learn and develop in terms of play – the value of play – the status of play… the importance of hands-on activities.’ However, as one teacher commented: ‘The Strategies… mean that children don’t have the same amount of time to play.’ 5.31 Perceptions of play and its significance for learning varied substantially, particularly in relation to the adults’ involvement. Some interviewees (mainly teachers) expressed the view that children must have the opportunity to play and to explore their own potential. One teacher felt that developmentally appropriate play must be provided ‘to give children plenty of time to play on their own so we get time to teach within the existing timetable.’ We question whether this is the most appropriate way of conceptualising the value of play. Concerns were frequently expressed that even where a teacher does offer play experiences, OfSTED often give an impression that they ‘don’t approve.’ Even where OfSTED were positive – ‘We worried so-o-o-o much – she was just wonderful. She told us… ‘You are doing the right thing’ – we felt much more confident’ – the pressure to prioritise reading and writing over play was still felt.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

5.32 It was also felt that children can and should work through personal choice and independence. Comments ranged from: ‘They can manage resources, they know where the worksheets are kept and can get their own and put them away’ to the headteacher who commented: ‘When you talk to children their quality of understanding is so much ahead of their quality of handwriting and putting down on paper skills. You deny so much thought process if you hamper them by having to put it down on paper.’ This again indicates the wide range of views on very basic issues. 5.33 The interviews revealed a wide range of perceptions about the most important aspects of children’s learning in the reception year. The selection of comments below illustrates the disparity of values and priorities among our respondents. ‘At long last we’ve been given the go-ahead to do what we’ve always believed in. We don’t have to pretend they are little Year 1s. They are such special people.’ (Infant Headteacher) ‘Children have got to be taught how to read and write so we need to do this at least for a short time before they go into the main school.’ (Teacher) ‘The reception class ought to be founded on play. There’s too much too soon in this country. Children would be heaps better off if they were not put into a mould [by prescription].’ (EYDCP Chair) ‘We’re here to get them ready for SATs and Year 2.’ (Teacher) ‘Children must understand the phonics and shapes of letters… we do a letter at least once a week.’ (Teaching Assistant) ‘Children are entitled to play-based learning experiences that are appropriate to their age and stage of development.’ (LEA Adviser) ‘It’s good to see children come out of the Nursery and into Year 1 ready and ‘up-for-it’ [the formal curriculum].’ (Governor) 5.34 Anxiety and sometimes confusion about the appropriate teaching and worthwhile learning for reception class children was frequently expressed in relation to the expectations of Key Stage 1 colleagues. Another small selection of comments illustrates this point: ‘I worry about the transition to KS1 because so much more is expected of the children.’ (Teaching Assistant) ‘It is clear that there is a tension for reception class teachers in mediating between the entitlement of young learners and the preparation for KS1 achievement.’ (EYDCP Chair) ‘Staff are aware of what happens in the Reception Unit but in KS1 they don’t feel that they can pursue that kind of curriculum.’ (Headteacher)

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

‘Spontaneity has now been lost in KS1. Even where a teacher does have it, OfSTED don’t approve. They need the autonomy and the ability to say this is how it ought to be, but that has been lost in the prescription.’ (Headteacher) There are grounds for cautious optimism here, we consider, in that these respondents are at least aware of the competing values and conflicting approaches at stake. Some, at least, are painfully aware of their ambiguous position, stuck, as one teacher put it (more than once) to the researcher, ‘between a rock and a hard place.’ Contrast her realistic appraisal with the throwaway comment of another teacher: ‘I wasn’t trained that way [formal teaching] but this seems to be the way it works here and the children are enjoying it so that seems OK.’ 5.35 Tensions and dilemmas: The tension between Key Stage 1 and reception class approaches to teaching and learning was not the only one we identified. Other aspects of their work were clearly causing our interviewees some internal conflict and disturbance. 5.36 Indeed some teachers openly referred to the struggles they were experiencing. For example, one very experienced teacher reported that ‘I’ve insisted on keeping time for visiting the preschools – it’s been a real struggle’ and another explained how ‘I’ve struggled to implement my old-fashioned child centred/progressive practice in a mixed age class, in a school driven by learning intentions and targets.’ Others spoke of struggling against top-down pressures, getting a balance between all six areas of learning, the hard work of documentation, providing outdoor play, getting to grips with the Foundation Stage Profile, working with others who do not have the same understanding of young children, making sufficient time and many more challenges. It is important for practitioners and policy-makers to look at how far all these struggles and challenges are perceived or actual. Some reception teachers made the whole day feel ‘frantic’ (as one described). We question how this psychological environment impacts on children and suggest that some further research is needed in this area. 5.37 The pressure to take account of Year 2 SATs was a problematic issue for some interviewees. Although some claimed that the introduction of early years units had improved SATs results at the end of Key Stage 1, others expressed a more negative position, seeing the influence of SATs as wholly pernicious: ‘the only way we’re going to get real quality in the Foundation Stage is if we got rid of the Year 2 SATs.’ There is no consensus on the issue. One practitioner insisted ‘We’ve got to get them up to speed,’ and another ‘It’s a struggle [to provide play] because of the top-down pressure and that’s really the SATs and the Strategies.’ 5.38 There is considerable evidence of tension in the interviewees’ spontaneous comments about the concept of partnership, which for many appeared to be a cause of concern. One partnership chair explicitly referred to the ‘inherited tensions between the voluntary sector and the teaching profession (especially QTS v. PLA training) that are inhibiting a cohesive approach to early years’ (EYDCP person). She went on to claim that ‘tensions between the maintained and non-maintained sector are too big.’ An LEA adviser felt that the

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

partnership needed to ‘work within the reality about power relationships, not pretending they don’t exist.’ Overall, there was little evidence of the commitment to working in partnership first indicated in the questionnaires. Whilst the majority of questionnaires suggested that all respondents were committed to working together, the interviews revealed many differences in practice and aspirations ranging from settings where there was little commitment and comments were made such as: ‘Playgroup leaders have been invited but they choose not to come’ and ‘Headteachers are not directly involved with EYDCPs’ to those which had a commitment even if it was difficult to put into practice. One headteacher remarked: ‘There are just too many children in other settings in the area – about ten. They all get one visit – but there are only one or two children in each who come to us.’ This is an issue which is likely to tax such schools for a very long time to come, but is unlikely to be resolved until work has been done on the very principles of partnership. At present, this seems a remote possibility. As one insightful headteacher commented: ‘They’ve lumbered us with too much un-joined-up thinking – left partnerships to do the joining up. Yet we can’t join up because we don’t have the power.’ 5.39 Yet another source of tension and conflict is the whole area of home-school relationships. Teachers, headteachers and teaching assistants, in particular, commented on the importance of partnership with parents (although there were few mentions of this concern with other interviewees). Analysis of their responses, however, suggests that, as with the EYDCPs, the concept of partnership is not well understood and rather one-sided. Schools appear happy to arrange visits, hold parents’ meetings, seek information from parents, send information home, discuss progress and put on curriculum evenings. Often, however, the underlying message is that this is something they are doing for the parents, with few mentioning other ways in which parents are involved from their perspectives. One headteacher went so far as to say: ‘But I do set my stall out very, very clearly when [parents] come and visit… I say “This is how your children start learning… When they come to this school they will play, they will have fun, they will enjoy their learning and if you want them to sit down at desks and fill in worksheets, please don’t come on a tour of this school!” … I think by being very firm professionally, I’m not actually giving them any doubts.’ And the teacher who emphasised: ‘There is a lot of talking to the parents and I think they seem to be really working with us now on everything… We hold a major curriculum evening in February when we talk to the parents about what the children do – a typical day.’ A lot of time and effort appears to be spent in giving information to parents: ‘We operate a threetimes-a-year parents’ evening’ and ‘… we did a basic PowerPoint presentation to show them… what the child has done today… We show them lots of photographs of the children at play and what they are actually learning to do.’ In this school, a coffee morning/afternoon was also arranged very periodically ‘where we can fit it in.’ This is in sharp contrast to one

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

school where ‘Parents come in usually to complain about for example bullying – they don’t really come in to talk about curriculum things’ and ‘I send the reports to the parents, but it’s hard to get them interested beyond that.’ Governors, LEA and EYDCP personnel had little comment to make on parents, other than in regard to parental choice in school placements. 5.40 The role of early years governors: The interview evidence suggests that the governors in our sample were not fully aware of their roles, nor are they familiar with the professional culture of early childhood educators. Whilst governors stated that they ‘liked the idea of early years/reception’ as a discrete phase for young children, considering it to be ‘good for the community’ and ‘brilliant for the children,’ it appeared that governors had little deeper understanding of early years issues or the wider context of young children’s education. One governor commented that she attended regular, frequent governors’ meetings but these were ‘more concerned with replacement windows than curriculum issues.’ Another governor added that although she had little understanding of children’s learning, she felt it totally appropriate to leave all those concerns to the teacher – ‘she deals with that and we trust her to do the job.’ Some governors perception of the significance of the Foundation Stage was encapsulated in the comment that the value of early years is that by the time children are ready to leave for Year 1, they are ‘up for it and keen to learn.’ 5.41 Governors appeared to have little understanding of the structures which support pedagogy within the school: ‘I don’t know anything about documentation… for planning, assessment or teaching in the curriculum. I think information is just passed verbally through the school.’ Perhaps as a result of this apparent lack of knowledge and understanding of early years issues, governors were content to leave all professional decision-making to teachers: ‘Early Years staff are very skilled’, ‘There have been no changes in our school – it’s always been good.’ It is worth noting that the relatively low level of awareness is almost certainly not a sign of indifference and might just be a consequence of a lack of continuity or sustained presence in the role. Comments like this were frequently made: ‘Well, I’m new to this role, so I don’t know.’

Comment 5.42 The wealth of evidence gained from the deeper processes of interviewing respondents confirmed early findings of professionals committed to the education and care of young children. However, it appears that policies, funding and political structures do not support the development of effective partnerships and understanding between different settings. Respondents were unanimous in their concern that additional training be funded and made available for all professionals working with young children. We were struck by the varied understandings of appropriate teaching and worthwhile learning that were expressed in

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

the interviews, and have been illustrated here, but we were also encouraged by some interviewees’ strongly expressed aspirations for children which seem to be closely aligned to our own hopes for children (discussed in Section 1). We conclude this section with three of these comments. ‘So we began to get a strong core of those of us who believed in that valuing of children and giving them the opportunity to explore and express themselves.’ (Headteacher) ‘I would love every child to have the fully rounded, very complete identity of themselves. I want them to see themselves as learners.‘ (Headteacher) ‘My vision… a greater understanding of how children learn by ALL practitioners so that no child has to tolerate boredom, being occupied by mindless creation.’ (LEA Inspector)

Main findings from the analysis of the interviews 5.43 Although questionnaire responses had indicated that change was welcomed, the interviews suggested that many interviewees had not made significant changes in their practice to bring about improvements in the quality of children’s learning experiences. 5.44 The interview data reveal inconsistencies and contradictions in the practitioners’ perceptions of teaching and learning. For example, they emphasised the need for spontaneity and independence in children’s learning, but also worried about whether children would achieve the specified targets, especially in literacy and numeracy, and planned tightly structured tasks to ensure that they did so. 5.45 All interviewees expressed the view that children need time to play and engage in active, practical, first-hand experiences. However, some degree of confusion is revealed in the comments of one teacher, for whom giving children opportunities for play was clearly distinguished from giving teachers time for teaching: these were seen as distinct, not complementary, aspects of the reception year experience. The observation data suggest that this perception of the value of play may be widely shared. 5.46 Practitioners value play, but they perceive that play is valued less by policy makers. Practitioners reported that the National Literacy and Numeracy Strategies consume time that could be better used for play. Similarly, school-based personnel reported that OfSTED Inspectors often give an impression that they do not approve of play. 5.47 The issue of the need for training in play related pedagogy and outdoor curriculum was raised by a majority of interviewees. Issues about funding for training were raised in most of the interviews. 5.48 Effective partnership appears to be dependent upon already established clear and strong relationships. The majority of school-based staff showed little evidence of commitment

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

to their local EYDCP or of an understanding of its relationship to their own work in the Foundation Stage. This finding suggests that there has been little attention paid, to date, to creating a culture of shared understanding within individual local partnerships, for all their members. 5.49 The concept of partnership with parents also appeared to be underdeveloped and incoherent, with more evidence of a one-way flow of information from the home to the school, than of practices that genuinely affirmed the significance of parents as the childâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s first educators. 5.50 The governors interviewed expressed the view that they were not fully aware of their roles, nor were they familiar with the wider context of young childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s early education. None had knowledge of training opportunities available for early years personnel.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

S EC T ION 6

CL A S SROOM OBS ERVAT IONS

Introduction Observations were carried out in nine classrooms in seven local authorities: the schools were recommended to us by local authority inspectors and advisers. A total of 25.5 hours of observation focused on 15 individual children, using the target child method. All four members of the research team were involved in this part of the enquiry and contributed to the observation data set.

The target child method 6.1

A full description of the target child method of observation is given in Appendix A (see also Sylva et al. 1980). Here it is only appropriate to reiterate the principal reason for our choice of technique: it is a way of recording what actually happens in the life of an individual child over the observation period. The sensitive observer uses this technique to get close to the child’s eye view of classroom life; children do not reflect on the educational provision made for them in abstract terms (curriculum, pedagogy or learning dispositions), but they do experience every day, vividly, at first hand, the teachers’ careful plans and best intentions. By trying to see what the child sees, hearing what he or she hears, and noting down everything that he or she does (actions, interactions, inactivity) the observer comes very close to the child’s lived experience. The method is a powerful tool in evaluating the quality of what happens in classrooms from the standpoint of those on the receiving end of educational practices.

6.2

We used the target child method to observe individual children for at least an hour at a time, in each of the classrooms we visited, making detailed narrative notes at two minute intervals of everything the child did and, where possible, said. We supplemented these direct observations with field notes describing the classroom layout, furniture, displays, equipment, storage and outdoor provision; we recorded any and every aspect of the school and classroom that might have relevance or significance for our enquiry. For example, in one school, the headteacher came into the classroom during the observation period with a mother and father and their four year old son, who would be starting school the following week. From the conversation between the classroom teacher and the new parents, the researcher learned that it was the practice of the school to make each new child a present of the school sweatshirt, bearing the school name and logo – telling evidence of the welcoming family ethos that characterised this school community.

Analytical approaches 6.3

A variety of methods was used to examine the rich mass of observation data, ranging from the straightforward scrutiny of the timed observations to give hard figures for the duration and variety of the target child’s activity, to the much more open-ended method of trying to create a ‘mind map’ for each teacher/classroom unit observed, drawing on both observation

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

and interview data to document in diagrammatic form the key constructs at the heart of the teachers’ practice. These mind maps are discussed in more detail in Section 8. We were aware from our discussion with the teachers that they all used the six areas of learning, as set out in the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, as the basis for their planning (short- middle- and long-term), and provision for each of these areas was readily observable in all nine classrooms. But we wanted to create a richer picture of children’s experiences than a read-out from the teacher’s planning sheets; we therefore decided to use an eclectic variety of frameworks with which to examine our data, in the hope that this process might throw up unexpected and revealing patterns in children’s experiences. We wanted to find out more about the quality, the challenges and the rhythms of children’s classroom lives, not just whether they responded to their teachers’ planning within the pre-specified categories of the QCA guidance document.

Timed observations 6.4

In one school, the researcher was able to carry out just over seven hours of observation of two target children. These observations were analysed in terms of the duration and variety of the target child’s activity, and some interesting issues emerged. Tables 6a and 6b show the results of this analysis.

Table 6a Rose’s activities

With an adult

Totals

Registration/large group sitting

30 mins

Large group literacy/numeracy

10 mins

Other numeracy (small group)

4 mins

Other literacy (small group)

26 mins

58 mins

Science (including cooking)

0 mins

Outdoor (gross activity, for example, bike, scooter)

36 mins

Outdoor (Sorting Office – parcels/letters)

14 mins

Art and/or craft

0 mins

ICT–based

0 mins

Role play

28 mins

Water play

4 mins

Sand play

24 mins

Other, for example, telling tales

4 mins.

Inactive – waiting/watching Total

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

4 mins 14 mins

(70 mins)

(226 mins)

Table 6b Nathan’s activities

With an adult

Totals

Registration/large group sitting

26mins

26 mins

Large group literacy/numeracy

16 mins

Other numeracy (small group)

0 mins

Other literacy (small group)

4 mins

Science (including cooking)

6 mins

Outdoor (gross activity, for example, bike, scooter)

2 mins

48 mins

Outdoor (Sorting Office – parcels/letters) Art and/or craft

46 mins 4 mins

4 mins

ICT –based

0 mins

Role play

8 mins.

Water play

8 mins.

Sand play

12 mins

Other

4 mins

Inactive – waiting/watching Total

4 mins 10 mins

(62 mins)

(192 mins)

These tables show how very different individual children’s experiences can be, even within a single setting. Both children had access to the same range of materials and activities; the same adults were present throughout the observation period. But the children had little in common in terms of how they spent their time on the observation days. Rose, for example, spent more time interacting with adults than Nathan did; their large group experience of being with an adult was similar, but after the large group literacy session, Nathan spent only 20 more minutes in small group contact with an adult present, with few verbal exchanges and no sustained talk, while Rose deliberately sought out adult attention, and spent a total of 30 minutes in adult-led small groups, working on a variety of literacy activities. Nathan’s time was largely spent out of doors (94 minutes in total), in fast-moving activity with the wheeled toys, and equally energetic play in the sorting office: there was minimal adult contact, and no dialogue or discussion took place during this time. Rose was out of doors for less time overall, though her 50 minutes is a substantially longer experience than that of many of our target children. These figures remind us that logging the provision of activities and materials tells us very little about how children actually divide up their time between them, particularly when, as in this school, highly structured adult-led activities (mainly of short duration) are interspersed with long free choice periods, with little adult-child interaction.

