The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

3. ( RQ3) Is early years education a distinct phase in the education system?

Even a cursory reading of international reports and reviews on the educational experiences offered to young children suggests that practitioners, policy makers and parents recognise and respond to the need for a distinct type of learning experience to be offered to children from about 3 years of age until they begin primary school. However, there is less of a consensus about the relationship between this early years curriculum period and the educational and care provision offered before or after it. The status of early years education varies from country to country and sometimes within national boundaries ( e.g. Canada). In some cases it is thought of as part of lifelong learning in a state-funded education system. For instance, in Spain educational provision is conceived around three cycles with birth to three and three to six years being the first two cycles.

Elsewhere it is seen as a special resource for children that proceeds, but is not directly related to, compulsory schooling.

3.1. To what extent is early years education considered to be a distinct phase?

Much of the international variation can be attributed to historic practices, the evolution of early education as part of childcare provision or as an adjunct to schooling as a response to parental demand or government concerns with economic and educational competitiveness. However, despite the variation and the messiness of attempts to make international comparisons about age and stage provision several points are clear (Bertram and Pascal, 2002):

• Discussions about the curriculum before school and writing about desirable early years provision commonly (and without apparent controversy) divide the period and curricula specifications into what is appropriate from birth to three and from three years old until the beginning of compulsory school.
• Most countries do not have centralised guidelines detailing specific educational provision from birth to three and there is general agreement that children younger than three should be receiving care and learning experiences tuned to their wide ranging individual needs and not be subject to a prescriptive agenda. ⁵
• There is widespread agreement that children from three years until about six years old can benefit from educational experiences that foster social and intellectual development and promote positive learning dispositions.
• As they move into primary school education children usually experience some curricular and pedagogical discontinuities although there is international interest in ways of supporting this transition.

Evidence from developmental and cognitive psychology offers some endorsement for the distinctiveness of early years educational provision. By about age three children's development makes them more able to benefit from experiences in group settings and without their main caregivers. There is a move from associative to co-operative play during the early years (Broadhead, 2004) and children grow in self-control and understanding and in their understanding of others (Schaffer, 1999). By age three children begin to be able to count and share out objects suggesting a more differentiated understanding of quantity. Their vocabulary grows rapidly after about 20 months and their grammar grows in sophistication too. When they are about two years old children are beginning to speak but by six years old most children can use the whole sound and grammar system of their first language and understand much of the meaning that that language transmits.

At around age three children begin to refer to their own beliefs or thoughts but not until they are about four years old will they be able to understand that others can have beliefs that differ from theirs, can think or believe things that another knows to be incorrect and that individuals' ideas can change over time. This theory of mind (knowing about knowing and learning) is an important prerequisite for the kind of formal learning that occurs in school ( POST, 2000). Cognitive strategies needed for formal education, such as mnemonic strategies like rehearsal and clustering begin to develop along with metacognition (thinking about learning, knowing what you know) at around four to five years old (Bee, 1989). Importantly, as the POST report concludes, developmental psychology research indicates that children's main sensory, cognitive and linguistic growth is developed through play, exploration, talk and interaction with others and not systematic instruction.

3.2 How does early years education articulate with other phases of learning?

Transition to and from early years education

Compared to the attention given to the transition from early years or pre-school provision to primary school there has been relatively little research and writing on the relationship between the learning and care experiences of children under three and the typical early years phase. Children move to early years educational provision at about three years of age with varying experiences of maternal and non-maternal care and a study in the USA has suggested that these experiences will have an impact on their cognitive and language development ( NICHD, 2000). However, at the point at which children move into early years education or group childcare provision the focus has traditionally been on issues of emotional separation from mother or other main carer rather than identifying and meeting varying developmental needs. Dalli's (2002) work has demonstrated that for children this transition is a complex process of induction into a new setting with its own ways of doing things and with the staff and established children acting as agents of induction. Given Dalli's finding that practitioners can make a difference to the quality of the transition there is scope for further research and development of practice on identifying and meeting children's social, emotional and learning needs and experiences as they move into early years settings.

