The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

4. ( RQ3) How are decision made about when children should have particular educational experiences?

4.1 To what extent is chronological age involved in ideas about the type of provision offered to children?

As Bertram and Pascal (2002) report defining the age range covered by early years education is challenging. Some countries consider that they offer a curriculum from birth or at least view the first years of life as a stage in the care/education programme e.g. Sweden, Spain. Others reject any notion of curricular guidelines below three years old (although they may support care-orientated provision). At the upper end of the early years continuum the age of starting school defines the end of the early years curriculum, with the exception of those countries such as Wales where a deliberate decision has been taken to continues the early years learning experiences into primary school. The mean age for starting school across 20 countries in Bertram and Pascal's review is six years and world-wide the age at which states provide free, compulsory education is typically six or seven years.

In England four-year olds are usually in reception classes in primary schools, although continuing with the Foundation Stage. In Northern Ireland school starting age is four years and recently the Netherlands has moved to the same starting age. In the case of the Netherlands the new starting age has been implemented as an early intervention measure for disadvantaged children who might not attend if starting school at four remained voluntary. From 2007 Queensland, Australia will offer all five-year olds a full-time non-compulsory preparatory year before primary school begins and will raise the school starting age the following year. The full-time preparatory year will replace the existing part-time provision but will offer a curriculum that is based on play, creative and inquiry-based activities. The change is heralded as giving children a 'head start' and follows a positive evaluation of a pilot programme that concluded that full-time attendance in the preparatory year was more successful than part-time: a success attributed to increased continuity and consistency. It is worth noting here that the EPPE project found that full-day attendance at pre-school did not lead to any developmental advantage compared to part-time attendance although the duration of attendance in months was positively associated with intellectual development in Key Stage 1 (Sylva et al, 2004).

Chronological age is then typically heavily involved in decision-making about when children should move into and out of early years settings, although the precise ages involved may vary between and within countries. Age often determines eligibility to begin participation in early years educational provision (setting the entry date as the third birthday for instance) and the statutory age of compulsory education concludes the period (although as Bertram and Pascal point out children may have voluntary begun school or moved into a school environment a year or so before the statuary school starting age). Yet Sharp (2002) points out that there remains no definitive evidence about the progress of children who started school at different ages. She feels able to conclude that international comparisons suggest that a later start appears not to disadvantage children and there is no compelling educational reason for beginning school at age five.

4.2 To what extent is readiness considered when deciding on the appropriate curriculum for a child?

There is an extensive literature in the USA about readiness for school ( e.g. Ramey & Ramey, 1999; Bowman, 1999; Meisels, 1999). This interest has perhaps been prompted by The Goals 2000: Education America Act which stipulates that all children in America will start school ready to learn. However, as Ackerman and Barnett (2005) point out, although parents, policy-makers, researchers and practitioners all agree that future academic success depends on being ready to learn and able to take part in school education the nature of the definition of readiness depends on who is offering it. Readiness as a concept is much less researched in Europe (where age is more likely to define access to school) but the issues raised by Ackerman and Barnett are pertinent here:

• Regardless of the chronological age specified for starting school across the states some children are considered 'not ready' and enter one year later but there are no consistent results from studies examining the benefits of this retention.
• Readiness testing is common, despite the very limited predictive validity of these tests and therefore their questionable use in decision-making about entry to school.
• Teachers, parents and children have different views of the skills or knowledge that are necessary for readiness.
• Schools need to be 'ready schools' able to support the diverse needs of age eligible children, rather than focusing on the traits of the child.
• Effective early years education can enhance school readiness.
• Readiness can be limited by risk factors such as poverty, parents' educational level, children's health and home environments that are unsafe or in disadvantaged neighbourhoods.

Neuman and Roskos (2005) point to the multi-dimensional cluster of behaviours associated with school readiness and go on to contribute to the debate over the likelihood of early learning standards being able to help develop readiness for school. They found that no two states defined early learning standards and indicators of learning in the same way. Their survey indicated that early learning standards reflect the particular character and constituency of each state, possibly as a result of influence by local early years experts and groups involved in the development of the standards. Neuman and Roskos argue for a shift to fewer and clearer expectations that are explicitly derived from research on early childhood learning. They go on to draw attention to what they describe as an 'empirical fallacy' implicit in the choice of some standards and indicators, pointing out that just because children are capable of something does not mean that is what they should do.

Readiness to begin the kind of educational experiences that children typically receive in early years settings seems to be almost uncontested and constrained only by national eligibility criteria. This absence of concerns about readiness for the early years curriculum may reflect the consensus view that, given a perspective on the curriculum that focuses on developmentally appropriate practice, practitioners can adjust the opportunities and support they offer to meet the needs of learners. Vartuli (1999) found that (regardless of actual practice observed) Head Start and kindergarten teachers were more likely to express a belief in developmentally appropriate practice than teachers working with older children in the first few years of primary education.

It is clear that there must be an expectation of considerable variation in children's developmental profiles as they enter and leave early years settings. A study of children's cognitive development as they start school in Scotland found what they described as 'enormous variations' in the assessment of reading, phonological awareness, maths and vocabulary (Tymms et al, 2005). They also found little relationship between the amount of pre-school experience that children had received and their baseline assessment as they started school; a finding in sharp contrast to evidence from England. While there is much in this study that warrants further investigation it is clear that early years education in Scotland does not result in children beginning school with the kind of homogeneous cognitive development Aubrey (2000) ascribes to the central European approach to preparation for school in the early years settings.

Prais (1997) compared the mathematical ability of children in England and Switzerland and found that although almost a year younger and starting school one year later the Swiss children performed better. Reviewing the evidence from this study the POST report (2000) suggests that one contributory factor may have been that the academic ability in the English reception class was much more variable. They go on to argue that these results and other work on school starting age demonstrate that an early school starting age confers little advantage by nine years old and is less effective in ensuring educational standards than homogeneity in ability which allows the group to progress at a faster and more uniform rate. The POST report concludes that greater effectiveness in ensuring attainment might be achieved by increasing the flexibility of the school starting age and allowing children to remain in an early education setting for another year. An alternative is for children to move to primary school in accordance with established age patterns but to be grouped with others with similar starting points and to experience a highly differentiate curriculum and pedagogy (in the first year at least) that allows for learning opportunities to match children's needs.

« Previous | Contents | Next »