Spontaneous activity: a framework based on Isaacs (1932) 6.5

In The Children We Teach Susan Isaacs outlines three categories of spontaneous activity that characterise the life of children aged seven and older. We hypothesised that this loose

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

framework might also be relevant for our purposes, in looking at the balance of provision across broader but, in our view, more coherent categories than the six areas of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. Isaacs’ three categories are: l

the love of movement and perfecting bodily skills

the interest in actual things and events, the discovery of the world without

the delight in make-believe and the expression of the world within.

We noticed, for example, that the observation of Kieran, a four year old in an infant school in a leafy suburb, contained evidence of each of these three categories of activity. Table 6c: Three types of spontaneous activity Type of activity

Materials and opportunities provided, activities observed

Love of movement, perfecting bodily skills

Kieran moves with energy and vigour for the first eight minutes of the observation. During this time he runs, kicks footballs, play-fights with other boys. By the time eight minutes have elapsed he is pink-faced, gasping for breath and laughing. Throughout this time he is active within himself, finding out what he can do with his body, but he is also engaging with other children. It is as if he has to stretch himself physically, push himself to the edge of his physical limits, before he can explore the world without as he does in the next few minutes of the observation.

Actual things and events: the world without

For the next 24 minutes of the observation, Kieran is behind a shed. According to other children he is very busy, digging with a spoon. When he emerges, carefully carrying a spoonful of earth, he asks a question about the colour of the earth. Through his own activity he has made a discovery about the world without, the hidden world beneath the shed; fortunately he has a teaching assistant who is also interested in the outer world and will help him to take his discovery further.

Make believe and the expression of the world within

Evidence of Kieran’s delight in make-believe and expression of the world within is also found in this observation. He teases a teaching assistant with a twig, pretending it is a snake and playing at scaring her. She responds in kind, laughing and teasing him back. Here, Kieran is playing with humour, using it to strengthen and renew his relationships with the adults around him.

Encouraged by the way that Isaacs’ framework seemed to match the activity of an individual child, we went on to use it to look at provision in general across the nine classrooms. Tables 6d and 6e illustrate the results of this analysis for two of the classes in our sample. Table 6d: Three types of spontaneous activity

Type of activity

Materials and opportunities provided, activities observed

Love of movement, perfecting bodily skills

Rich variety of materials for outdoor play: bikes and trikes, climbing frame, abundant provision of large boxes for construction, staging, creating play scenarios. Parachute games. Plenty of space to run. Free access to outdoor space throughout the day. Indoor climbing frame throughout session.

Actual things and events: the world without

Rich provision of ICT opportunities. Jolly Phonics materials and activities. Abundant provision of books and mark-making materials. Water and block play available throughout session. Evidence of strong friendships and an ethos of caring for one another. Use of numeracy for real world purposes: registration, dinners etc. Model making (teacher planned and led). Digital photos used in a ‘self portrait’ painting activity. Solid shapes: handling, naming, discussing attributes.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Make believe and the expression of the world within

Miniature world: trains, cars. Circle time discussions: feelings, personal experiences. Small scale block play. Spontaneous drawing observed. Basket of bears (to support storytelling and story writing). Rich provision of books.

Table 6e Type of Activity

Materials and opportunities provided, activities observed

Love of movement, perfecting bodily skills

A large empty unwelcoming concrete playground – and major works in preparation for a complete reconstruction: the plans are truly impressive.

Actual things and events: the world without

Handling and cutting vegetables for soup. Trip to the park: collecting leaves and other signs of autumn. Painting and drawing leaves, printing with vegetables. Learning about Divali. Dual language signs (Italian). Emphasis on practical mathematics. Counting attendances and absences. Provision of rich variety of musical instruments (not observed in use). Paint and clay available (not observed in use).

Make believe and the expression of the world within

All literacy teaching based on stories. Extended time available for free-ranging imaginative play. Abundant provision of small world/construction materials/dolls house etc. Rich provision of books freely available.

As we shall see later, the development of an appropriate outdoor learning environment is extremely variable across the nine schools: these two schools are, as it happens, representative of those extremes, with one well on the way to achieving new aspirations and, in the other, plans that are still at the drawing-board stage. More interesting is the way in which, while both schools do provide experiences of ‘actual things and events,’ in one school (Table 6d) these can largely be categorised as aspects of literacy and numeracy learning. In contrast, Table 6e shows that this staff group have gone further (though not, in our view, far enough) in bringing the children close to engaging and challenging aspects of the world outside the school. Opportunities for the expression of the world within are present in both these settings, but they are relatively undeveloped, and unremarkable; the evidence suggests a pervasive emphasis on early literacy in the educators’ planning and priorities.

Four types of literacy provision: a framework based on Whitehead (1999) 6.6

Marian Whitehead, an acknowledged authority on early literacy, and on bilingual learners, suggests that there are four essential strategies for literacy learning in the early years classroom: l

talk, play and representation

rhyme, rhythm and language patterns

stories and narrative

environmental print and messages.

Tables 6f and 6g illustrate the use of this framework with the data from two schools in the sample. It is immediately noticeable how in one classroom (table 6f) the range of provision seems so much less extensive than in the other, the approach more technical and managerial,

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

compared to the emphasis on plentiful spontaneous talk, storytelling and listening, joyful singing and participating (shown in table 6g). We return in Section 8 to the issue of literacy learning and teaching and consider in more detail exactly what kinds of literacy are most likely to be learned in this small sample of schools. Table 6f: Literacy provision (based on Whitehead 1999) l Use of whiteboards (for practising letters and numbers)

l Child comments to teacher ‘big brown bus is alliteration!’ (teacher delighted)

l Use of talk to establish/maintain rules and routines

l Learning initial sounds (Jolly Phonics)

l Running commentary talk as children engage in activities l Spontaneous use of prepositions, complex language, asking questions l Acting out ‘prepositions’ in play l Answering teachers’ questions

TALK, PLAY & REPRESENTATION

RHYME, RHYTHM & LANGUAGE PATTERNS

STORIES & NARRATIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINT & MESSAGES

l ‘Where’s Spot?’: whole class experience, focused, didactic purpose (vocabulary learning/ reinforcement)

l Labels to designate activities/routines

Table 6g: Literacy provision (based on Whitehead 1999) l Regular use of ICT: a staff development priority

l Singing nursery rhymes – in parts

l Creative structures for supporting emergent writing

l Nursery rhymes/big book experience, intense pleasure evident

l Bilingual LSAs translating for new activities

l Lots of Jolly Phonics – drills, visual prompts

l Mobile phone play l Many opportunities for block play (large & small) l Much evidence of spontaneous mark-making l Sensitivity to mother tongue l Plentiful spontaneous talk

TALK, PLAY & REPRESENTATION

RHYME, RHYTHM & LANGUAGE PATTERNS

STORIES & NARRATIVE

ENVIRONMENTAL PRINT & MESSAGES

l 1:1 experience of making a book about the three bears (with a basket of bears…)

l Children genuinely using name cards for self-registering/dinners etc

l Opportunities to tell autobiographical stories in circle time

l Classroom rules and instructions displayed

l Children spontaneously selecting books to study and ‘read’ aloud to each other and alone

l ‘Word of the day’

l Reading workshops offered to parents (and on home visit)

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

l Displays captioned l ‘Today is…’

The Rumbold framework: criteria taken from the Rumbold Report (DES 1990) 6.7

A passage in the first version of what became the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, in a section headed Common Features of Good Practice, refers to approaches which include providing: ‘first hand experiences, giving clear explanations, making appropriate interventions and extending and developing play and talk or other means of communication.’ (QCA 1999:11) It is not difficult to trace the origin of this passage back to its neglected predecessor, the 1990 DES publication Starting with Quality (usually known as the Rumbold Report, after its chair, Angela Rumbold). This document refers to: ‘an approach to learning which emphasises first hand experiences and which views play and talk as powerful mediums for learning.’ The three constituent parts of this approach were used as a framework to examine children’s experiences across all nine classrooms. The results of this process were disappointing.

Table 6h: Children’s experiences analysed using the Rumbold framework Target child

Sustained purposeful talk

Sustained complex play

First hand experiences

Child N (192 mins observed)

Running commentary to self, using some imaginative language. No sustained exchanges/interactions. 4 mins. in small group with teacher answering closed questions.

10 mins. water play. 94 mins. energetic play outdoors, cars, bikes, sorting office, letters and parcels. N leading play, including and excluding peers.

3 mins. teacher-directed task with paper (model making?) 2 mins. teacher directed task with paint (lines drawn by teacher). Refuses opportunity to prepare own snack.

Child R (226 mins observed)

40 mins. plenary sessions, brief responses, some not acknowledged. No sustained talk in small group activities.

16 mins. sand play, sustained and purposeful. 12 mins. in car with doll, problem solving. 44 mins. of low level fragmented and repetitive play

4 mins. ‘writing’ on envelopes for Sorting Office.

Child J (60 mins observed)

Sporadic brief (one word) comments during pencil and paper activity.

15 mins. free choice period at start of day (unobserved).

8 mins. moving pencil to sound of music.

Child L (60 mins observed)

Initiates imaginative talk to friend: no response recorded.

8 mins. ‘office play’, drawing, colouring. 2 mins. block play (interrupted).

12 mins. in office: emergent writing. 10 mins. ‘music box’ radio programme, signs, makes gestures, uses maracas (2 mins.)

Child S (90 mins observed)

12 mins. shared talk at circle time, extended responses.

20 mins. teacher-led parachute play – S actively engaged in challenging activity. 6 mins. play on indoor climbing frame (no dialogue).

Self registration, counting dinner numbers etc. 7 mins. singing with Nursery Rhyme big book. Singing in parts. 6 mins. model making (teacher-led).

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

6.8

Child Y (90 mins. observed)

Determined EAL learner, making regular contributions and running commentary talk. Excited, animated use of mother tongue in play.

30 mins. complex play with blocks and dinosaurs. 20 mins. block play in dialogue with other child using mother tongue.

Child H (90 mins. observed)

Lively spontaneous talk around circle, but not sustained dialogue.

9 mins. with box of dinosaurs on table (alone). 4 mins. spontaneous play with boxes (after instruction in solid shapes, naming, describing etc.). 8 mins. spontaneous literary play with word cards, letters etc.

Child K (60 mins. observed)

K asks 2 questions during teacher directed activity (Why?… Where?).

2 mins. hopscotch game.

12 mins. using teddy bears in teacher led activity focused on prepositions. 14 mins. cutting, colouring, using sellotape (making a ‘puppet’).

Child L (60 mins. observed)

14 mins. using teddy bears as above.

Child J (60 mins. observed)

Contributes brief responses/ simple words to teacher-led activity on sentences for labelling drawings (closed questions).

12 mins. outdoor play (run and chase). 17 mins. unobserved behind the shed, digging a hole.

6 mins. downloading pictures from the internet with parent helper (who controls the mouse).

Child L (60 mins. observed)

Names words beginning with T.

22 mins. sustained purposeful block play (a house for a rabbit/ petshop theme).

2 mins. weighs toy dog on scales. 6 mins. ‘making a poster’ about pets.

20 mins. cutting up vegetables to make soup (Stone Soup is key literacy focus).

The low frequency of sustained purposeful talk can perhaps be attributed to two connected factors: first, the emphasis in these classrooms on whole group ‘plenary’ sessions, in which the adults’ questions shape a particular and familiar pattern of interaction (initiation, response, evaluation) and in which brief, even one-word, responses are the accepted norm. Secondly, the adults in this sample used small group periods, almost without exception, for highly structured activities with pre-determined outcomes. Opportunities for discursive, open-ended and exploratory talk were severely limited by the teacher-designed tasks in which the children were engaged. The emphasis was very much on completing the task according to the adults’ instructions and written plans, rather than on talking through different possibilities, approaches, problems or interesting red herrings. In this small sample it is difficult to see how talk could constitute a medium for learning as the Rumbold Report (1990) claims: a medium for instruction and direction, on the part of the teacher/adult leading the group, certainly, but there were very few opportunities for children to express their own ideas, or their growing understanding, their questions or their concerns, through the medium of talk. Only one child was observed in the act of asking her teacher questions.

6.9

Opportunities for sustained complex play were also less frequent than we expected: staff in most of these settings adhered to a very tight schedule that prioritised adult-led activities

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

(plenary and small groups) over periods of free choice. In one school, as we saw in tables 6a and 6b, there were extended free choice periods, but perhaps because the adults were still engaged with small groups of children on literacy/numeracy activities, opportunities were missed to observe, engage with and extend the play. In spite of the time the children in this classroom spent exercising free choice, their play rarely became complex, imaginative or collaborative, and involved a minimum of extended spoken interactions. 6.10 The review of opportunities for first hand experiences is, if anything, even more discouraging. We have already noted, in tables 6d and 6e above, how ‘actual things and events’ in Isaacs’ phrase, are in relatively short supply in at least one school. Table 6i shows how this judgement is corroborated by the data from other classrooms. The majority of activities that can, however loosely, be categorised as first-hand experiences could also be classified as literacy and mathematical activities. The two exceptions to this general rule were the soupmaking activity, in which the children handled fresh vegetables and used (regrettably blunt) knives to peel and chop them; and a puppet-making activity, with teacher prepared and prescribed materials, and no opportunities for creative invention or independent design. Table 6i: Audit of first-hand experiences Making paper giraffe (teacher directed paper task).

3 mins

Teacher directed painting task (teacher draws the lines).

2 mins

Emergent writing on envelopes (drawing the Queen’s head on the stamps) in the ‘Sorting Office’.

4 mins

Moving pencil to sound of music (teacher directed).

8 mins

‘Making a puppet’ (cutting out and colouring in).

14 mins

Lesson on prepositions with teddy bears (teacher directed).

12 mins + 14 mins

Downloading pictures from the internet (parent helper does the clicking).

6 mins

Weighing toy dogs on bucket scales (teacher directed).

2 mins

Making a poster about caring for pets.

16 mins

Authentic self-registration, counting dinners, absences.

10 mins

‘Making spiders’ webs’, twigs, glue, wool, sparkly stuff.

6 mins

Cutting vegetables for soup (with blunt knives).

20 mins

6.11 Even allowing for the small size of our sample, this evidence does not suggest that Foundation Stage practitioners have taken up their responsibilities to provide children with opportunities to engage actively with the world. In the section on Knowledge and Understanding of the World, the Guidance exhorts them to give particular attention to: ‘activities based on first-hand experiences that encourage exploration, observation, problem-solving, prediction, critical thinking, decision-making and discussion.’ (DfEE/QCA 2000: 82)

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

None of the activities listed in Table 6i went very far in meeting this demanding set of criteria, and some of them (for example the puppet-making task) appeared to exclude the very possibility of children doing any such things. A scrap of corroborating evidence for the low priority that appears to be given to this area of learning can be found in an interview with a practitioner who was explaining how, for some time, she and her team organised their planning on a four-day cycle around four areas of the Guidance (literacy, mathematics, creative, physical) and then realised that ‘the area that we weren’t regularly planning in was all the knowledge and understanding bit.’ Their solution to this problem was breathtakingly simple: ‘now the knowledge and understanding bit is generally done on a Friday.’

Focus on Quality: an evaluation framework 6.12 A further framework for analysis was borrowed from a small scale evaluation project of an early years initiative, carried out in Luton (over the years 2000-02) by one of the researchers, for which the evaluation steering group prepared a document (Focus on Quality) setting out the criteria on which judgements would be made. This document was largely based on the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage and the Early Learning Goals, with additional material drawn from Quality in Diversity (ECEF 1998) and Integration in Practice (National Children’s Bureau 2000). It has proved to be a useful way of reviewing large data sets and considering strengths and possible weaknesses in provision (for those criteria where no evidence has been found). Table 6j shows the completed framework from one school. Table 6j: Using the Focus on Quality criteria The children’s experiences: The observation data are scrutinised for evidence that children are offered opportunities to: co-operate and work together, participating in the life of the group, contributing and belonging l One child noticed another needing help with coat just before playtime (and sent for adult). l At free choice small group of boys played alongside possibly together with building construction (two minutes). feel safe, secure and confident, developing a positive attitude to themselves as individuals, and harmonious and trusting relationships with others l Children familiar with routine; confident about selecting and putting away materials. talk, listen and communicate in a variety of ways, including questioning, imagining, predicting, reasoning, empathising, explaining and storytelling l Many opportunities for children to listen but always in structured and formal context. Very few instances of sustained or spontaneous dialogue between children or adult/child. Limited opportunities during observations of children being encouraged to respond to what they heard. explore books, stories, poetry, reading, mark-making, writing through a rich variety of early literacy experiences l Literacy experiences restricted to Jolly Phonics (which they weren’t). l Many books available to children in several areas of the classroom including the carpet area, maths area, construction area. Books available on displays. No reference to books or stories at phonic session other than directly related to caricature of letter. At free choice, before registration, several children chose books which they read to themselves – two (girls) shared one book. These literature experiences were not referred to by the T or TA during the session. Children asked to put away books at the end of free choice.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

explore numbers, sizes, patterns, shapes and spaces through a rich variety of early mathematical experiences and construction materials l Size, shape and pattern were referred to in the context of Jolly Phonic. No other references to mathematical concepts during this visit. l Some conceptual and spatial awareness represented during children’s free choice with constructional materials but this play was unsupported and unobserved by T or TA. explore the world around through a rich variety of first-hand experiences, observing, experimenting, questioning and problem solving. l Evidence for provision of this in interactive display containing many natural resources – at child height and easily accessible. No observation of its use during my visit. control and co-ordinate physical activity through a rich variety of experiences of movement, large and small scale, including the use of a range of tools and construction materials l Outside activity formal ring game framed by rhymes. Weather had been wet so difficult for other activities although many climbing resources in outside area. represent and express their ideas and feelings through a rich variety of creative experiences using many different material and media including sounds and music l Observation of Music Appreciation provided little evidence of children being encouraged to express their ideas and feelings. do all these things in the context of spontaneous play l Some opportunities for this in free choice but not supported/valued by adult observation/intervention/ encouragement. explore the world of the imagination through stories, books, poems, small world play, construction play, role play and all kinds of symbolic materials l Children enjoyed large puppets which the teacher used during story time at the end of the morning session. The children become animated and showed obvious enjoyment in engaging with characters in story.

