Understanding Early Years Education across the UK

Comparing practice in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales

Diane Boyd, Nicky Hirst

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2015
• ISBN:
  9781317691839
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Education
• Subtopic: Early Childhood Education

The four nations of the UK each have distinctive policy and curricula in relation to Early Childhood Education and Care (ECEC). This new textbook offers a comprehensive look at early years education in England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, bringing the curriculum frameworks for each country together in one place.

Drawing on the cultural and practical pedagogy of each curriculum, this book aims to develop students' understanding of the development, care, education, health, well-being and upbringing of young children across the UK in a social, pedagogical and policy context.

Divided into two sections, the first examines each country's learning and teaching requirements in detail within a policy context. The book then explores the similarities and differences between the curricula, focusing on key areas such as play, the indoor and outdoor learning environment, the family and assessment. Accessible and engaging, this book will help students to analyse and question practice both in their own country and across all four Home Nations. Features include: case studies to illustrate practice and a frequently asked questions section in each chapter to clarify key points and opportunities for reflection and debate.

Including contributions from expert practitioners in each country, this text is essential reading for all students studying early childhood and will help them to understand the impact of policy on children and families across the UK.

1 A perspective from England

Diane Boyd and Nicky Hirst

Introduction to the English context

This chapter is written by two experienced early years practitioners and offers a review of the English framework with an overview of the principles, themes and areas of learning and development. The English Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (DfE, 2012, 2014) draws on multiple theories and contemporary research and at the heart of the framework, practitioners working with babies and young children from birth to five are regularly reminded of the uniqueness and individuality of each child. The research underpinning the original EYFS (DfES, 2007) was revisited in 2009 with ‘Early Years Learning and Development: Literature Review’ by Evangelou et al. and it was no surprise that the findings focused on the Vygotskian social constructivist account of learning, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological domains and more recent research from neuropsychology where findings around brain development have influenced early years policy and practice. A notable observation by Brock et al. (2013:54) claims that whilst the child is seen to be placed at the centre of the EYFS (DfE, 2012, 2014), the Bronfenbrenner model situates the child as a passive recipient of cultural processes with ‘little power or agency’ that is dominated by the cultural context. It is worth considering Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory where he stated that children are not simply passive recipients and practitioners need to consider the idea of reciprocal determinism (where cognition, environment and behaviour interact). Rogoff critiques the ecological model and ‘argues that the model is still a hierarchical one, with the larger, outer contexts constraining the smaller, inner ones’ (2003, cited in Brock et al., 2013:55). Practitioners draw on various pedagogical theories to inform and support their practice and ‘many draw on a range of theories of learning and development, some based on the work of researchers and thinkers and others based on their own experience of children and childhood’ (Pugh & Duffy, 2013:117). However, this sense of agency also translates to early years practice where practitioners need to consider a ‘critical pedagogy’ where they question and challenge ideologies and practices that exist in early years education and care (MacNaughton, 2005; Brock, 2014). For example, the earlier versions of the English EYFS (DfES, 2007; DCSF, 2008) were considered by many to be a playful pedagogy where the strapline, ‘learning through play’ was a familiar refrain in early years settings; however, this idea of ‘play’ has been challenging for early years practitioners who ‘link their beliefs about the importance of play with the reality of meeting curriculum demands’ (Keating et al., 2002, cited in Brock et al., 2013:89). This is even more pertinent with the revised EYFS (DfE, 2012, 2014) and the Statutory Framework which foregrounds the adult role as promoting teaching and learning ‘to ensure children’s “school readiness” and give children the broad range of knowledge and skills that provide the right foundations for good future progress through school and life’ (DfE, 2014:5). Many within the early years sector have baulked at the repetition of the term ‘school readiness’ and it is sometimes linked to an indication of a top down perspective with pressure on practitioners to develop a more academically grounded programme of activities rather than a play-based pedagogy. ‘Providers must guide the development of children’s capacities with a view to ensuring that children in their care complete the EYFS ready to benefit fully from the opportunities ahead of them’ (DfE, 2014:7). The semantic connotations associated with the ideas of ‘completion’ and ‘readiness’ imply that practitioners must rush children through their learning, advocating the image suggested by Dadds of ‘a hurry along curriculum’ (2002, cited in Ang, 2014:27).

The English early years framework did not materialise out of thin air, rather it is the result of many years of change within the early years sector and some practitioners who have been part of the early years community for a long time have worked with ‘desirable learning outcomes’ (SCAA, 1996a, 1996b), which were introduced as part of the national funding voucher scheme where parents and carers could, in effect, purchase early years education which Palaiologou (2013:14) refers to as ‘the marketization of education’. The Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (QCA and Department for Education and Employment, 2000), with its ‘Stepping Stones’ and the ‘Birth to Three Matters’ (Sure Start, 2003), offered comprehensive guidance for those working with babies and young children from birth to three. As part of the ten-year strategy ‘Choice for Parents, the Best Start for Children’ (HM Treasury, 2004), the 2008 version of the EYFS (DCSF, 2008) was introduced to provide a seamless continuity with statutory guidelines for working with babies and children from birth to five. The statutory nature of the original EYFS was driven by the discourse around quality and uniformity where all settings, including child minders caring for children in their own homes, were required to adhere to the statutory requirements of the curriculum framework. The EYFS originated under the New Labour government and the intention to review the framework was articulated during its inception. Therefore, with the new Coalition government in 2010, Dame Clare Tickell was asked to conduct a review of the curriculum and the results of the research were published in the 2011 document ‘The Early Years: Foundations for Life, Health and Learning’ (Tickell, 2011). Many of the recommendations resulted in familiar discourses, for example the value of parental partnerships alongside some less familiar rhetoric related to the reduction of paperwork and perceptions of bureaucracy. The government responded with the publication of ‘Supporting Families in the Foundation Years’ (DfE, 2011) with a focus on ‘early intervention’, the promotion of children’s development and the now familiar refrain around the concept of ‘school readiness’. Subsequently, the Department for Education (DfE) invited a response to their report with the publication of ‘Conception to Age 2: The Age of Opportunity’ (WAVE Trust, 2013, in collaboration with the DfE – an addendum to the Government’s vision for the Foundation Years). This report was produced by a special interest group supported by officials from the DfE and the Department of Health (DoH) with the remit to explore how best to promote effective implementation of the principles set out in ‘Supporting Families’, with specific emphasis on children under the age of two and their parents and families. The report focuses on the arguments based around early intervention and ‘investment’.