In the USAtransition from pre-school or early years settings school has become a 'hot' topic (Ramey and Ramey, 1998). Transition to primary school has been the focus of research activity and policy innovation elsewhere too (for example, in Australia, New Zealand, and Europe) and the proliferation of transition programmes is testimony to the widespread concern to ensure that children make a positive start to their school career. Yet, despite the growing body of writing in this field over three decades, Kagen and Neuman (1998) described the transition research field as 'stagnant'. Five years later, reviewing the concerns about transition across five Nordic countries Broström and Wagner (2003) concluded that too many children continue to have transition-related problems that range from mild and short-term to more persistent and negative attitudes towards education.

Considerable attention has been paid to organisational features that may make transition to school easier for young children (for example, Fabian 2002). A series of visits to familiarise the child with the school building (and in some cases with the new classroom and teacher) and induction meetings for parents are well established features of the transition from pre-school to primary in UK settings and elsewhere. In Iceland visits to the primary school by the whole class and their pre-school teacher were reported as the most widely used transition practice and invitations to pre-school children to participate in primary school events was the next most commonly reported familiarisation opportunity (Einarsdóttir, 2003). Reporting on a study in Australia Margetts (2002) noted positive benefits (in terms of social skills and, to a lesser extent, academic competence) associated with participation in transition activities. However, these benefits were based on teacher reports and the impact of visits and other transition events on the child's perspective on the move to school remains an open question. Evidence gathered in a Scottish study by Stephen et al (2003) suggested that visits and meetings were used more as an opportunity for teachers to explain the school's expectations and routines to children and parents than as time for teachers to get to know the new children in their class.

Developing better ways to pass information about individual children between educational sectors is sometimes advocated as an effective way of smoothing the transition process. However, there is scant evidence of the benefits of the considerable efforts to develop new forms of reporting and the priority given by pre-school practitioners to the recording of observations to inform the completion of transition records. Indeed, there is some evidence that, in Scotland at least, primary school teachers prefer to make their own judgements and only turn to pre-school reports when a child presents problems (Stephen et al, 2003; Cassidy, 2005). These findings support the common perception among pre-school practitioners that primary school teachers are not interested in the records passed from pre-school to primary (Wilkinson et al, 1999).

In addition to examining the benefits of transition events and records researchers have examined the impact of children's personal characteristics on the experience of transition. Margetts (2003) looked at the relationships between gender, birth order and language at home on children's adjustment to school while Griebel and Niesel (2003) have considered children's coping strategies. Others have explored the importance of making the transition with friends and of making friends in the new environment ( e.g. Peters, 2003). The influence that children's expectations and understandings of school can have on their experience of transitions has been demonstrated by Dockett and Perry (1999). These studies argue for a relationship between early years educational provision and primary school that recognises individual differences and focuses on identifying and meeting children's needs rather than concentrating on a process of 'fitting in'.

At the end of the early years educational experience transition often means a shift from provision offered by or regulated by one governmental sector to that provided and regulated by another or from private to public provision. In the context of the UK, this may be from a Children's Centre or Family Centre managed by social services to a primary school managed by the local education authority. Some countries have attempted to overcome these structural discontinuities by designing curricula with explicit conceptual links across age groups e.g. the South Australian Curriculum Standards and Accountability Framework (Government of South Australia). The Foundation Stage in England ( QCA, 2000) is designed to cover all the settings which children may experience from the age of three until they begin formal primary education. Although the last year of that stage is often spent in a reception class in a primary school children should continue to learn in ways framed by the Foundation Stage curriculum and the pedagogy associated with it. In Wales revisions are under way to produce a four year (three- seven years) foundation curriculum focused on active learning that will cover the two years before children enter primary school and be continued over the first two years in school, with a gradual transition to more formal education ( ACCAC, 2004).

However, there is evidence that such 'bridging' initiatives are vulnerable to pressures from the different contexts in which they must operate. Keating et al (2002) have charted the tension experienced by reception class teachers who welcome and want to maximise the opportunities to learn through play endorsed by the Foundation Stage but face pressures from head teachers and governors who focus on attainment statistics. Wood and Bennett (2001) found evidence of national and school policy frameworks exerting increasing pressure on teacher's practice and planning as pupils move through the years of primary education. Teachers in reception classes and Year 1 had less flexibility over curriculum content than nursery practitioners. In their earlier study Bennett, Wood and Rogers (1997) found that play in the classroom was constrained by the teachers' perceived need to record evidence of learning and by restrictions arising from space, the school timetable and the expectations of parents and colleagues.