The work of the practitioners: The observation data are scrutinised for evidence that the practitioners: ensure that all children feel included, secure and valued l Secure routines so that children become confident in the use and management of resources. support and extend children’s play l No evidence of children’s play being supported during my visit although T was anxious to explain that this was not a typical day due to additional admin. being required by OfSTED. support and extend children’s talk and communication l Focus through observed sessions was on children listening, no evidence of children’s talk being supported or extended. plan and provide a rich variety of experiences, indoors and out, that reflect the whole range of the early learning goals l Evidence of planned experiences in displays and through documentation carefully linked to Nursery and Y1. value and build on children’s learning experiences at home l Time for T to be available to talk with and meet parents – every morning during children’s free choice time. welcome and build on the contribution that parents make to the setting l Parents encouraged to become involved in the routine at various levels.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

observe and record evidence of children’s learning monitoring progression and building on their observations to enrich and extend their provision l No evidence of this on day of visit although observations normally made during small group activities, evidence of this shared amongst staff during meetings at end of day. identify children who need additional support of whatever kind and take steps to meet their needs l Support staff working in classroom withdrawing individual children for support with literacy and numeracy. work together to reflect on and evaluate their provision, indoors and out, in terms of the quality of the child’s experience l Concern expressed re quality of outdoor provision – staff have invested in additional resources but these have been vandalised. Recent weather has also hampered attempts to develop outdoor provision. Evidence that this does occur. Staff meet daily to discuss children’s progress. Regular meetings with Nursery and Y1 – supported by documentation which all follow similar format. Policy of continuity and progression firmly supported by headteacher. challenge any form of discrimination (in resources, materials, interactions, attitudes) l Staff aware of stereotypical aspects to children’s play – all boys in construction area, largely girls in book and writing area. l Resources including jigsaws and books with positive images (cultural backgrounds).

6.13 This evaluation is, we must remember, based on a single, one-day visit, and to generalise from it would entail an unacceptably high level of inference. But there are several disquieting absences from the record of evidence presented here, and they tend to corroborate our interpretations of the observation data, using the range of frameworks described above. In particular we may note the absence, using these criteria, of sustained or spontaneous dialogue; of spontaneous play being supported, valued or encouraged; of the use of a range of tools and construction materials; of children’s use of symbolic materials in imaginative play (it was the teacher, we note, who handled the large puppets used at story time, an experience which, even at second-hand, was observed to generate enjoyment and engagement).

Emerging Issues 6.14 The size of our sample and the scope of this report preclude us from exploring in depth every question that the observation data have raised for us. In this section we restrict ourselves to the major themes that seem to be significant in terms of our original purpose in this strand of the research: to investigate the quality of young children’s learning experiences in the final year of their passage through the Foundation Stage.

A continuum of practice 6.15 One of the most significant findings from the observation data is that there is no single set of descriptors that could be used to characterise children’s experiences in the nine classrooms in this study. We cannot classify these classrooms into simple types, or grade

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

them on a single scale, as OfSTED would do. Instead we have constructed a continuum of practice, with a number of dimensions, each of which represents two extremes: inappropriate and ineffective practice at one end of the continuum and high quality, appropriate and effective practice at the other. Using this framework, each school’s distinctive profile could be drawn, showing where the provision stands on each dimension, recording its positive achievements as well as those aspects of provision in need of development. It is clearly not the responsibility of the researchers to draw up such a profile for each of our sample schools, but we do believe our framework, which we give in full in Section 7, with some additional commentary, could be a useful tool in the practice of selfevaluation and critical review led by the practitioners themselves. For each of the dimensions of the framework we have substantial evidence of the considerable variability in quality across the nine schools, and this, we believe, is a worthwhile finding in itself. If the introduction of the Guidance, intended to ensure consistently high standards of provision across Foundation Stage settings, has had no such effect, then the community of early years professionals and policy-makers needs to sit up and take notice.

Quality of relationships 6.16 A striking feature of all the classrooms we visited was the quality of relationships between teachers and children, and also between children. One teacher was particularly explicit: ‘Good relationships… are normal, it’s just natural. We are a FAMILY here.’ In all the settings we visited, relationships between teachers and children were characterised by warmth, smiles and genuine interest. Children were open and friendly in the presence of visitors, as Nathan was when the headteacher arrived in his classroom: ‘The headteacher arrives in the classroom with some visitors. Nathan greets her and holds hands with her while she shows the visitors around.’ Nathan continued to hold the headteacher’s hand for some time, before deciding to leave and return to the Post Office that had been set up in the classroom. 6.17 The confidence shown by the children in the presence of visitors to the classroom was a reflection of the warm supportive relationships they seemed to have with their teachers. At one school we observed exchanges between children and their teacher, Miss Y, that indicated her obvious delight in their growing individuality and independence. For example: As the children are getting ready to go out for lunch, a boy tells Miss Y that ‘big brown bus’ is alliteration. She smiles at him and asks if he can tell her what it means. He says, ‘It means all the words start with the same sound.’ She replies ‘You’re so clever that you can be the teacher tomorrow.’ He grins at her, and they both laugh.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

6.18 Support staff, too, often showed a keen interest in children’s learning. In the following example, Kieran has been digging beneath the shed. The teaching assistant he approached welcomed his question about the soil, and was genuinely interested in his curiosity: Kieran comes out from behind the shed carrying a spoon filled with soil (dug from under the shed). He asks the TA, ‘Why is it orange?’ She replies, ‘I don’t know, shall we go and see?’ They walk off towards the classroom to investigate the soil. 6.19 Relationships between children were also warm and supportive. Nathan, whom we met earlier, was anxious about a friend who was upset. Children are on the carpet waiting for afternoon to begin. Nathan cuddles an upset child sitting next to him… the teacher is talking about the danger of throwing stones and how it might hurt children’s eyes… Nathan covers his eyes. He is still cuddling the other child, rubbing his own eyes with his other hand. This observation suggests that Nathan was almost able to experience the pain that another (imaginary) child might feel at having stones thrown at him. This empathetic sensitivity may be fostered through the kindly relationships he experiences in the Foundation Stage setting. 6.20 We saw many examples of children caring for each other, showing understanding of each other’s anxieties and upsets. This is just one example: A reception class child is very distressed in the large noisy dinner hall, and her teacher is sitting beside her, supporting and comforting her. A Y5 girl goes past and takes in the situation: ‘I’ll go and fetch her sister,’ which she does. The two older girls return and sit with the four year old until she cheers up and enjoys her dinner; then they escort her back to her classroom. Throughout our observations we were impressed by the warm, caring and safe environments the children were experiencing. In the emotional domain, the early years educators we met were exemplifying good practice, bringing together the rhetoric and recommendations of the Foundation Stage Curriculum Guidance. But were they effectively synthesising rhetoric and practice in other domains?

The rhetoric gap 6.21 When we compared our interview data, reviewed in Section 5, with the observation data presented here, we discerned a gap between what our respondents said they believed in and what they actually did in the course of the day. Examples of the gap between rhetoric and practice were noted in the organisation and management of free-flow play, indoors and outdoors. The educators often talked unreservedly about the value of free-flow play for

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

children’s learning, but the classroom observations showed that play was often constrained and curtailed. In one classroom, we observed that outdoor play was limited to 20 children from a total population of 60 in the Foundation Stage unit. This limit was imposed, according to the teachers, because there were 20 coloured bands for the children to wear, and so that was the number of children who were allowed to play outdoors at any one time. This arrangement equally entailed that, at any one time, two thirds of the children in this particular setting were categorically not allowed to play outside. 6.22 Another gap could be seen in the ways that children gained access to resources in some classrooms. For example, one teacher said that she encouraged the free choice of materials for the children in her class by making all the materials accessible and visible. To facilitate accessibility and choice, she had reorganised her classroom and replaced cupboard doors with curtains. However, the children’s choices were limited because only the teacher was allowed to raise the curtains; during certain (extended) periods of the day the curtains were lowered and children were not allowed to go to the cupboards. The curtains were opened again at the start of a free play session; at its close, the children packed away what they were doing and went to sit on the carpet. These practices send, at best, a mixed message to children, in effect suggesting that their ‘free’ choices are, in fact, ultimately dependent on the teacher’s will, and the established rule of law. 6.23 There were more conflicting stories in the observation and interview data about the types of activities that were planned for the children. The educators spoke about the richness of children’s learning, but we observed some low level and undemanding activities being planned and provided. We discuss this issue more fully below, and here limit our comments to the evidence from one attractive, lively classroom. In this class, relationships between the teaching staff and the children were especially warm and inclusive. The environment was lively, with wonderful examples of children’s artwork displayed in imaginative, exciting ways. The children were confident with visitors and the environment was generally all that one could wish for in a Foundation Stage classroom. The activities provided for children’s learning, however, were limited and unimaginative to a degree that was particularly startling because of the setting in which they were observed. The available activities during the observer’s visit included whiteboards on which children were encouraged to write strings of numbers with no function, purpose or real-world meaning; gluing, and sticking readycut puppets onto lolly sticks; a computer and a hopscotch game. All of these activities can evidently be linked to the Early Learning Goals, but they demonstrate a poverty of aspiration for children’s learning that runs counter to the principles of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. None of them encourage children to be independent learners, although nearly all of them can be carried out by children without adult supervision. They are activities to keep children busy, but they are neither challenging nor interesting. The level of cognitive demand is demonstrably low.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

The constraints caused by management decisions 6.24 In the previous section we described aspects of the gap we perceived between rhetoric and practice, which suggested to us that, to some extent, the gap might be accounted for by issues of management. We re-examined the data for evidence that early years educators were having to limit their provision of learning experiences for management reasons. We found evidence that management issues were indeed implicated in some instances where children’s learning was seriously curtailed, and we describe some examples of this below. 6.25 In the course of our observations we saw that many opportunities for children to manage and organise themselves were lost, because adults did tasks on their behalf. We frequently observed adults distributing milk or water to children, and giving out biscuits and other snacks. We observed young children sitting in silence on the carpet while the register was taken, instead of registering themselves. Every occasion where an adult took responsibility for something the children could have done for themselves represents a lost opportunity for children to take care of themselves and others, and to be independent. 6.26 On other occasions, children who were deeply involved in play were called away by staff to engage in adult-led activities, some of which were undemanding and sterile. Sometimes the children protested, as Rose did in this example: Rose is playing with another child. They are loading objects into a bus. Their play is purposeful and both children are deeply engrossed. They are called by a teaching assistant to do their writing. In a page in their books, the teaching assistant has drawn a doorway shape in which the children have to draw themselves. They then have to stick another door over the top so that it opens, colour the door and put a number on it. They also have to recognise their own address (which has already been written on the opposite page). Rose is not pleased to have to do this task and says ‘Oh!’ very crossly. She spends eight minutes on the task. The Teaching Assistant folds the edge of the door for her, and also glues the door in place. Clearly, from the evidence of this observation, Rose not only objected to her play being interrupted, but was then given a meaningless task that the teaching assistant largely did for her. 6.27 In all the settings we visited, a great deal of care was taken of the children, and their safety was paramount. While we endorse this care and attention to safety, we could not help but note occasions when concerns for the children’s welfare prevented them from having valuable, rewarding experiences. In one setting, the teacher reported an incident when the children were very excited because it was snowing heavily. She and her colleagues organised the children to dress in coats and boots so they could go outside and experience the snow first-hand. They were just about to go outside when word was received from

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

the headteacher that, for health and safety reasons, the children were to be kept indoors, where they would be warm and safe. These children missed not only their individual experiences of being outside in the snow, but also the collective experience of being out in the snow together. 6.28 In another school, we have already noted in passing how concerns about health and safety placed limits on the children’s experiences in a different way. The literacy curriculum in this school was interesting in that it was based almost entirely upon stories. The children had been immersed in the story ‘Stone Soup’. The teacher intended the children to have first-hand experience of making soup so, with the teaching assistant, a group of them were cutting up vegetables in preparation. Unfortunately, the knives the children were given to cut up the vegetables were so blunt that they found it impossible to cut the parsnips, onions, carrots and mushrooms and so the experience was highly frustrating. Only the mushrooms could be cut by the children with any ease and, inevitably the adult leading the activity did nearly all the chopping. The opportunity to teach children to use sharp knives properly so they would be safe in the future was lost.

Two kinds of ‘poverty’ 6.29 Both interview and observation data showed that practitioners commonly distinguish in their planning and practice between child-initiated, freely chosen activities, and adult-led, directed and structured activities. In the process of analysing our observation data we discovered that both these kinds of activity were sometimes characterised by low cognitive demand, low levels of interest and engagement, and a lack of relevance for children’s personal lives and pressing concerns. We discussed the limitations of these activities in terms of their ‘poverty’ and concluded that a double kind of impoverishment was at work. For example, in more than one classroom, an art and craft activity had been planned and prepared by the adults to such an extent that the child’s role was minimal: there was simply no scope for invention, imagination or the creative use of freely chosen materials. In these same classrooms, the materials provided for children’s spontaneous activities were similarly impoverished. We observed no child freely and spontaneously choosing to use paint, clay, woodworking materials, sewing materials, gardening tools, or making a model or product for his or her own authentic purposes (a baby doll for domestic play, or a homemade book for a personally authored story, for example). Many of the play materials provided for free-choice periods were pre-formed, for specific and limited purposes (a game of hopscotch, quoits, jigsaw puzzles, for example). It was striking how little open-ended or unformed material we observed, or resources provided to support rich and unpredictable play (blankets, string, tunnels, purses, guttering, tubes and pipes, for example).

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

6.30 The adult-initiated activities that we are characterising as impoverished were not restricted to art and craft, or design and make opportunities. We noted both numeracy and literacy activities that failed to stretch or inspire children. We were shown detailed planning documents outlining activities based around a class topic or theme, but these activities too revealed a conceptual poverty at the heart of the planning: instead of comments on the ‘big ideas’ that the activity or experience might have introduced to the children, we found careful planning of things for children to do. There seemed to be an underlying assumption that children cannot think of interesting and intriguing things to do for themselves. Whereas our collective professional experience tells us that indeed they can, if they are offered a stimulating diet of experiences from the real world, where literacy, mathematics and science have authentic meanings and purposes. With very few exceptions, the conceptual ‘diet’ on offer in these settings was far from nourishing and the opportunities for adventurous and self-directed exploration of ideas and materials were limited (or, in a word, impoverished).

Findings from the analysis of the observation data 6.31 As we have illustrated in this section, many aspects of quality are highly variable in this small sample of observed classrooms. On any one of the dimensions we have identified from the observation and interview data, any one school may be placed close to either one of the extremes of the continuum of practice (discussed more fully in Section 7). 6.32 Both child-initiated and adult-led activities were found to be conceptually and emotionally ‘impoverished’, offering little opportunity for cognitive challenge, emotional engagement or children’s acts of personal meaning-making. 6.33 A variety of analytical approaches were used to examine the data, and these provided converging evidence that there is a dominant emphasis on the teaching of certain aspects of literacy and numeracy. This emphasis is reflected in children’s self-chosen activities, which often had a narrow numeracy or literacy focus. 6.34 Opportunities for high quality learning experiences for the children were few and far between. Overall, we observed few opportunities for: l

sustained, shared and purposeful talk

sustained, complex imaginative play

authentic, engaging, first-hand experiences.

6.35 The quality of relationships in the sample schools was impressively high. The observed interactions between staff and children demonstrated warm, caring, secure relationships in supportive classroom environments.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

S EC T ION 7

T HE C ON T INUUM OF PR AC T IC E

Introduction In Section 6 we reported that no one single measure of quality could represent the diversity and variety of the classrooms and schools in which we observed. Here we present an outline of the framework we have called the continuum of practice, which does, in our view, represent the multiple dimensions on which our schools differ, and also suggests a way of constructing a profile of each school as an instrument of self-evaluation. It is presented in four sections, in tables 7a7d below, with the descriptors of effective, worthwhile and appropriate practices, attitudes and priorities on the right hand side. The brief descriptions at each end of the continuum are all based on our observation data. 7.1

Table 7a: Children’s activities and behaviours Limited teacher imposed writing task (for example compose and copy two sentences).

Emergent writing for a purpose, spontaneous mark-making.

Use of play/toy materials to demonstrate specific learning objectives (for example, parts of speech).

Spontaneous, complex, imaginative play (for example, with big blocks and miniature world materials).

Obey the school/classroom rules.

Care for, comfort and love one another.

Supply brief/single word responses when nominated by the teacher.

Use complex spoken language spontaneously for a wide variety of purposes.

Record conclusions/observations dictated or modelled by the teacher.

Arrive at and express personal meanings through discussion in small groups.

Thematic work and imaginative play supported by pictures, ICT, plastic replicas.

Children handle and use authentic objects and living materials from the real world.

