Learning the wrong lessons in early childhood

In Britain, the Government policy of formalising education at a much earlier age than in many other countries is a cause of growing concern among early years education specialists - a concern which was not allayed by a recommendation regarding the school starting age in a recent review of the primary curriculum commissioned by the Government. John Wadsworth, a lecturer in early years education at Goldsmiths, University of London, who set up a Downing Street petition calling on the Prime Minister “to reject unconditionally Recommendation 14 of the Primary Curriculum Review which proposes the lowering of school admission age”, explains the issues at stake.

LONDON (NNA) - On 30 April the UK secretary of state responsible for children, families and schools wrote to Sir Jim Rose, chair of the Independent Review of the Primary Curriculum, informing him that he would be accepting his recommendation that children should start school in the September following their fourth birthday.

This decision is surprising as Rose’s remit did not extend to commenting on the early years phase of education but also because there is very limited evidence to support his expressed view that this change would be advantageous to summer born children. However, there is much more at stake here than whether or not the perceived disadvantage faced by summer born pupils will be addressed by starting them in school earlier than is currently the case.

Britain currently has one of the lowest starting school ages in Western Europe with children being statutorily required to be in school from the term following their fifth birthday. In reality the majority beginning their formal education earlier than this, usually a term, or in some cases a year before they are required to.

Before they reach statutory school age, children in Britain currently have a number of options available to them. They can remain at home with their parent or carer or may be catered for in one of an increasing number of education and care settings where the curriculum framework is, theoretically at least, in tune with their all round needs. On the face of it, this may look very similar to the situation in the Nordic countries where high quality education and care is widely available, but there are some fundamental differences.

Unlike their European counterparts, under–fives in Britain are be exposed to formal learning, including reading, writing and early number work with defined goals which are to be attained by most by the age of five. By contrast children elsewhere in Europe experience a much higher focus on exploration, speaking and listening as well as developing interpersonal relationships. By the time they start school at six, the children are well placed developmentally to begin the more formal aspects of learning. While there may be other contributory factors, in general pupils in countries where formal education starts later achieve better at reading and writing than their counterparts in the UK.

Rose’s recommendation fails to recognise that it is the quality of the early educational experience of young children that counts. Elsewhere in Europe children aged up to six are educated in settings where the staff are well qualified, have generally high levels of control over the curriculum and how it is ‘delivered’. While staff working with the under-sixes in the Nordic countries have high levels of qualification (usually to degree level) the qualifications and pay of staff working with the under-fives in the UK are generally low, with the exception of local authority maintained nursery schools and classes which are staffed by teachers.

What Rose is proposing involves placing four year old children in schools and too frequently the experience is far from positive. These young children, instead of being able to experience high quality pre-school education that is in tune with their developmental needs will be placed in more formal situations where they will have little, if any control over the style and content of their learning. In terms of learning to read, write and do arithmetic, earlier does not necessarily equate to best!

By introducing these young children to formal education too early the Government is in danger of damaging the confidence and motivation of these children and teaching them the lesson that learning is not a positive experience. In addition, removing the four-year-olds from pre-school settings will deny the younger children access to the older peers who have a vital part to play in their learning and development.

Early years practitioners in England need to stand up for the rights of young children and lobby the Government to reject this aspect of Rose’s review. One way of doing this would be to join the petition at http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/startingschool.

END/nna/cva

The deadline for signing up to the petition is 30 October 2009.

Item: 090713-01EN Date: 13 July 2009

Copyright 2009 News Network Anthroposophy Limited. All rights reserved. See: http://www.nna-news.org/copyright/

More NNA reports at: www.nna-news.org/en/