This chapter offers the reader the opportunity to consider the English EYFS and what this may mean for practice. There are references to theory and to alternative perspectives and the reflective questions are designed as a prompt to support a developing understanding of some of the reasons for policy changes; thus, as Baldock et al. (2013:1) suggest, ‘practitioners can do more than just cope’. The authors draw on theory and practice with some examples woven into the discussion and the reader is invited to question some of the contradictions in the way that the framework views the child, for example:

The EYFS refers to each child as a unique individual and Development Matters states that children develop at their own rates, and in their own ways.

(Early Education, 2012:6–46)

However, there is also an expectation that by June of the academic year in which they become 5, all children will reach the early learning goals, despite some being 5 years 10 months and others not yet having reached their fifth birthday. Does this expectation reflect evidence of the actual achievements of children from a wide range of backgrounds and if it does not may the unintended consequence be that some children are viewed as failing before they have even started statutory schooling?

(Pugh & Duffy, 2013:120)

The final report and recommendations of the Cambridge Primary Review in 2009 recommended a consolidation of EYFS and it was suggested that this important phase was extended to age six; however, in a recent keynote speech (2013), Robin Alexander vented his frustrations with the current government responses to questions raised about the English education system:

Those who in March this year (2013), proposed an alternative national curriculum vision were denounced as ‘enemies of promise’ and ‘Marxists hell bent on destroying our schools’; and those who this month raised perfectly legitimate questions about the kind of early years experience that will help children to thrive educationally were accused of ‘bleating bogus pop-psychology’, dumbing down and lowering expectations.

The Early Years Foundation Stage (DfE, 2012, 2014)

In the EYFS (DCSF, 2008:8) it stated that the principles must ‘guide the work of all practitioners’. They were grouped into four ‘distinct’ principles but with complementary themes. The four principles were:

• A Unique Child,

• Positive Relationships,

• Enabling Environments and

• Learning and Development.

The guidance stipulated that the principles should ‘provide a context for the requirements and describe how practitioners should support the development, learning and care of young children’ (DCSF, 2008:9). Additionally, these four principles were broken down into a further 16 underpinning commitments. Practitioners were encouraged to utilise the EYFS Principles into Practice cards to support their everyday practice and as opportunities to reflect and discuss issues in training sessions. The overarching principles of the EYFS in the 2008 version remained in both the 2012 and 2014 versions; however, there was more focus on how young children learn with renewed emphasis on the Characteristics of Effective Learning.

At the time of writing, information from the national charity ‘4 Children’ presented information on the revised EYFS which was launched in September 2014. However, the revisions reflect changes which apply to section 3 on safeguarding and welfare only and there are no changes to the learning and development including the Early Learning Goals.

A Unique Child

In the EYFS (DCSF, 2008:9) for ‘A Unique Child’, it states that ‘every child is a competent learner from birth who can be resilient, capable, confident and self-assured’. It focused on four commitments (child development; inclusion; safety; and health and wellbeing). In the revised versions (DfE, 2014:6) there is a slight adaptation to the language: ‘every child is a unique child who is constantly learning and can be resilient, capable, confident and self-assured.’ Interestingly, there was no mention of the accompanying commitments.

Positive Relationships

The EYFS in 2008 recognised ‘how children learn to be strong and independent from a base of loving and secure relationships with parents and/or key person’ (DCSF, 2008:9) and it focused on four commitments (respect; partnership with parents; supporting learning; and the role of the key person). In the renewed versions there is a defined change within the language to: ‘children learn to be strong and independent through positive relationships’ (DfE, 2014:6). There remained no mention of the role of either the parent or key person in the life of the young child which is a significant point. Additionally, again there was no mention of any accompanying commitments.

Enabling Environments

The EYFS (DCSF, 2008:9) suggested ‘that the environment plays a key role in supporting and extending children’s development and learning’. It focused on four commitments (observation, assessment and planning; support for every child; the learning environment; and the wider context-transitions, continuity and multiagency work). In the renewed versions (DfE, 2014:6) it states that ‘children learn and develop well in...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• About the contributors
• Introduction
• 1 A perspective from England
• 2 The Foundation Stage curriculum in Northern Ireland: an inside practical perspective
• 3 A Scottish perspective: development of a value based curriculum
• 4 The Welsh Foundation Phase
• 5 A conversation between the home nations
• Index