The six dimensions above are obviously not a comprehensive account of all the possible differences that could be observed in reception classrooms, but they are the most significant ones to emerge from our observations. It is important to note that the continuum between the two extremes represents not just the variation in the intrinsic quality of the children’s activities, but also serves as a measure of relative frequency. So, for example, in evaluating the second dimension, which refers to the quality of children’s play, in any one classroom the observer may document passages of play that fit the descriptions at both ends of the continuum. What is significant in this particular classroom then is whether there are more, and longer, incidents of spontaneous, complex play than of the use of play materials in the service of a specific learning objective. Judgements about the quality of children’s experiences in a particular classroom can thus be made on the basis of the relative frequency and duration of those intrinsically worthwhile activities that are shown on the right hand side of the continuum. It is unlikely that observations in any classroom would cluster exclusively around the right hand extreme. For example, in evaluating the third dimension, which refers to the socio-cultural climate of

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

the classroom, it is likely that in the most harmonious and caring classrooms, the observer will also see attention to school or classroom rules, but as a means to an end (a harmonious and loving society in miniature) rather than as a priority in itself, as it appears to be in some very tightly structured classrooms. 7.2

Table 7b: The educators’ priorities, key constructs, activities An emphasis on achieving the Early Learning Goals.

A whole-hearted commitment to play and active learning.

Complete detailed short-mediumlong-term plans based on the six Areas of Learning.

Plan from daily observations of children’s spontaneous activity.

Daily timetable dominated by adult-led activities.

Set aside long periods for child-initiated activities.

Inform parents about for example literacy practices (key words, phonic rules).

Aspire to full partnership with parents, recognising their role as prime educators.

Assume that children only learn what the adult teaches.

Assume that children come into the classroom as confident and accomplished learners in their own right.

Fragile belief in self, dependence, anxiety about role.

Strong confident advocate for children and their learning.

Again, this section of the continuum is not an exhaustive description of every educator’s every priority in the education of four and five year old children. It is a distillation of what seem to us to be the most significant features of the observation and interview data in our small sample of nine classrooms. For each extreme position on this table we have empirical evidence in our field notes and transcriptions, from the teacher who confidently claimed ‘well, they learn all the time’, to the teacher who could tell us the precise number of literacy targets already ‘achieved’ by each individual child in the class. 7.3

Table 7c: The learning environment and working conditions Security issues are paramount.

Open doors, open relationships – everybody is made welcome.

Traditional concrete playground.

An outdoor learning environment that reflects the richness and breadth of the classroom provision.

Minimal bilingual staffing, little attention to mother tongue & EAL learners.

Rich provision of bilingual staff: their expertise used with confidence.

Low professional status of the early years team.

High status of the early years team, membership of SMT.

Under-staffed, numbers of children rising, severe budget constraints.

Well-staffed, experienced NNEBs, early years trained teachers/ headteacher.

The criteria that appear at each end of the continuum in this section of our framework are, in a sense, a way of evaluating the overall health of the school and the place of the reception class(es) within it. It is important to note, therefore, that in presenting these contrasting

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

criteria (again, we have evidence for each of them) we are not seeking to lay the blame on individuals or staff groups for situations and conditions which may well be beyond their control. We have discussed earlier, for example, the general concern, throughout the sample, for the quality of the outdoor environment; in some schools, the traditional concrete playground persists, not because the staff are unaware of its inadequacies, but because of a lack of funding to improve it (in those schools where the outdoor environment is currently a priority for development, there has been a major investment of funds). Similarly, we cannot expect classroom practitioners to be held responsible for staffing levels or the professional backgrounds of senior colleagues. What we are registering here is our interpretation of the evidence, which suggests to us that, for example, the leadership of a headteacher with early years experience and/or training is likely to be a highly significant factor in the quality of the early years provision in the school. Not, of course, the only factor, as the other criteria in this framework attempt to demonstrate. We must also note that the high status of the early years team, represented on the right hand side of the fourth dimension in this section, has several consequences, not all of which are necessarily entirely beneficial. ‘Our voices are listened to,’ said one early years team leader, with justifiable pride; but in another school it was apparent that the senior status of the Foundation Stage Co-ordinator was a very mixed blessing in terms of her commitment to the youngest children in the school: other duties and responsibilities in the rest of the school seemed to be pulling her away from what she saw as the real priority. 7.4

Table 7d: The conceptual structures of schooling The Early Learning Goals and the KS1 SATs represent the most significant aspects of learning.

A holistic view of learning: all the children’s learning is valued, however divergent.

The setting seen as a place to lay the foundations for good SATs results at KS1 (and beyond).

The setting seen as a place in which children can ‘have a good childhood.’

Literacy learning constrained by the priorities of NLS.

An emphasis on living, real-world literacy and the ‘100 languages’ of representation.

The overriding importance of particular aspects of early numeracy: number labels and number bonds.

Mathematical learning seen as a way of understanding and operating in the world.

A divided view of learning, discontinuous practices, attitudes, values.

A view of learning that is continuous and coherent right through the school.

In this final section of the framework we have represented our synthesis of the big ideas that seem to shape the educational and cultural ‘climate’ of each of our nine schools. We have tried to map some of the different perceptions of what the reception year, and indeed, the Foundation Stage, is really for: its purposes and priorities. It is hardly surprising that the pressures and constraints of Key Stage 1 and its practices feature in all of the five dimensions we have identified. The Foundation Stage, and the reception year within it, is not an island,

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

alone unto itself; it is necessarily connected to the rest of the school. It is some cause for concern though, that this connection is seen to be much more likely to be damaging and constraining than supportive and encouraging. One headteacher was an optimistic and visionary exception to this generalisation: she saw the influence working in the opposite direction, from the Foundation Stage, upwards through the school. Asked about the impact of the Foundation Stage on the rest of the school, she was clear and confident in her reply: ‘we were coming to a point where we could see it wasn’t right… at long last we’ve got the go-ahead to do what we’ve always believed in… the Foundation Stage reflects what we all needed to do on the active, first hand curriculum. It crystallised my own thinking about what we’re doing. We’re working on it, and we’re moving on.’ 7.5

These encouraging words are a useful introduction to the final point to be made about the continuum of practice and its possible usefulness as a framework for self-evaluation. We intend it to be used as a way of charting the school’s capacity to ‘work on it’ and move on. It is not intended to be a way of labelling and perpetuating weakness or inadequacy, but as an incentive to development work, in which small/whole staff groups can observe and document their slow, steady progress towards quality. Movement across the continuum is the desirable outcome of the use of this framework.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

S EC T ION 8

DIS CUS SION

Introduction In this concluding section, we discuss a selection of the issues that have become significant to us in the course of our enquiry into what is actually happening ‘inside the Foundation Stage’. We identify some aspects of the current state of affairs as largely encouraging, whereas others are matters of considerable concern. The selected issues cover the whole range of our enquiry, from the macro-level of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership, to the micro-level of individual classrooms, where we consider practitioners’ mental maps of children and childhood and attempt to represent their current understandings of the purposes and priorities of the Foundation Stage and the reception class within it.

The context of partnership 8.1

As we have seen in earlier sections of this report, the majority of our respondents do not see themselves as part of a wider partnership of professionals: the relationship of the reception class, and the four and five year olds who are educated within it, to the formal structures of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships is not a topic of interest or concern to most of them. A small minority of headteachers expressed greater awareness of this relationship, and the possibilities it opens up for more coherent, integrated services for young children and their families, but they were equally aware that these possibilities were still very much unrealised, and that there was a long way to go towards ‘joined-up’ thinking across the full range of Foundation Stage settings.

8.2

We suspect that there has been such a concern on the part of the government not to alienate the care sector (on whom England’s wide range of services depends), that what has happened instead is the education sector has become somewhat alienated and marginalised. All four to five year olds in reception classes come under the remit of the Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships because they are part of the Foundation Stage. However, teachers and others in this sector, if those within this study are representative, clearly do not feel that they are very much part of the Partnership concept – and the responses of Partnership personnel show they do not feel that reception classes are an integral part of the care sector.

8.3

As far as we can see, none of the plethora of documents about and for the Partnerships mentions the reception class as a specific stage, which needs specific support and for which specific ‘quality’ issues (to use the Government’s oft-repeated term) are to be applied. This seems very remiss given that children and teachers in reception classes are often the bridge between the non-maintained and maintained sectors.

8.4

Similarly, on the DfES website, a search under ‘Reception Class (whole phrase)’ gives over 280 references, but these appear to be dominated by such issues as class size, meeting targets, teaching assistants, the National Literacy Strategy and surveys of parents. Apart

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

from the Early Learning Goals, there is nothing on the site which discusses the reception year or reception classes as a particular feature of the Foundation Stage. They would appear to reside in no single priority zone. Reception year children have been included in the government funded Effective Provision of Pre-School Education project (Sylva et al. 2003) as one of a number of identified ‘pre-school’ settings. However, we feel that further specific research focused on reception classes and their particular circumstances, their relationships with the EYDCPs, their status within the school and quality issues, needs to be undertaken with some urgency.

The ambiguous position of the reception year 8.5

In Section 1 we discussed the historically ambiguous position of the reception year, in which full-time places are offered to children of pre-statutory school age, within a school setting. Our enquiry has shown us that the introduction of the Foundation Stage has done little or nothing to reduce this ambiguity or to clarify the essential characteristics of this particular year in children’s educational histories. The reception year continues to occupy a position midway between different structures and approaches: clearly not part of Key Stage 1 and the statutory requirements of the National Curriculum, but, for all its designation as part of the Foundation Stage in DfES and QCA documentation, it is clearly not part of the structures of maintained nursery provision or pre-school education in non-maintained settings. This confusion over the structural identity of the reception class is reflected in a corresponding confusion over pedagogy and curriculum.

8.6

One manifestation of this confusion, for which we have substantial evidence, is the way in which the QCA guidance, which claims to embody the proudest principles of early childhood education, is not being interpreted in practice as a document establishing broad priorities and principles of procedure (Stenhouse 1975). Instead it is being used as if it were a statutory curriculum document, and as if the detailed guidance under the heading ‘what does the practitioner need to do?’ were official prescriptions which must be followed to the letter. The painstakingly drawn up, immensely detailed planning sheets that we were shown in our sample schools are telling evidence of the generally held view that the Guidance is more than guidance, it is the curriculum itself. The text of ‘what does the practitioner need to do?’ appears to be read as being all there is to say about pedagogy, and the ‘Stepping Stones’ appear to constitute the official version of all there is for four and five year olds to learn.

8.7

In our view, this is a profound misreading of the purpose and promise of the Foundation Stage and the reception class within it. Since its inception, we have seen the Foundation Stage as a more than welcome opportunity to extend the very best practice currently found in nursery and pre-school settings into the year that used to mark the onset of formal schooling. Short of raising the statutory school age, the Foundation Stage appeared to

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

be the most promising way of ensuring that appropriate early childhood principles were applied to the provision made for five year olds, as well as for three and four year olds. Practice in reception classes would become much less like practice in Key Stage 1 classrooms, dominated by lessons, subjects, timetables, tightly defined learning objectives and assessments. Practice in reception classes would become much more like the best of nursery practice, where children’s learning is seen in a holistic, non-compartmentalised way, where play, first-hand experiences and talk are the principal means of learning, where children’s capacity to explore and imagine for themselves is nourished by open-ended invitations to engage with the world, and where observation of individual children is the key to developing both curriculum and pedagogy. But this aspiration is, as yet, unrealised. In this enquiry we have seen classrooms that, overall, conform far more closely to the typical Key Stage 1 model, with the six areas of learning replacing the subjects of the National Curriculum, with a daily rhythm of lessons, learning objectives and plenary sessions, with an over-riding emphasis on literacy and numeracy (usually taught in the mornings) and, in the majority, limited and timetabled opportunities for outdoor activity. 8.8

Play appears to be something that is very much left to the children, whilst teachers and other educators get on with the important business of getting them through the curriculum and onwards and upwards over the ‘Stepping Stones’, towards important targets. One example, typical of many, will suffice here. OBSERVATION 1: A child deeply engaged in water play was interrupted whilst he was required to stick the letter ‘m’ on the (adult’s) outline of a monkey. To the monkey outline he had also to draw a face, stick ears and then concertina a piece of paper to make a tail. He did the activity with bad grace and did it poorly. It was clear that he felt his task was to complete the activity (rather than to learn about ‘m’ or monkeys) and there was no check made about what meaning or learning he had acquired. Once the tail was on the monkey, his completion of the task was checked off on the practitioner’s list. The child tried then to resume his water play but found that his previous playmates were now engaged in other activities and he could not get back into the group. In his frustration, he resorted to annoying other children and upsetting their play. Contrast this with another scene: OBSERVATION 2: The child is playing with post office equipment in the classroom. He carefully selects paper and envelopes to write a letter to his friend. The letter is carefully folded (several times) until it fits neatly into the small envelope. He writes his friend’s name (accurately) on the outside of the envelope, cuts a small coloured piece of paper for a stamp and draws a face (the Queen) on it. He then glues the stamp carefully in the top right hand corner. He posts the letter in the letter box. Then he puts on the postman’s hat, empties the letter box into a carry bag, climbs into the post-van and sets off outside to take his (and other letters) to the Sorting Office. He sorts the envelopes into boxes labelled with the letters of the alphabet, putting his friend George’s letter securely in box ‘G’.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

It is clear that in the second cameo the child is using all and more of the skills evident in the first cameo. He is doing it in a context of meaning and relevance to the current activities and the things in which he is interested. The practitioner’s checklist, had she undertaken an observation at this time, would have shown a rich range of skills being used and evidence of some considerable learning. The child’s disposition to learning in the second observation was also heightened and he was able to tell the practitioner clearly what he had done. 8.9

Of equal concern must be the relatively infrequent opportunities for children to engage in sustained talk and interaction with adults and other children. Ours is not the only study to have identified this as an issue (see for example Moyles, et al. 2003; Mroz et al. 2000; Hardman et al. 2002). Practitioners know and understand the need to communicate with children in a genuine, open-ended way, in order to appreciate children’s existing knowledge, meanings and interests. Yet the National Literacy Strategy appears to dominate teachers’ thinking, even though there is some evidence in our data that this is not necessarily what practitioners believe should be happening in reception classes.

8.10 We do not accept that the approaches outlined above are what were intended by the Guidance document, which claimed to ‘give this very important stage of education a distinct identity.’ The identity of most of the reception classes we visited in this enquiry is clearly aligned with Key Stage 1 and the culture of formal schooling; the reception year in these schools has still not achieved its distinct place as the culminating year of a very different approach, rooted in the early childhood principles set out in the Guidance.

Opportunities for development 8.11 Over the last four years, there has been an unprecedented increase in the training opportunities available to practitioners across the Foundation Stage. Although the quality and accessibility of the courses varies greatly from authority to authority, more than one staff group spoke in eloquent terms of the support and encouragement they received from partnership and local authority personnel. They saw the training they had already received as significant in the development of their thinking, and looked forward to an ongoing and stimulating relationship with the Foundation Stage advisers and mentors with whom they had been working. The continued provision of high quality courses that encourage practitioners to think for themselves, to revisit the cherished principles of early childhood education, and to critically review their priorities and their practices, is an absolutely crucial factor in the future of the Foundation Stage. We have also identified the need for enhanced training opportunities for early years/ Foundation Stage governors. More importantly, in all the recommendations that relate to training and professional development, we emphasised the need for these opportunities to reflect the partnership concept and to embrace all the professional members of the Foundation Stage community.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Constraints on development 8.12 The positive remarks in the preceding section must be somewhat tempered by a consideration of some of the other factors that will impact on the Foundation Stage in the years ahead. Recognising the need for development is by no means synonymous with bringing it about. Our evidence suggests a number of factors in our sample schools that may constrain and discourage the growth and improvement that practitioners aspire to. These factors include: l

Resource issues (for example, staffing, setting up the outdoor environment, size of classrooms)

Pressure from Key Stage 1 and Key Stage 2 in terms of measurable achievements, especially in literacy and numeracy

Availability of time for the Foundation Stage team to work together on review, evaluation and development. Some of the teachers we interviewed were doubtful whether this was a realistic possibility. As one of them ruefully remarked, ‘is there time to be a reflective practitioner?’

The climate of external accountability, which works against the development of a culture of self-evaluation and critical review

A low level of professional confidence in some staff groups, reinforced by overdirection in terms of guidance and the inspection regime

The overloading of the Foundation Stage Co-ordinator’s role with other (necessary) school-wide responsibilities.

8.13 None of these potentially problematic areas is likely to respond to quick-fix solutions. But we hope that the issues listed above might act as a stimulus for a staff group, or governors’ working party, who have chosen to look at the way ahead for the Foundation Stage in their school. The factors we have identified will not, obviously, be relevant to every school, but the task of identifying possible constraints, or barriers to growth and improvement, is always a necessary part of development work.

The role of the headteacher 8.14 The interview data showed very plainly that the headteacher has, and will continue to have, a significant role in articulating the significance of the reception year, both as part of the two to three year phase of early childhood education, and as the part of the school where the seeds of important attitudes and expectations are sown and nurtured, to bear fruit throughout the primary phase. In some schools, the headteacher explicitly claimed that

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage showed the way forward for the whole school, in terms of its emphasis on active learning, child-initiated activity and partnership with parents. Leadership from a headteacher with these priorities will go a long way towards minimising the effect of the constraining factors identified above (in 8.12).