A study commissioned by the DfES (Taylor Nelson Sofres, 2002) found widespread approval in England for the Foundation Stage in reception classes. Nevertheless, two issues indicative of the tensions faced when trying to find structural ways of smoothing transition were identified: there was concern about the mixed messages around the degree of informality that should characterise the child's experience in a reception class and some feeling that the Foundation Stage did not prepare children sufficiently for, or articulate effectively with, the next stage in their educational career, Key Stage 1. The EPPE project found that practitioners were pleased with the emphasis on continuity into primary school that was present in the Foundation Stage curriculum guidance and with the positive influence it was having on reception class practice. But that study also found concerns about transition from nursery or playgroup to reception class and the move to Year 1 of the National Curriculum. In this context it is interesting to note Clark's (2005) criticism of the enduring concern with aspects of transition and her plea for more attention to continuity.

An alternative way of reducing pedagogical or curricular discontinuity is for staff working in different sectors to train or work together. Attempts at joint working have been reported from Norway, Sweden and Finland (Broström and Wagner, 2003). But in each case the dominance of school culture and status influences the outcomes. Johansson (2003) describes how in Sweden school teachers were the dominant influence in teams that were made up of preschool teachers, school teachers and free-time pedagogues. He ascribes this influence to the strong tradition and status of teachers but points out that the leading role of teachers tended to decline when teams worked together for relatively long periods of time and particularly when they had time together for reflection and discussion. Nevertheless, Johansson warns of the 'increasing encroachment of school traditions' in early years provision, particularly when this education is based in schools.

Early years as preparation for later learning

Although rejected by many involved as a preparatory phase alone early education is sometimes thought of implicitly (and in a few countries explicitly) as preparation for school and as preparing children for formal learning and a rapid shift to primary education at age six or seven. Aubrey et al (2000) review the evidence from a television programme that explored features of the early years curriculum in three countries considered to be successful in terms of educational attainment, Hungary, German-speaking Switzerland and Flemish-speaking Belgium. They point out that in each country there was systematic attention in the early years to promoting:

• attention, listening and memory skills needed for an oral learning environment
• co-operative group behaviour
• concepts such as space, quantity, time that underpin mathematical understanding
• phonological awareness necessary for reading and motor skills needed for writing.

Aubrey et al go on to refer to a study looking at attainment in Slovenia (Aubrey et al, 1998) where children had similar experiences in the early years to those in Hungary and did not start primary school until two years later than in England. They point out that when the Slovenian children had been in school for only nine months their attainment in mathematics suggested that there was no apparent benefit from the earlier start on formal education in England. Children in early years settings in England are introduced to some of the organisational aspects of more formal learning such as periods of whole class teaching or circle time (Sylva et al, 2004) and in Scotland can be observed learning to take turns to listen and speak, remain seated for brief periods and put their hand when they wish to speak in a group activity. Nevertheless, the kind of preparation for the learning process that will follow is less explicit in the UK than that described above.

An alternative conception of the relationship between early years education and the years that precede and follow is to think in terms of emergent understanding and the spiral nature of learning, identity and learner career that Pollard (1996) suggests. He argues that the spiral which starts at birth and continues through the early years and formal school captures the recursive nature of learning experiences as they are influenced by new contexts, new forms of instruction, changes in understanding and cognitive structuring and relationships with adults and peers. In Figure 1 below some examples of emergent understanding in the area of literacy are given. In this two-dimensional representation the dynamic spiral (driven by the children's development and the learning experiences they have) from one 'phase' to another is masked. Nevertheless, even this linear representation suggests that the relationship between early years education, learning experiences from birth to three and learning in school can be usefully conceptualised as a dynamic and iterative process.

Figure 1 Aspects of emerging literacy

Viewed in this way what is important for the relationship between learning from birth to three, in the early years and in primary school is an understanding of the way in which knowledge and understanding in one period is revisited and developed in the next. This model encourages curriculum design and pedagogy to respond each child's different pattern of progress from action and sensory orientated exploration, through play and activity based learning to more formal linguistically and cognitively mediated instruction and exploration.

« Previous | Contents | Next »