Observation, planning and assessment 8.15 In this major area of the Foundation Stage experience, there are also grounds for both concern and optimism. There was a small minority of schools where the practice of observing individual children, focusing on their learning in progress, rather than ticking off the Stepping Stones, one by one, was well-developed: these practitioners draw on their observations to plan for individuals (rather than for whole class topics) and to help compile portfolios of learning (records of achievement). In one authority, the use of records of achievement starts at the beginning of the Foundation Stage, and the nursery/playgroups/daycare setting records are passed on to the reception class as a continuous profile of each child’s development. But these practices are by no means universal across our small sample. We saw grounds for concern in some settings where the practitioners’ construction of the role of assessment appeared to be severely constrained by the categories of the Foundation Stage Profile, and where their priorities seemed to be limited to making the greatest possible number of ticks in the shortest possible time. It remains to be seen how the use of the Foundation Stage Profile will be modified or strengthened over the coming year(s) but courses on ‘assessment for learning’ and opportunities for reflective and collaborative work on this issue will certainly be necessary if the profiling process is to work in the interests of every child. 8.16 The closely connected issue of planning is also ripe for development work; we were given copious examples of rigorous and detailed plans, short, medium and long term, but these were largely focused on the specifics of what children would do in the adult-directed activities provided, rather than on what they might learn. The practitioners’ priorities in these plans appeared to be coverage (of the six areas) and the achievement of individual ‘Stepping Stones’. There was a corresponding absence of attention to the cognitive demands of the planned activity, or the conceptual richness of the theme or topic (what Athey (1990) refers to as cognitive form, as distinct from curriculum content).

Versions of literacy and numeracy 8.17 In Section 1 we used the metaphor of an iceberg to distinguish between everyday classroom activities, which are readily observable, and which our target child method would enable us to document, and the educators’ underpinning knowledge and understanding, which we hoped to explore through our interviews with classroom practitioners and headteachers.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

This metaphor seems especially apt when we re-examine the data for evidence about the kinds of literacy and numeracy that are being taught and learned in the classrooms in this sample. We have already commented on the emphasis that practitioners placed on both literacy and numeracy, and each of the analytical frameworks described in Section 6 showed that this emphasis was common to all nine classrooms observed. 8.18 Closer examination of the data shows that the nine classrooms also share an emphasis on what we may call the smallest building blocks of numeracy and literacy: initial letter sounds, keywords, counting and number recognition. We observed many and varied activities with these very basic learning objectives for their purpose. Some of these activities, thanks to the enthusiasm and loving kindness of the educators, appeared to be enjoyable and engaging experiences for the children, despite the low level of cognitive demand (in that the children were being asked to do little more than recall, label and repeat). Indeed in more than one classroom, children spontaneously used the same materials (marker pens and whiteboard, for example) during a period of free choice, and appeared to be equally engaged in these forms of literacy and numeracy play. We treated all this data as evidence of the tip of the iceberg: children were certainly being taught, and were just as certainly learning, many of the skills listed in the ‘Stepping Stones’ for communication, language and literacy. But what about the rest of the iceberg? 8.19 Our view of early literacy is that as well as experiences of words and letters, young children should be given opportunities to act as experienced readers act, relishing books of every kind, being read to often, alone and in small groups, and responding to texts in a variety of ways – with empathy, understanding and imagination. We expect to see writers and readers engaging in many kinds of symbolic play and thoughtful mark-making for their own purposes (not just recapitulating their most recent literacy or numeracy lesson). But in this enquiry we found little evidence that children were regularly given opportunities to engage with texts or writing materials in these sorts of ways. Our findings are very similar to those of Browne (1998) who found, across 13 different settings for four year olds (including seven nursery classes), that provision for literacy learning was almost entirely focused on isolated skill development, and that worksheets and flashcards were to be found in abundance. Developmentally appropriate early literacy activities were few and far between. As we saw in Section 6, using Whitehead’s framework of strategies for literacy (1999), stories and narrative, talk, play and representation were far less common in our sample classrooms than the teaching of isolated, disembedded literacy and numeracy skills. These findings are not encouraging, but perhaps we can be reassured by the emphasis placed by our respondents, as we saw in Section 4, on the need for professional development opportunities, especially for teaching through play.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Constructions of children 8.20 Following the work of Dahlberg et al. (1999) and Moss and Petrie (2002), we found it valuable to draw on our observation and interview data to visualise key features of our sample teachers’ constructions of children. We include four of these tentative interpretations here, to illustrate the interesting diversity in this most basic of all starting points: the educator’s image of the child – or as the Japanese call it, the child-like child, kodomorashi kodomo (see Tobin et al. 1989 for a full and fascinating elucidation of this intriguing concept). But we want to do more with these illustrations than reiterate the theme of diversity, which has run consistently through this report. We also hope to stimulate reflection and discussion by practitioners who might find these word portraits a useful resource, a stimulus for a similar exercise, in which they could work together to explore what it is they value and celebrate in the lives of the children they work with. Table 8a: Four constructions of a ‘reception class child’ Jessica’s child She’s happy and relaxed. She knows that school’s a good place to be.

She’s happy at school and glad to come in every day. However needy she was, she feels secure now.

She’s had a proper year in the nursery (which is a real part of the school) before coming into reception.

Having firm predictable routines helps her through the day – she doesn’t feel anxious; she knows what to do.

She’s had plenty, not just enough, of the right stuff: PE, role-play, creative opportunities, being outdoors (jungles and safaris).

And so she learns very quickly, but not necessarily all the things Y1 teachers want – like masses of writing. She learns to read, and she’s read a lot while she’s been here.

There’s been plenty of space for her imagination.

She’s been a little squashed in here – she really needs more space.

She’s been with teachers who are in tune with children, who don’t hold things against them, who are forgiving.

She’s had plenty of fun and freedom of choice.

She’s been in a class where we can all feel close to one another.

She’s an ‘I can’ child, not ‘I can’t’.

She’s had more than just ‘worksheets and pace’.

She knows her mother/ parents are welcome here and that we want to work with them.

She’s well-motivated, interested in the world, excited about her own learning. She’ll be a powerful 7 year old, with her own interests, ready to try, ready to research the world, ready to use the skills we’ve taught her. She’s done a lot of shared reading and writing (with parents as well as with me). She’s made home-made books. She has lots to say about life and I love to listen.

Kay’s child

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

She’s independent and happy to be that way.

She finds learning fun – and she can do so much. We are in awe of our learners in here! She’s heard a lot of talk – we love to talk in here. She’s having a good childhood in here. She should go on like this right through Key Stage 1.

Ingrid’s child

Georgina’s child

She’s a good learner. I trust her to learn.

She is happy.

She is civilised (we share a harmonious classroom).

She’s had a good year.

She has a lot of time for herself.

She has a lot of friends.

She has many choices to make.

She can sit and listen.

She has a lot of space to use.

She respects others.

I watch her very attentively to see where she’s been, where she’s going.

She respects difference.

She does what she wants, so she’s always engaged – there are no behaviour issues.

She has had many first-hand experiences (and I can prove it!).

She is active.

She is changing so fast!

She spends a lot of time outdoors.

She is active – that’s essential.

She has a lot of time for play.

She’s a group/team leader.

She’s ready for the next thing.

She belongs here; we are a family, so we care for each other. It’s natural. She is independent. She is verbal, confident. She will have no problems accessing the Key Stage 1 curriculum. She’s done a lot of reading – and writing – mostly about stories and books.

Exploring the teachers’ mind-maps 8.21 As an extension of documenting the teachers’ images of children, we have attempted to show, in diagrammatic form, the key constructs of the reception class experience they have shaped for these same children. Once again these are tentative interpretations, rather than observable facts, but they are interpretations based on a wealth of observation and interview evidence, and as such they do offer insights into the way in which the Foundation Stage has been conceptualised as a working model for the education of four and five year old children. Example 1 is a simplified map of what seem to be the key constructs in Ingrid’s provision, drawing closely on her own words and the ideas she underlined in her account of what her reception class meant to her. Her baseline position, which she argues is shared across the school, is a fundamental trust in children, whom she sees as good people and accomplished learners. This trust generates a shared experience of mutual care and harmonious living, ‘like a family’, as she said more than once. And the outcome of this civilised society in miniature is her chief priority, children’s learning, which she and her colleagues attempt to document in all its richness.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Example 1 Lots of learning which we observe

and the outcome is

and document

CARE and

We lead a good life together, like a family

This is our base-line position

generates

HARMONY

TRUST

They will learn, they are good

8.22 Contrast this mental map with Example 2, which shows a much greater emphasis on pedagogy and the work of the teacher, and correspondingly less emphasis on the classroom as a shared social world. Here the teacherâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s basic position is her conviction that children learn through play. This enables her to answer two complex questions (what do children learn? and how do they learn?) with apparent ease. If they learn through play, and they do, then the work of the teacher is to plan both play and learning (which she does, in every detail). The outcome is that the children achieve the early learning goals, the learning that has been so carefully planned for them. This teacher also sounds a note of warning: this desirable sequence of cause and effect is under considerable pressure from the literacy and numeracy strategies, which consume time that ought to be dedicated to learning through play.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Example 2 But we are squeezed by

They learn the

the NLS

Early Learning

and NNS

Goals! We plan

Learning

their learning

through

What do children

➜

learn?

➜

PLAY

We plan their play

How do children learn?

➜

8.23 An even starker contrast is the very rudimentary mind-map, in Example 3, constructed from the interview and observation data from a classroom where both teacher and learning assistant were exceptionally confident in their convictions, and expressly denied the need to make any change in their practice as a result of the introduction of the Foundation Stage. 8.24 Example 4 emphasises continuity and progression, the need to get it right at each point in the Foundation Stage experience. It is interesting to note that this teacher (Jessica) works in a mixed Y1/reception class and so perhaps is more than usually aware of the necessary continuity of children’s lives, if not of their school experiences. The starting point, argues this teacher, is a proper nursery curriculum, by which she means a curriculum of play and first-hand experiences. As she says, ‘we pull the real world in here whenever we can.’ This experience is built on in the second year of the Foundation Stage, with a proper reception year curriculum. Her vision of this proper curriculum is one in which children have plenty of time and space to do their own thinking, talking, exploring and discovering. She asks them no pseudo ‘teacher’ questions, but consistently models authentic dialogue about the things and people she and her children are interested in. Then, in the same classroom, she sees these same children flower into accomplished learners, embarking on their statutory schooling in Key Stage 1.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Example 3

BRILLIANT SATs

SO WE DO IT

WE KNOW WHAT TO DO

So no wonder we do well Q.E.D.

We’ve been doing it for years

We’ve always known

Example 4

Dedicated, powerful learners, readers and writers

and then we see the results…

class curriculum

…and then we build on it…

The proper nursery curriculum

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

We start here…

Grounds for optimism 8.25 To conclude this discussion we will cautiously affirm that in spite of our disappointments along the way, we ended our enquiry convinced that for all the weaknesses we have identified, there are also grounds for optimism. In the majority of the sample schools, the staff we talked to are aware that they are on a developmental journey. They recognise that the re-positioning of the reception year within the Foundation Stage has created a range of problems for them, some of which we have discussed above, and that resolving these problems cannot be done overnight. These schools do not match Stoll and Fink’s description of the ‘cruising school’ (1996), or, as others put it more colloquially, the ‘stuck school’. They know there is developmental work to be done and they are prepared to do it. Their current dissatisfaction is a powerful motivator for change: in some senses, a dissatisfied staff group is a prerequisite for improvement. It is our hope that this report, for all the dissatisfaction it conveys, may also be a motivating factor for change and development.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

A PPENDI X A

RES E A RCH DESIGN A ND DATA C OLL EC T ION

Introduction The research was undertaken over a 15-month period from March 2002 to May 2003, with analysis, interpretation and writing this report between February and August 2003. The main elements in the research design, each of which is discussed in more detail below, included: l

the development, piloting and distribution of a questionnaire to a sample of reception class teachers, teaching assistants, headteachers, governors, LEA and EYDCP personnel across a range of authorities in England

the development, piloting and use of an audio-taped semi-structured interview schedule used with a smaller, purposive sample of those who responded to the questionnaire

the undertaking and analysis of unstructured, timed, child-focused observations in a small sample of Year R classrooms

the quantification, transcription, analysis and interpretation of the data collected by these means.

The research sought both an overview of current practice in reception classes in the third year since the implementation of the Foundation Stage and its associated curriculum guidance, (DfEE/ QCA 2000) and an in-depth view of what is currently being experienced by young children and practitioners. We were also interested in the relation between the current structures of the Early Years Partnerships (EYDCP) and reception class practices and priorities: we wanted to explore the extent to which reception class practitioners see themselves as members of the partnership community that provides for all young children across a local authority. By observing the children, comparing the views of different people involved and gathering perceptions about all these issues, we hoped to present a picture of current thinking and practice in reception classrooms. However, as we have already discussed in the main body of this document, our original intentions were not entirely fulfilled. We do not believe that this was related to the methodology of the research but more, as we have seen, to the current challenges facing all those involved, especially reception class teachers, in relation to where children turning five fit into the overlapping structures of the Foundation Stage and the maintained infant/primary school.

Methodology The study combined quantitative and qualitative research methods. The findings from the different elements were triangulated in order to establish levels of internal validity and to strengthen reliability (Cohen et al. 2000). This combination of methods was seen as appropriate to this research given the complexity of reception classrooms and the variety of people involved at different levels in policy and practice. The questionnaire enabled a quantified overview of existing reception class practices and perceptions. Interviews enabled these issues to be

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

considered in more depth with a smaller number of interviewees clustered into partnership ‘teams’ in different authorities. Child-focused observations were used to record the experiences of children in a small sample of reception classrooms, in different local authorities. All elements of the study are described in detail to allow replication and comparison of findings by other researchers.

The research sample Participants The numbers of authorities, schools and participants involved in the various stages of the research are shown in Table A1. All the authorities had previously been involved in research projects with either APU or the Cambridge Faculty of Education and local authority early years personnel were known to the researchers. It was hoped that by this means we would achieve a high response rate without distribution to excessive numbers, given that postal questionnaire surveys are unlikely to achieve more than about a 20-25% response rate (Oppenheim 1992). The authorities represented a broad spectrum, i.e. county, metropolitan, inner London, different sizes, from large (Essex) to small (Peterborough), and at different stages in their development of partnership structures. This sample of authorities represents essentially a purposive sample and should be treated as such in interpreting responses. Table A1 Local Authorities* B’ham Cambs** Camden

Devon

Essex

Lancs

Leics

P’boro

West Sussex

Wirral

Worcs

Questionnaires

Interviews

Observations

* Six other authorities were approached in the initial stages of the research (Kirklees, Milton Keynes, NE, Lincolnshire, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Oxfordshire and Sheffield) but declined to be involved mainly due to pressures of work, too many initiatives or too many questionnaires. ** Cambridge joined the project after the questionnaire distribution stage.

One challenge for researchers in selecting samples of reception classes within authorities (which seems to go unrecognised by policy makers) is that it is very difficult to get an accurate figure on the numbers of children in reception classes. Reception age children fall between two stools: they are both four and five years old! Therefore, statistics show four-year-old figures, including percentages of those in maintained and non-maintained sector pre-school provision (DfES Statistics website – see references) and also five year olds in primary schools. But the latter figures do not separate out five year olds in reception classes from those in Key Stage 1 classes. It is therefore very difficult to get an accurate picture of exactly how many children we are considering in any research on reception classes. For example, according to research carried out

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

for the DfES by Fitzgerald et al. (2002: 3), 84-88% of ‘older fours and rising fives’ attend reception classes. The latest DfES figures (DfES Statistics 2002) show that at least 58% of three to four year olds are in maintained education, but separate figures for five year olds in reception classes are not given. We feel this omission should be redressed.

Ethics Participants were informed at all stages of the research about its purposes and processes and their informed consent given. Access to schools, classrooms and individuals was negotiated with relevant gatekeepers. All involved were assured of anonymity and confidentiality throughout the research process. On all occasions, the aims, purposes and strategies were outlined to the participants and their agreement was secured. Participants who requested it were given copies of transcribed observations. Teachers were offered supply cover for the time involved in the research as a gesture of goodwill.

The questionnaire survey Design, Development and Piloting Two similar questionnaires were constructed which consisted of 28 questions organised into eight sections, plus a brief biographical information section (see Appendices B and C for actual questionnaires). As one questionnaire was intended for teachers working in reception classes and the second intended for others involved less directly in reception classes, minor changes to the wording of the questions were needed. The following example shows how one question (Q.14) was changed:

Question 14 (Reception teachers) Look at the following list of resources. Within each section, select just ONE item which you feel you must have in the Reception classroom.

Question 14 (Others) Look at the following list of resources. Within each section, select just ONE item which you feel teachers must have in the Reception classroom. Thus, the focus of the question remained the same, whilst the people to whom it was directed would perceive the question as relevant to them. Similar minor changes occurred to all questions where perspective had to be taken into account. It was important to have exactly similar questions so that the answers could later be compared. The questions were devised as a result of meetings between the four researchers and ATL representatives, drawing on the researchers’ background knowledge of previous research into reception class policy, practice and related issues. To make the questionnaire interesting to complete, a range of different questioning strategies was used (see Table A2 for contents by type of question).

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Table A2 â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Questionnaire contents by type of question Section

Open-ended

Tick boxes

Multiple choice

Rating scales

Rank order

Agree/Disagree

1. Personal/Prof info

2. CGFS and FS

3. Provision of resources

4. Use of time

5. Influence on practice

6. Training needs

7. Literacy learning

8. Working with parents

9. Communicating

The questionnaire underwent two piloting procedures, the first to establish the depth and substance of the questions and the second to ensure that all the questions would be coherent and straightforward to the wide range of respondents, and would effectively differentiate between different respondents. Substantial changes were made as a result of the first pilot as several questions were found to be confusing, particularly to respondents such as governors and EYDCP personnel, but only very minor changes were found to be necessary to the second version, mainly in one question on the use of time, the layout and general visual appeal. As with all questionnaires, the layout and length are vital features in efforts to achieve the highest possible responses (Oppenheim 1992).

Distribution sample 438 questionnaires were distributed within ten authorities (see Table A1); respondents were asked to complete the questionnaire independently of others involved in the reception year because we wanted to have the opportunity to compare responses. (As we discovered during the interview stage, this was part of the reason for lack of responses from EYDCP personnel, some of whom felt that they wanted help from LEA advisers on questions to which they did not know the answer.) As we have seen in Section 3, a system had to be devised for distribution of individual questionnaires to cover all those involved in reception class partnerships. Reminders were sent out three times (because of an initial and continuing low response rate) with pre-paid return envelopes.

Returns The return rate was disappointing (180 = 41 per cent). This was far lower than we had anticipated and we have had, therefore, to apply caution in our interpretations, and in drawing general conclusions. Nevertheless we consider that our analysis of the questionnaire data reliably reflects the kinds of optimism generated by the establishment of the Foundation Stage and its associated Guidance. The fact that so few EYDCP personnel returned the questionnaires and that those who did had not felt able to complete all the information, constitutes evidence suggesting their minimal (or

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

non-existent) role in reception classes. The response rate of governors is similarly poor, and for similar reasons, with the additional possibility that schools may not yet have established a named governor for the Foundation Stage. A couple of heads commented during interviews that the governor for the early years felt that they, the headteachers, were in a better position to answer the questions. Again, this is similar to responses from EYDCP personnel during interviews about their relation to the LEA.

The interviews Design, development and piloting In order to prompt interviewees to talk about practice and policy in some depth and as honestly as possible, it was decided to use open, personalised questions, with subjective language, including, for example: l What is your view on…? l What differences to YOU…? l What impact on YOUR work…? l What changes (if any) have YOU noticed…? l In YOUR opinion…? l What difference do YOU feel…? These were incorporated into a semi-structured interview schedule but this was used in a very open-ended way. The questions on each interview schedule (a different one for each of the six interviewees) were kept as similar as possible (as with the questionnaires), but had to be reworded slightly differently for different individuals. Thus, Question 2 for LEA/EYDCP interviewees was worded: What difference (if any) has the Foundation Stage made to YOU as an LEA/EYDCP person in relation to supporting reception class practices? (e.g. time, meetings, paperwork…) For teachers and teaching assistants, the same question (with probes) read: What difference (if any) has the Foundation Stage made to YOU in your reception class? l Professional status? l Financial reward? l Losses/gains?

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

For heads and governors, the wording (with probes) was: What difference (if any) has the Foundation Stage made to YOU as a head/governor? l More/less time spent with early years? l More knowledge of early years needed / training? l Meetings/exchanges? With governors, EYDCP, LEA, pre-school settings…? l Paperwork? Drafting of common documents? Planning? Recording? It was not felt necessary to pilot these open-ended questions as each respondent was likely to answer differently anyway, and little would be achieved by a potentially time-consuming pilot.

Sample of interviewees We intended to identify eight clusters and, for various reasons to do with questionnaire findings, timescales and availability, we eventually interviewed in seven clusters (Devon, Camden, West Sussex and Lancashire were not included at this point, but Cambridge was added). The original intention was that the clusters would represent authorities where high quality partnership systems and policies were having a positive impact on reception class practices. But we increasingly found that practice across any one authority was not necessarily integrated in the way we had anticipated. We therefore used a convenience sample from our questionnaire returns, that is, those authorities who were willing to be involved further with our research. As with the questionnaire respondents, the interviewees were drawn, as far as we were able from ‘clusters’ of people whose work was likely to impact on reception classes, namely: reception class teachers, reception class teaching assistants, headteachers, governors, LEA and EYDCP personnel. Interviewees from the seven clusters were contacted directly from information supplied either on the returned questionnaire or through communication with the LEA adviser. Table A3 shows the potential and actual interviewees. The number of teaching assistants is particularly low because we had hoped to interview more of these practitioners during our observation visits to schools but this proved to be difficult to fit in alongside talking with teachers, heads and governors and conducting observations. Many teaching assistants are involved closely in reception class work and their views would have been informative – this is one area where further research may be needed. Interviews were conducted face-to-face, by telephone or by e-mail, depending on the interviewees’ preference. By giving such broad opportunities we hoped to encourage more people to consent, as interviews could be arranged day or evening to afford interviewees maximum flexibility. All the researchers conducted face-to-face interviews in their allotted observation schools, and two of the researchers (who were most familiar with these methods) conducted the telephone and e-interviews. Whilst e-interviews are still in their infancy as a research technique, they were felt

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

to be a boon to busy LEA and EYDCP people, in particular. They were able to respond in their own time to pre-sent questions, and the benefit to the researchers was that the interviews were a) already ‘transcribed’ as such, and b) raised further questions which could be followed up with more e-communication. Telephone interviews have been used now for a number of years (see, for example, Borg and Gall 1983; Powney and Watts 1987) and have been found by different researchers to offer an efficient way of conducting interviews without the expense of travel. All these interviews were pre-determined by date and time and the questions were either posted or e-mailed in advance so that the interviewees were prepared. We found no reluctance amongst our telephone interviewees to answering sensitive questions, no difficulty in responding to open questions and no attempts to end the interview too abruptly, all potential challenges found by some others using the telephone interview method (e.g. Wilson 2000; Groves and Kahn 1979). The research team met and communicated frequently about the conduct of the research but did not, with such ‘loose’, qualitative data, attempt to apply inter-rater reliability, a near impossible task with such wide ranging discussions. The number and type of interviews is shown in Table A3. Table A3 Interviewees

Teachers

Heads

TAs

Govs

LEA

EYDCP

Totals

Potential

Actual

Face-to-face

Telephone

e-mail

Type of interview

* N.B. In two of the authorities two different schools were involved; hence the figure 9 in the table

Making sense of the interview data All the face-to-face and telephone interviews were transcribed and the e-interviews downloaded and saved for analysis purposes. We used a constant comparison method (Huberman and Miles 2002) to establish the main issues emerging from responses and then compared these with the patterns emerging from the questionnaire responses. We hoped the interviews would deepen and extend the information from the questionnaire stage. What emerged, as we have seen in various parts of this report, was increasing evidence of wide disparity of practices and a significant lack of ‘joined-up’ thinking. As we have seen in sections 6 and 7, we also used the teacher and headteacher interview data to corroborate and extend the evidence from the child-focused observations.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Target child observations Design and development Target child observation is a tried and tested research method with a long history, dating back to the earliest systematic and rigorous evaluation of children’s early educational experience ever carried out in this country. Back in the late 1970s and early 1980s, Bruner’s Oxford Group of researchers used this technique to compare the quality of a variety of different types of setting (see for example Bruner 1980 and Sylva et al. 1980). It has recently been used extensively in the EPPE project (Sylva et al. 2003) as a main data source in evaluating children’s experiences in different types of pre-school settings. Target-child observation is not principally concerned with the educator’s plans, or good intentions, though these may be of some additional interest. It is concerned with how the educator’s good intentions and carefully planned provision actually affect the target child; it records all his or her activity of whatever kind, and any periods of inactivity; it captures his or her social interactions and many spoken exchanges; it documents the experiences provided in any particular setting, through the eyes of one of those for whom the provision was made. It is the safest check we know on whether the quality provision that we plan on paper, or in discussion with a collaborative staff group, does or does not reach into and affect the lives of children. The classes for observation were selected on the advice of the LEA advisers who had been involved in the questionnaire/interview phase: they were asked to recommend individual schools and reception class teachers who would demonstrate exemplary early years practice. With hindsight, this procedure appears to be a weakness in our design, since in more than one school the researchers’ judgements about quality did not coincide with those of the local authority personnel who had monitored the school.

Sample and conduct of the observations The researchers agreed to observe each target child in the classroom, for a minimum of one hour, and for longer if the school/ classroom timetable allowed for it. As the teacher, teaching assistant and headteacher interviews also had to take place on the same day/s, the researchers were working to a tight schedule, particularly in those schools with a full timetable of activities for children outside the classroom (assembly, fixed outdoor play times, PE/music sessions in the Hall, withdrawals for small group teaching in literacy, or work with computers, for example). Table A4 shows the number of children and hours of observation carried out, amounting to an approximate total of 25.5 hours of observation data, supplemented by detailed field notes of classroom layout, organisation, resources/materials provided, and other relevant contextual information (visits to the classroom by the headteacher, parents and other professionals, for example).

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Table A4 - Observation information Type of Authority

Target Child 1

Target Child 2

Total time (hours) approx.

School A – large county

4 hours

3 hours

School B – medium county

1 hour

School Ci – small metropolitan

1.5 hours

1.5

School Cii – small metropolitan

2 hours

School Di – medium county

3 hours

2 hours

School Dii – medium county

2 hours

School E – large city

1 hour

School F – large county

1 hour

School G – unitary

1 hour

2 Total

25.5

In most classes, the researchers and teachers negotiated the selection of children together; in some classes the teacher selected the children randomly (Schools A and B) and in others the selection was made on the basis of age (second youngest and second oldest present on the day of the observation). The 15 children observed appeared to constitute a random group in terms of variation in age, gender and ethnicity. The observations were non-participant; the researchers discreetly tracked the target child, monitoring all of his/her activities at two minute intervals throughout the observation period. The observation notes add up to a very full narrative account of each child’s experiences: encounters, interactions, activities, as well as details of inactivity, waiting time, apparent lack of involvement or engagement.

Analysis of observation data The observation notes on each child were written up in full by the researcher as soon as possible after the actual observation had been undertaken. The purpose was to ‘capture the moment’, as far as possible (Cohen et al. 2000) and allowed us to share the information with the rest of the team without delay. Typically, child-focused or target child observation data are extremely rich and rewarding, and so inevitably resistant to analysis within a single simple set of specified categories (such as on/off task). For this reason, it was appropriate to use a variety of analytical frameworks to reveal the complexity of the material; this process is described in full in Section 6. We also bore in mind the additional purpose of modelling, for our practitioner audience, a variety of perspectives through which they might, we hoped, be encouraged to take an evaluative, reflective approach to their own practices and the experiences of their own children.

100

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Critique of the research methodology As with all research, once it is completed and there has been time for reflection, questions arise around how the best laid plans never quite achieve everything the researchers intended. So it was with this small-scale enquiry. The basic design of the questionnaire, follow-up interviews with a sample of relevant people, and observation of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s actual experiences was robust, and allowed us to meet out first aim, which was to establish an overall picture of current practice in our sample of reception classes. Our second aim in documenting excellent early years practice in action was only partially fulfilled (for reasons we have discussed in Section 8) with teachers describing a number of concerns, tensions and constraints in their work. In relation to our third aim (to identify key constructs at the heart of reception class teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; work with Foundation Stage children), we found a degree of confusion and internal contradiction about pedagogy, policies and curriculum in a less than well co-ordinated approach to the Foundation Stage as a whole, particularly in relation to the structures of the EYDCP. How all of this impacted upon children (our fourth aim) became apparent to some extent during the observations. It is always necessary to consider how far the methods supported or distorted the findings and whether by different methods, different results might have been obtained. Whilst we did meet a few specific challenges which are outlined below, essentially we have been made aware that the picture in reception classes is far from straightforward at the moment; our research methods were more than adequate in establishing this to be the case. More returns of questionnaires and greater numbers of interviews may have changed the picture: but we doubt this, given our other experiences and our knowledge about the well-documented difficulties faced by reception class teachers over the last thirty or more years, outlined in Section 3. As for target-child observations, these are a tried and tested method for documenting the actual experiences of the recipients of schooling, in this case reception class children, and have been used in several evaluation projects by one of the researchers (for example, Drummond 1995a and Drummond 1995b). Our interpretation of the data has been an interesting process, given that we hoped each phase of the analysis would deepen the previous one, and result in reliable and illuminating insights into the most effective partnerships and practices. Could we have interpreted our data differently, with different results? Again, the evidence presented to us by our various respondents and interviewees shows a level of conflict and contradiction that is difficult to interpret in any other way.

What would we like to have happened differently? l

It was difficult to anticipate the challenge of achieving a higher-level response to the questionnaire. We felt that the measures taken to handle attrition (from selecting authorities with whom we had previously conducted research, to ensuring that the questionnaire was attractive to complete) would be sufficient. But the combination of continually reacting to various initiatives, other peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s research, and the general sense of being over-stretched, clearly contributed to a poorer return rate than we expected. It is difficult to see, in the present circumstances, how this situation might be changed.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

101

Similarly, because we felt that Partnership structures had had a number of years to establish themselves, we had not anticipated that EYDCP personnel would find it so difficult to comment on aspects of practice which are well within their remit. The reliance of the EYDCP personnel on the LEA staff for information about anything to do with education in schools (even within the Foundation Stage) is somewhat disturbing although perhaps not surprising. More interviews with EYDCP personnel might have changed this picture.

We had anticipated that governor involvement might be more established than it would seem from our research. Again, because of the few governors involved, our data may not represent the actual picture across the country.

We are very much aware that the more time spent in child observations the better, as far as getting a holistic picture of reception class children’s lives and experiences is concerned. 25.5 hours (1,530 minutes) is, arguably, a large amount of time on a project of this scale and duration, but it is still a drop in the ocean of the experiences of all reception class children, and only a tiny fraction of the school life of an individual child. However, the children’s experiences, as we observed them, closely reflect the dilemmas spoken of by teachers and others during the interviews. Increasing the number of hours of observation may not have revealed major differences from our current findings. Clearly, the data lend themselves to many types of analysis and interpretation and we chose only a few of those available. These we have described in full (Section 6) so that readers can base their interpretation of our findings against ours.

Triangulation usually results in each phase of the research supporting the others. In this enquiry, triangulation revealed the tensions and divisions that still exist within school/ EYDCP structures in relation to reception classes. It is uncertain whether this picture would be any different had we involved all the local education authorities across England.

Overall, the research is a snapshot in time of reception classes in a small sample of local authorities in England. We would hope that, were we to undertake similar research in a few years time, we might find a different picture. But for those teachers and partnership personnel involved in this particular research, that will need time, money and effort being invested in policies and practices to foster integration, cohesion, and fully ‘joined-up’ thinking.

102

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

A PPENDI X B

QUESTI ONNAIRE TO THOSE INVO LVED IN THE

PROVISI O N O F EFFECTIVE RECEP TI O N CL ASS PR ACTICES

In Praise of the Reception Year A research project funded by The Association of Teachers and Lecturers The introduction of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (CGFS) has the potential to affect the quality of education for young children in the Reception Year across England. There are also inevitably many differences in the way that providers work together to support Reception Class practices. This Questionnaire asks you about YOUR experiences and understanding of the quality of early years provision. It is being sent to a sample of headteachers, governors, classroom support staff, EYDCP trainers and local authority personnel working together to create quality services for young children and their families. It will take approximately 20-25 minutes to complete. From the analysis of this questionnaire it is planned to generate a smaller sample of those involved in the Foundation Stage. Through telephone interviewing we hope to deepen understanding of the educational experiences currently provided for young children. Please note, all information will be treated in the strictest confidence. We will not identify individuals within the research and will use your name to contact you only if you agree to further involvement. If you agree to be contacted about further involvement in the research, please tick here It would be helpful if you could please complete this box so that we know the geographical source of your response:

Your name Address

Postcode

Telephone no.

Please return the completed forms via the pre-paid envelopes to: Virginia Taylor, School of Education, Rivermead Campus, Bishop Hall Lane, Chelmsford, CM1 1SQ by 18th September, 2002. Thank you for taking part in this research. We are grateful for all information you can give us about yourself and your important role. To start with it would be helpful to find out a little about you as an individual. (Please ignore all the very small numbers near to your responses â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they are there to enable us to code the responses for analysis. Most of the time you just tick a box or circle your response.)

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

103

Personal and professional information 1.

What is your role? Teacher Governor

11-15

Headteacher EYDCP Trainer

3-6 Over 15

7-10

Male

What is your age? 18-20 31-35 46-50

LEA Adviser

Are youâ&#x20AC;Ś Female

CA/TA

How many years have you held this role? 0-2

21-25 36-40 Over 51

26-30

41-45

Which of these qualifications do you hold? (Please tick all the boxes that apply to you) 1st Degree BTEC A level/s Other

Masters STA GCSE/0 levels

QTS

NNEB

PPA

Please specify

Curriculum guidance (CGFS) and the foundation stage How do YOU feel about the introduction by the DfES/QCA of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (CGFS)? (Please show whether you agree or disagree with the following statements by ticking the appropriate box.) 6.

I have welcomed the introduction of the Foundation Stage as a separate phase Please give brief reasons for your response:

104

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Agree

Disagree

I have welcomed the introduction of the Curriculum Guidance for the FS

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

I feel the quality of children’s learning experiences has been raised by having the Foundation Stage

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

I feel the Stepping Stones (within CGFS) are helpful in thinking about planning

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

10.

I feel the Stepping Stones (within CGFS) are helpful in thinking about assessment

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

11.

What changes, if any, do you think have occurred as a result of the introduction of Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage? Please tick boxes to show your level of agreement as follows: 4 = agree wholly

3 = agree somewhat

2 = disagree

1 = not relevant

Please tick in one column only for each item

1 1

It has changed the way teachers actually teach

It has changed the way in which teachers work with parents

It has changed teachers’ understanding of children’s educational needs

It has changed teachers’ priorities for children’s learning

It has changed the way in which teachers interact with children

It has changed the way in which teachers work with their colleagues in school

It has changed the way in which teachers and Governors work together

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

105

It requires that teachers make more provision for outdoor play

It requires that teachers make less provision for outdoor play

It requires that teachers provide more indoor play

It requires that teachers provide less indoor play

It has changed the teaching of Language and Literacy

It has changed the teaching of Numeracy

12.

It has changed the way teachers plan for learning

It has changed the way teachers plan for teaching

Working with the CGFS will support teachersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; work with parents

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

13.

Working with CGFS offers a better professional status to reception teachers

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

Provision of resources 14.

Look at the following list of resources. Within each section, select just ONE item which you feel teachers MUST have in the Reception classroom. (Please remember to tick only ONE box in each section.) SECTION 1 Sand tray Large wooden construction blocks Large climbing frame Pencils/writing resources

SECTION 4 1

SECTION 2 Large wheeled toys e.g. bikes Small construction kits e.g. Lego Water tray Computer/ICT equipment 106

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Outdoor play equipment Woodwork tools Home area/dressing up Clay

SECTION 5 5

Games e.g. matching games Television Theme area e.g. shop, bus Musical instruments

SECTION 3

SECTION 6

Toys for sorting, counting Finding out area Free access to outdoors Table top toys e.g. farm, playpeople 15.

Puppets

Books/text resources

Paints and brushes

Jigsaws

Which is the ONE item you think teachers MUST have above anything else. Give brief reasons for your selection of this ONE item: (It may or may not be something from the list in Question 14.) The ONE resource Reception Class teachers need most is because:

16.

NOWâ&#x20AC;¦ Please look at the list of resources again. Within each section, select just ONE resource which you feel teachers do NOT need for reception age children. (Please remember to tick only ONE box in each section.) SECTION 1 Sand tray Large wooden construction blocks Large climbing frame Pencils/writing resources

SECTION 4 1

SECTION 2 Large wheeled toys e.g. bikes Small construction kits e.g. Lego Water tray Computer/ICT equipment

Finding out area Free access to outdoors Table top toys e.g. farm, playpeople

Woodwork tools Home area/dressing up Clay

SECTION 5 5

SECTION 3 Toys for sorting, counting

Outdoor play equipment

Games e.g. matching games Television Theme area e.g. shop, bus Musical instruments

SECTION 6 9

Puppets Books/text resources Paints and brushes Jigsaws

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

107

17.

Which is the ONE resource you think teachers do NOT need. Give brief reasons for your selection of this ONE item: (It may or may not be something from the list in Question 16.) Reception Class teachers do not need because:

Use of time 18.

There are many things that use a great deal of time in Reception Classes. In your view, have there been any changes in Reception teachers use of time as a result of the introduction of CGFS? (Please remember to tick only ONE box in each line.) Teachers need MORE time

Teachers need LESS time

There has been NO change

Time to talk with children Time to play with children Time to teach children Time to make observations of children Time to discuss children’s progress with parents Time to discuss children’s progress with children Time to discuss children’s progress with colleagues Time to provide children with free choice of activities Time to meet with Year 1 colleagues Time to meet with EYDCP colleagues Time to meet with governors Time to meet with Pre-school/Nursery colleagues Time to reflect on their practice Time to be involved in continuing professional development Time to plan learning activities Time to plan teaching activities

19.

Please also complete the following two statements about teachers’ use of time: Teachers should spend MORE time on because:

Teachers should spend LESS time on because:

108

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Influences on teachers’ practices and beliefs 20.

There are many influences on teachers’ early years practices and beliefs. Which of the following do you feel has had the greatest influence on reception class teachers? Please tick boxes to show the level of influence as follows: 4 = highly influential

3 = influential

2 = little influence

Please tick in one for each column for each item

1 = don’t know 4

1 1

Reggio Emilia

High/Scope

Te Whariki, New Zealand

Scaffolding

Schema development

Steiner

Piaget

Susan Isaacs

Vygotsky

Montessori

Local Education Authority

Local community

Initial teacher education

Higher education courses undertaken

OfSTED Inspection requirements

QCA schemes of work

School policies

School’s own schemes of work

The ethos of the school

The influences of the Partnership

Your own experiences

21.

Please note any other influences that you feel affect Reception Class teachers

Training needs 22.

From this list of possible TRAINING needs that Reception teachers may have, which are the SIX, from the list below, that you believe to be the most important? (Please tick only SIX boxes)

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

109

Which SIX are the most important to you? (Please tick only 6 boxes) Painting, drawing, art work Numeracy Home area/role play Knowledge and Understanding of the world Language and Literacy Clay, sand, messy play activities Construction and block play Social and emotional development Physical development ICT/computers in early years Linguistic development Creative development Cognitive development Teaching through play Classroom organisation Planning and assessment Understanding pedagogy Theories of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s learning Interacting with young children Working with parents General child development Working with other professionals Planning and Assessment

110

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

23.

Please note any other training needs teachers, in your opinion, might have for teaching Reception age children;

Literacy Learning 24.

Many things affect the way literacy skills are taught to Reception age children. In your view, which FOUR things from the following list have most importance? (Please tick only FOUR boxes) Which FOUR are the most important for you? (Please tick only 4 boxes) Knowledge and understanding about literacy that children bring from home Encouraging parental involvement in supporting children’s literacy learning Catering for children whose mother tongue is other than English That parents leave the teaching of literacy to schools Using different forms of communication e.g. story telling, shopping lists Learning the skills of reading and writing

Learning phonics

Learning how to spell Using play activities to promote literacy Knowing the sequence of children’s literacy development Following the National Literacy Strategy requirements Developing children’s awareness of print Ensuring that literacy learning is enjoyable for children and teachers Setting targets for children to achieve each term Assessment techniques to monitor children’s literacy progress Planning literacy opportunities through play

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

111

25.

Literacy learning and the National Literacy Strategy: Do you agree that children in Reception Classes should be taught the Literacy Hour as defined by the NLS? Yes

Please give brief reasons for your response:

Working with parents 26.

There are many ways that Reception class teachers may work with parents. Please tick the column that best describes your views on working with parents. Indicate whether you think each area is: 4 = vital

3 = important

2 = not important

1 = don’t know

Please tick one box that best describes your views about each statement

1 1

Teachers should meet parents to inform them of children’s progress

Teachers should ask parents for information about their child

Teachers should discuss children’s progress with parents

Teachers should recognise that parents are the child’s first educators

Parents should make appointments to meet with teachers

Parents should be able to meet with teachers as and when there is a need

Parents should be welcome in the classroom to work with children

Parents should be welcome in the classroom to teach children

Parents should be welcome in the classroom to play with children

Parents should be welcomed in the classroom to work with the teacher

Teachers work from the basis that parents are the child’s first educator

27.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please tick the appropriate box. Teachers are the specialists in understanding young children’s learning

Agree

Teachers are the specialists in understanding each child’s development

Agree

Disagree

Communicating across providers and services 28.

There are many different ways in which providers’ work together to support Reception class practices. How often do you currently communicate with the other professionals who are involved in the Foundation Stage?

112

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

4 = daily

3 = weekly

2 = termly

1 = not usually

Please tick ONE box for each statement

1 1

Have face-to-face meetings with other professionals

Have written communication with other professionals

Share child records / profiles with other professionals

Actually work together in the Pre-school playgroup

Actually work together in the Reception classrooms

Actually work together in the Year 1 classrooms

Share policies for transition between settings/phases

Share policies for supporting Reception Class practices

Make links to discuss Special Needs children

Participate in combined training events

Make opportunities to share policies across the EYDCP

Share resources with other professionals

Other â&#x20AC;&#x201C; please specify

Thank you very much for your help with this questionnaire. If there are any other comments you want to make about Reception class practices, please write them in the box below.

If you wish to talk with anyone about your responses, please contact Virginia Taylor on 01245 493131 x3502. We look forward to receiving your completed Questionnaire by 18th September, 2002.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

113

A PPENDI X C

QUESTI ONNAIRE TO RECEPTION CL ASS

TE ACHERS

In Praise of the Reception Year A research project funded by The Association of Teachers and Lecturers The introduction of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (CGFS) has the potential to affect the quality of education for young children in Reception Classes across England. There are also inevitably many differences in the way that providers work together to support Reception Class practices. This Questionnaire asks you about YOUR experiences and understanding of the quality of early years provision. It is being sent to a sample of head teachers, governors, classroom support staff, EYDCP trainers and local authority personnel working together to create quality services for young children and their families. It will take approximately 20-25 minutes to complete. From the analysis of this questionnaire it is planned to generate a smaller sample of those involved in the Foundation Stage. Through telephone interviewing we hope to deepen understanding of the educational experiences currently provided for young children. Please note, all information will be treated in the strictest confidence. We will not identify individuals within the research and will use your name to contact you only if you agree to further involvement. If you agree to be contacted about further involvement in the research, please tick here It would be helpful if you could please complete this box so that we know the geographical source of your response: Your name School details: Name Address Postcode Telephone no. No. of children on roll

No. of teachers in school

Please return the completed forms via the pre-paid, addressed envelopes to: Virginia Taylor, School of Education, Rivermead Campus, Bishop Hall Lane, Chelmsford CM1 1SQ by 18th September, 2002. Thank you for taking part in this research. We are grateful for all information you can give us about yourself and your important role. To start with it would be helpful to find out a little about you as an individual.

114

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

(Please ignore all the very small numbers near to your responses â&#x20AC;&#x201C; they are there to enable us to code the responses for analysis. Most of the time you just tick a box or circle your response.)

Personal and professional information 1.

How many years have you been a teacher? 0-2

11-15

Over 15

3-6

7-10

11-15

Over 15

Male

What is your age? 18-20 41-45

Are youâ&#x20AC;Ś Female

7-10

Were you originally qualified to teach 3-5 year-olds? Yes

3-6

How many years have you been a Reception teacher? 0-2

2a.

21-25 46-50

26-30 Over 51

31-35

36-40

Which of these qualifications do you hold? (Please tick all the boxes that apply to you) 1st Degree BTEC A level/s Other

Masters

STA GCSE/0 levels

QTS NNEB PLA

Please specify

Curriculum guidance (cgfs) and the foundation stage How do YOU feel about the introduction by the DfES/QCA of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (CGFS)? Please show whether you agree or disagree with the following statements by ticking the appropriate box

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

115

I have welcomed the introduction of the Foundation Stage as a separate phase

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

I have welcomed the introduction of the Curriculum Guidance for the FS

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

I feel the quality of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s learning experiences has been raised by having the Foundation Stage

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

I find the Stepping Stones (within CGFS) helpful in thinking about planning

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

10.

I find the Stepping Stones (within CGFS) helpful in thinking about assessment

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

11.

116

3 = agree somewhat

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

2 = disagree

1 = not relevant

Please tick in one column for each item

1 1

It has changed the way teachers actually teach

It has changed the way in which teachers work with parents

It has changed teachers’ understanding of children’s educational needs

It has changed teachers’ priorities for children’s learning

It has changed the way in which teachers interact with children

It has changed the way in which teachers work with their colleagues in school

It has changed the way in which teachers and Governors work together

It requires that teachers make more provision for outdoor play

It requires that teachers make less provision for outdoor play

It requires that teachers provide more indoor play

It requires that teachers provide less indoor play

It has changed the teaching of Language and Literacy

It has changed the teaching of Numeracy

It has changed the way teachers plan for learning

It has changed the way teachers plan for teaching

12.

Working with the CGFS will support work with parents Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

13.

Working with the CGFS offers a better professional status to reception teachers

Agree

Disagree

Please give brief reasons for your response:

Provision of resources 14.

Look at the following list of resources. Within each section, select just ONE item which you feel YOU MUST have in the Reception classroom. (Please remember to tick only ONE box in each section.) SECTION 1 Sand tray Large wooden construction blocks Large climbing frame Pencils/writing resources

SECTION 4 1

Outdoor play equipment Woodwork tools Home area/dressing up Clay

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

117

SECTION 2 Large wheeled toys e.g. bikes Small construction kits e.g. Lego Water tray Computer/ICT equipment

SECTION 5 5

SECTION 3 Toys for sorting, counting Finding out area Free access to outdoors 15.

Games e.g. matching games Television Theme area e.g. shop, bus Musical instruments

SECTION 6 9

Puppets Books/text resources Paints and brushes

Which is the ONE item you think you MUST have above anything else for teaching reception age children. Give brief reasons for your selection of this ONE item: (It may or may not be something from the list in Question 14) The ONE resource I need most is because:

16.

NOWâ&#x20AC;¦ Please look at the list of resources again. Within each section, select just ONE resource which you do NOT need for reception age children. (Please remember to tick only ONE box in each section.) SECTION 1 Sand tray Large wooden construction blocks Large climbing frame Pencils/writing resources

SECTION 4 1

SECTION 2 Large wheeled toys e.g. bikes Small construction kits e.g. Lego Water tray Computer/ICT equipment

118

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Outdoor play equipment Woodwork tools Home area/dressing up Clay

SECTION 5 5

Games e.g. matching games Television Theme area e.g. shop, bus Musical instruments

SECTION 3

SECTION 6 9

Toys for sorting, counting

Finding out area

Free access to outdoors

Table top toys e.g. farm, playpeople 17.

Puppets

Books/text resources

Paints and brushes

Jigsaws

Which is the ONE resource you think you do NOT need for reception age children? Give brief reasons for your selection of this ONE item: (It may or may not be something from the list in Question 16.) I do NOT need because:

Use of time 18.

There are many things that use a great deal of time in Reception Classes. In your view, have there been any changes in your use of time as a result of the introduction of CGFS? (Please remember to tick only ONE box in each line.) I now need MORE time

I now need LESS time

My use of time has NOT changed 1

Time to talk with children

Time to play with children

Time to teach children

Time to make observations of children

Time to discuss children’s progress with parents

Time to discuss children’s progress with children

Time to discuss children’s progress with colleagues

Time to provide children with free choice of activities

Time to meet with Year 1 colleagues

Time to meet with EYDCP colleagues

Time to meet with governors

Time to meet with Pre-school/Nursery colleagues

Time to reflect on their practice

Time to be involved in continuing professional development

Time to plan learning activities

Time to plan teaching activities

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

119

19.

Please also complete the following two statements about your use of time: I should spend MORE time on because:

I should spend LESS time on because:

Influences on practice and beliefs 20.

There are many influences on teachers’ early years practices and beliefs. Which of the following do you feel has had the greatest influence on you as a Reception Class teacher? Please tick boxes to show the level of influence as follows: 4 = highly influential

3 = influential

2 = little influence

Please tick in one for each column for each item Reggio Emilia High/Scope Te Whariki, New Zealand Scaffolding Schema development Steiner Piaget Susan Isaacs Vygotsky Montessori Local Education Authority Local community Initial teacher education Higher education courses undertaken OfSTED Inspection requirements QCA schemes of work School policies School’s own schemes of work The ethos of the school The influences of the Partnership Your own experiences

120

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

1 = don’t know 4

1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21

21.

Please note any other influences on your practice:

Training needs 22.

From this list of possible TRAINING needs that you may have, which are the SIX of most importance for YOU from the list below? (Please tick only SIX boxes) 1

Painting, drawing, art work

Numeracy

Home area/role play Knowledge and Understanding of the world

Language and Literacy

Clay, sand, messy play activities

Construction and block play

Social and emotional development

Physical development

ICT/computers in early years

Linguistic development

Creative development

Cognitive development

Teaching through play

Classroom organisation

Planning and assessment

Understanding pedagogy

Theories of childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s learning

Interacting with young children

Working with parents

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

121

General child development Working with other professionals Planning and Assessment 23.

Please note any other training needs you feel you have for teaching Reception age children:

Literacy Learning 24.

Many things affect the way you teach literacy skills to Reception age children. Which FOUR things from the following list are most important to you? (Please tick only FOUR boxes) Knowledge and understanding about literacy that children bring from home Encouraging parental involvement in supporting children’s literacy learning Catering for children whose mother tongue is other than English That parents leave the teaching of literacy to schools Using different forms of communication e.g. story telling, shopping lists Learning the skills of reading and writing Learning phonics Learning how to spell Using play activities to promote literacy Knowing the sequence of children’s literacy development Following the National Literacy Strategy requirements Developing children’s awareness of print Ensuring that literacy learning is enjoyable for children and teachers Setting targets for children to achieve each term Assessment techniques to monitor children’s literacy progress Planning literacy opportunities through play

122

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

25.

Literacy learning and the National Literacy Strategy: Do you agree that children in Reception Classes should be taught the Literacy Hour as defined by the NLS? Yes

Please give brief reasons for your response:

Working with parents 26.

There are many ways to work with parents. Please tick the column that best describes your views on working with parents. Indicate whether you think each area is: 4 = vital

3 = important

2 = not important

1 = don’t know

Please tick one box that best describes your views about each statement

1 1

Teachers should meet parents to inform them of children’s progress

Teachers should ask parents for information about their child

Teachers should discuss children’s progress with parents

Teachers should recognise that parents are the child’s first educators

Parents should make appointments to meet with teachers

Parents should be able to meet with teachers as and when there is a need

Parents should be welcome in the classroom to work with children

Parents should be welcome in the classroom to teach children

Parents should be welcome in the classroom to play with children

Parents should be welcomed in the classroom to work with the teacher

Teachers work from the basis that parents are the child’s first educator

27.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statements? Please tick the appropriate box. Teachers are the specialists in understanding young children’s learning

Agree

Teachers are the specialists in understanding each child’s development

Agree

Disagree

Communicating across providers and services 28.

There are many different ways in which providers may work together to support Reception Class practices. How often do you currently communicate with the other professionals who are involved in the Foundation Stage?

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

123

4 = daily

3 = weekly

2 = termly

1 = not usually

Please tick ONE box for each statement

Have face-to-face meetings with other professionals Have written communication with other professionals Share child records/profiles with other professionals Actually work together in the Pre-school playgroup Actually work together in the Reception classrooms Actually work together in the Year 1 classrooms Share policies for transition between settings/phases Share policies for supporting Reception Class practices Make links to discuss Special Needs children Participate in combined training events Make opportunities to share policies across the EYDCP Share resources with other professionals Other â&#x20AC;&#x201C; please specify

Thank you very much for your help with this questionnaire. If there are any other comments you want to make about Reception class practices, please write them in the box below.

If you wish to talk with anyone about your responses, please contact Virginia Taylor on 01245 493131 x3502. We look forward to receiving your completed Questionnaire by 18th September, 2002.

124

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

REF ERENC ES Alexander, E. (2003) An Enquiry into the Initial Training of Early Years Educators. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis: University of Cambridge. Alexander, R., Broadfoot, P. and Phillips, D. (1999) Learning from Comparing: New Directions in comparative educational research: Contexts, classrooms and outcomes. Oxford: Symposium. Anning, A. (1991) The First Years at School: Education 4 to 8. Milton Keynes: Open University Press. Anning, A. (1995) A National Curriculum for the Early Years. Buckingham: Open University Press. Athey, C. (1990) Extending Thought in Young Children. A Parent-Teacher Partnership. London: Paul Chapman. Baker, C. (2001) Foundations of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism (3rd Edition). Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Ball, C. (1994) Start Right: The Importance of Early Learning. London: RSA. Bartholomew, L. and Bruce, T. (1993) Getting to Know You: A guide to record keeping in early childhood education and care. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Bennett, N. and Kell, J. (1989) A Good Start? Four year olds in Infant Schools. Oxford: Basil Blackwell. Bennett, N., Wood, L. and Rogers, S. (1997) Teaching and Learning Through Play. Buckingham: Open University Press. Bernstein, B. (1975) Class and Pedagogies: Visible and Invisible. Paris: Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development. Bertram, T., Pascal, C., Bokhari, S., Gasper, M. and Holtermann, S. (2002) Early Excellence Centre Pilot Programme Second Evaluation Report 2000-2001. DfES Research Report No. 361. Bettelheim, B. (1950) Love is Not Enough. New York: The Free Press. Bilton, H. (2002) Outdoor Play (2nd edition). London: Hodder and Stoughton. Bines, H. and Welton, J. (eds) (1995) Managing Partnership in teacher training and development. London and New York: Routledge. Blenkin G. and Kelly, V. (1998) The Concept of a Developmental Curriculum. In Moyles, J. and Hargreaves, L. (eds.) The Primary Curriculum: Learning from International Perspectives. London: Routledge. Blenkin, G. and Kelly, V. (1994) The National Curriculum and Early Learning: An Evaluation. London: Paul Chapman.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

125

Blenkin, G. and Kelly, V. (1996) Early Childhood Education: A Developmental Curriculum. London: Paul Chapman. Blenkin, G. and Kelly, V. (eds.) (1992) Assessment in Early Childhood Education. London: Paul Chapman. Board of Education (1933) The Primary School: Infant and Nursery Education. (The Hadow Report). London: HMSO. Borg, W. and Gall, M. (1983) Educational Research: An Introduction. (4th edition) New York: Longman. Bowman, B., Donovan, M. and Burns, M. (eds) (2001) Eager to Learn: Educating our Pre-Schoolers. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Brooker, L. (2002) Starting school: Young children learning cultures. Buckingham: Open University Press. Browne, A. (1998) Provision for Reading for Four Year Old Children. Reading. April, 9-13. Bruce, T. (1991) Time to Play in Early Childhood Education. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Bruner, J. (1996) The Culture of Education. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press. Bruner, J. (1980) Under Five in Britain, London: McIntyre. Central Advisory Council for Education (1967) Children and their Primary Schools: The Plowden Report. London: HMSO. Cleave, S. and Brown S. (1991) Early to School: Four Years Olds in Infant Classes. Slough: NFER/Nelson. Cohen, L., Manion, L. and Morrison, L. (2000) (5th edition) Research Methods in Education. London: Routledge/Falmer. Comenius, J. (1956) The School of Infancy. Boston: Heath and Co. Cox, T. (1996) The National Curriculum and the Early Years: Challenges and Opportunities. Lewes: Falmer Press. Cummins, J. (2000) Language, Power and Pedagogy: Bilingual Children in the Cross fire. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. and Pence, A. (1999) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care: Postmodern Perspectives. London: Falmer Press. Davis, R., Golby, M., Kernig, W. and Tamburrini, J. (eds) (1986) The Infant School: Past, Present and Future. London, Institute of Education: Bedford Way Papers v.27.

126

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Denzin, N. and Lincoln, Y. (eds.) (1994) Handbook of Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DES (1985) The Curriculum from 5-16. London: HMSO. DES (1990) Starting with Quality: The Report of the Committee of Inquiry into the Quality of the Educational Experience Offered to 3 and 4 year olds. (The Rumbold Report). London: HMSO. Dewey, J. (1906) The School and the Child. London: Blackie. DfEE (1997) Early Years Development Partnerships and Plans: Guidance 1998-9. DfEE (1998) The National Literacy Strategy. London: DfEE. DfEE (1999) The National Numeracy Strategy. London: DfEE. DfEE (2000) Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerhips: Planning Guidance 2000-2001. London: DfES. DfEE/QCA (1999) Early Learning Goals. London: QCA. DfEE/QCA (2000) Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage. London: DfES/QCA. DfES (2001) Early Years Development and Childcare Partnerships: Implementation Planning Guidance 2002-2003. London: DfES. DfES (2002) Early Years Development and Childcare Partnership Handbook. London: DfES. DfES/DWP (2003) Sure Start - Children’s Centres: Developing Integrated Services for Young Children and Their Families. Start Up Guidance. London: DfES/DWP. Dowling, M. (1995) Starting School at Four. London: Paul Chapman. Drummond, M.J. (1993) Assessing Children’s Learning. London: David Fulton. Drummond, M.J. (1995a) In School at Four: Hampshire’s earlier admissions programme. Hampshire: Hampshire County Council Education Department. Drummond, M.J. (1995b) Hertfordshire Nursery Evaluation Project: new places. Cambridge: Cambridge Institute of Education. Drummond, M.J. (1998) Children Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow, In: Richards, C. and Taylor, P. (eds) How Shall We School Our Children? primary education and its future. London: Falmer Press. Drummond, M.J. (1999) Comparisons in Early Years Education: History, Fact and Fiction. Warwick: CREPE Occasional Paper. University of Warwick. Drummond, M.J., Rouse, D. and Pugh. G. (1989) Working with Children: Developing a Curriculum for the Early Years. Nottingham: NES with the National Children’s Bureau.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

127

Early Childhood Education Form (ECEF) (1998) Quality in Diversity. London: National Childrenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Bureau. Early Years Curriculum Group (EYCG) (2002) Onwards and Upwards: Building on the Foundation Stage. Oxford: Early Years Curriculum Group. Edwards, C., Gandini, L. and Forman, G. (1998 2nd edn) The Hundred Languages of Children: The Reggio Emilia Approach â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Advanced Reflections. NJ: Ablex Publishing. Elkind, D. (1988) The Hurried Child: Growing up too fast, too soon. Reading, Mass: Addison Wesley. Elliot, E. and Dweck, C. (1988) Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 54(1), 5-12. Ellis, N. (2002) Firm Foundations? A survey of ATL members working in the Foundation Stage. London: Association of Teachers and Lecturers Fabian, H. (2002) Children starting school: A guide to successful transitions and transfers for teachers and assistants. London: David Fulton. Fisher, J. (2002) (2nd edition) Starting from the Child. Buckingham: Open University Press. Fitzgerald, R., Finch, S., Blake, M., Perry, J. and Bell, A. (2002) Fifth Survey of Parents of Three and Four Year Old Children and Their Use of Early Years Services. London: DfES Research Report Brief No: 351. Fullan, M. and Hargreaves, A. (1992) Teacher Development and Educational Change. London: Falmer. Gardner, H. (1993) The Unschooled Mind: How Children Learn and How Schools should Teach. London: Fontana. Gardner, H. (1999) Intelligence Reframed. New York: Basic Books. Geddis, A., Lynch, M. and Speir, S. (1998) Bridging Theory and Practice: Towards a Professional Scholarship of Pedagogy. Teaching and Teacher Education. 14(1) 95-106. Ghaye, A. and Ghaye, K. (1998) Teaching and Learning through Critical Reflective Practice. London: David Fulton Publishers. Hardman, F., Smith, F., Wall, K. and Mroz, M. (2003). Interactive whole class teaching in literacy and numeracy lessons. A report for The Economic and Social Research Council: University of Newcastle upon Tyne. HMI (1989) The Education of Children Under Five. London: DES.

128

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

House of Commons (2000) Early Years, Volume 1. Report and Proceedings of the Committee and of the Education Sub-Committee relating to the Report. London: HMSO. Huberman, M. and Miles, M. (2002). The Qualitative Researcher’s Companion. London: Sage Publications. Hurst, V. (1992) The Implications of the National Curriculum for Nursery Education. In Blenkin, G. and Kelly, A. The National Curriculum and Early Learning: An Evaluation. London: Paul Chapman. Hurst, V. and Joseph, J. (1998) Supporting Early Learning. Buckingham: Open University Press. Isaacs, S. (1930) Intellectual Growth in Young Children. London: Routledge. Isaacs, S. (1932) The Children We Teach. London: University of London Press. Jenkinson, S. (2001) The Genius of Play. Stroud: Hawthorn Press. Jensen, M., Foster, E. and Eddy, M. (1997) Locating a Space Where Teachers can Locate their Voices and Develop their Pedagogical Awareness. Teaching and Teacher Education. 13(8), 863-75. Johns, C. and Freshwater, D. (1998) Transforming Nursing Through Reflective Practice. Oxford: Blackwell Science. Jowett, S. and Sylva, K. (1986) Does Kind of Pre-School Matter? Educational Research. 28(1), 21-31. Kagan, D. (1990) Ways of Evaluating Teacher Cognition: Inferences Concerning the Goldilocks Principle. Review of Educational Research. 60(3), 419-469. Katz, L. (1995) Talks with Teachers of Young Children, Norwood, N.J: Ablex. Katz, L. and Chard, S. (1989) Engaging Children’s Minds: The Project Approach. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. King, R. (1978) All Things Bright and Beautiful? London: John Wiley. Kliebard, H. (1995) The Struggle for the American Curriculum 1893-1958. New York: Routledge. Kroath, F. (1989) How do Teachers Change their Practical Theories? Cambridge Journal of Education. 19(1), 59-69. Kvale, S. (1996) Interviews: An Introduction to Qualitative Research Interviewing. London: Sage Publications. Maykut, P. and Morehouse, R. (1994) Beginning Qualitative Research: A Philosophic and Practical Guide. London: Falmer Press.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

129

McIntyre, D. (1993) Theory, Theorising and Reflection in Initial Teacher Education. In Calderhead, J. and Gates, P. (eds.) Conceptualising Reflection in Teacher Development. London: Falmer Press. Meadows, S. and Cashdan, A. (1988) Helping Young Children Learn. London: David Fulton. Montessori, M., Oswald, P. and Schultz-Benesch, G. (1997) Basic ideas of Montessori’s educational theory. Oxford: Clio. Moss, P. and Petrie, P. (2002) From Children’s Services to Children’s Spaces. London: RoutledgeFalmer. Moyles, J. (1989) Just Playing? The Role and Status of Play in Early Childhood Education. Buckingham: Open University Press. Moyles, J. (ed) (1994) The Excellence of Play. Buckingham: Open University Press. Moyles, J. and Adams, S. (2001) StEPs: Statements of Entitlement to Play – A framework for playful teaching in the early years. Buckingham: Open University Press. Moyles, J. and Suschitzky, W. (1997) Jills of All Trades? Classroom Assistants in KS1. London: ATL. Moyles, J., Hargreaves, L., Merry, R., Paterson, A., and Esarte-Sarries, V. (2003) Interactive Teaching in the Primary School: Digging Deeper into Meanings. Buckingham: Open University/McGraw Hill. Moyles, J., Musgrove, A. and Adams, S. (2002) SPEEL – Study of Pedagogical Effectiveness in Early Learning. London: DfES Report No: 363. Mroz, M.A., Hardman, F. and Smith, F. (2000) The discourse of the literacy hour. Cambridge Journal of Education, 30(3), 379-390 NCSS (Adopted by NCSS Board of Directors, (1976 revised 1999) Prepared by the Curriculum Guidelines for Multicultural Education. USA: Task Force on Ethnic Studies Curriculum Guidelines. Neill, S. (2003) Assessment in the Foundation Stage. Coventry: University of Warwick/London: National Union of Teachers. New Zealand: Ministry of Education (1996) Te Whariki Early Childhood Curriculum. Wellington NZ: Learning Media Ltd. Nutbrown, C. (1994) Threads of Thinking: Young Children Learning and the Role of Early Education. London: Paul Chapman. Nutbrown, C. (1999) Threads of Thinking (2nd edition). London: Paul Chapman.

130

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Office for Standards in Education (OfSTED) (1993) First class: The Standards and Quality of Education in Reception Classes. London: HMSO. Oldfield, L. (2001) Free to Learn: Introducing Steiner Waldorf Early Childhood Education. Stroud: Hawthorn Press. Oppenheim, A. (1992) Questionnaire Design, Interviewing and Attitude Measurement. London and New York: Pinter Publishers. Pestalozzi, J. (1912) Pestalozzi’s Educational Writings. London : Edward Arnold. Pollard, A. and Filer, A. (1999) Social World of Pupil Career: Strategic Biographies through Primary School. London: Cassell. Powney, J. and Watts, M. (1987) Interviewing in Educational Research. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Pugh, G. (ed) (2001) (3rd edition) Contemporary Issues in the Early Years. London: Paul Chapman with Coram Family. Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) (2001) Planning for Learning in the Foundation Stage. London: QCA/DfEE. Quick, S., Lambley, C., Newcome, E. and Aubrey, C. (2002) Implementing the Foundation Stage in Reception Classes. London: DfES Research Report 350. Schön, D. (1983) The Reflective Practitioner: How Professionals Think in Action. New York: Basic Books. Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority (1997) Looking at Children’s Learning: Desirable outcomes for children’s learning on entering compulsory education. London: SCAA. Sharp, C. and Hutchinson, D. (1997) How do season of birth and length of schooling affect children’s attainment at KS1: A question revised. Slough: NFER. Sheahan, A. (ed.) (2003) Teachers Understanding Literacy Improvement in Primary Schools. Cambridge: Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge. Siraj-Blatchford, I. (ed.) (1998) A Curriculum Handbook for Early Childhood Educators. Stoke on Trent: Trentham Books. Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K. Muttock, S., Gilden, R. and Bell, D. (2002) Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years. London: DfES, Report No: 356. Slick, S. (1997) The changing roles of student teacher supervisors. Education. 117(4), 506-510. Spodek, B. (1988) The Implicit Theories of Early Childhood Teachers. Early Child Development and Care. (38), 13-32.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

131

Stenhouse, L. (1975) An Introduction to Curriculum Research and Development. London: Heinemann. Stoll, L. and Fink, D. (1996) Changing Our Schoools: linking school effectiveness and school improvement. Buckingham: Open University Press. Sugrue, C. (1997) Complexities of Teaching: Child-Centred Perspectives. London: Falmer Press. Sylva, K., Roy, C. and Painter, M. (1980) Childwatching at Playgroup and Nursery School. London: Grant McIntyre. Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford., Taggart, B. and Elliot, K. (2003) EEP: Findings from the Pre-School Period – Summary. http://k1.ioe.ac.uk/cdl/eppe/pdfs/eppe_brief2503.pdf (accessed 27.06.03) Sylva, K. and Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2003) Effective Provision of Pre-School Education. DfES funded Project - Summary of Findings http://k1.ioe.ac.uk/cdl/eppe/pdfs/eppe_brief2503.pdf (accessed 27.06.03) Taylor Nelson Sofres (with Aubrey, C.) (2002) The Implementation of the Foundation Stage in Reception Classes. Richmond: Taylor Nelson Sofres/London: DfES. Tizard, B., Blatchford, P., Burke, J., Farguhar, C. and Plewis, I. (1988) Young Children at School in the Inner City. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Tobin, J., Wu, D. and Davidson, D. (1989) PreSchool in Three Cultures. New Haven: Yale University Press. Van Manen, M. (1977) Linking ways of knowing with ways of being practical. Curriculum Inquiry. 6(3), 205-228. Whalley, M. (1994) Learning to be Strong. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Whitehead, M. (1999) Supporting Language and Literacy Development in the Early Years. Buckingham: Open University Press. Wood, E. (1999) The Impact of the National Curriculum on Play in Reception Classes. Educational Research. 41(1), 11-22. Wood, L. and Attfield, J. (1996) Play, Learning and the Early Childhood Curriculum. London: Paul Chapman. Worthington, A. and Carruthers, E. (2003) Children’s Mathematics: making marks, making meaning. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.

132

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

Websites DfES Statistics website: Statistics of Education: Provision for children under five years of age in England, January 2002 http://access.adobe.com/perl/convertPDF.pl?url=http://www.dfes.gov.uk/statistics/DB/SBU/ b0364/b08_02v3.pdf

The Association of Teachers and Lecturers exists to promote the cause of education in the UK and elsewhere, to protect and improve the status of teachers, lecturers and non-teaching professionals directly involved in the delivery of education and to further the legitimate professional interests of all members. For a free copy of the Association of Teachers and Lecturersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; publications catalogue, please call the ATL publications despatch line on 0845 4500 009. To receive the text of this book in large font, please contact ATL on 020 7930 6441 or write to ATL, 7 Northumberland Street, London WC2N 5RD. ÂŠ Association of Teachers and Lecturers 2004. All rights reserved. Information in this book may be reproduced or quoted with proper acknowledgment to the Association.

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS

133

Association of Teachers and Lecturers 2004 ATL members

FREE

Non–members

£12.99

ATL product code

PR18

ISBN

1902466330

ASSOCIATION OF TEACHERS AND LECTURERS 7 NORTHUMBERLAND STREET LONDON WC2N 5RD Tel 020 7930 6441 Fax 020 7930 1359 E-mail info@atl.org.uk Web www.askatl.org.uk Publications despatch line: 0845 4500 009