…one of the questions heads and leaders are asked to think about in light of the principles and recommendations of the Rose Report.
We have to consider the Rose Report recommendation that a high-quality phonics programme is “the prime approach to teaching word recognition for the vast majority of children.” This is the basis for the Letters and Sounds programme, although guidance is clear that this is one of the possible approaches, others being commercially produced or home grown programmes.
It would be possible – and maybe a bit cheap – to query line-by-line some of the difficulties that the “new” approach takes or even some of the research that supports it. It’s here, here to stay until the wind changes at least, so the question at the head of this entry remains. What is to be done? What will the changes in EY look like?
The worry is, of course, that EY practitioners face a de-skilling here that says “You know nothing about this, so We are going to tell you.” Could this corner people into “playing teachers,” overloading the day (or session) with adult content? This might mean, as far as I can see it, using a model of pedagogy for the youngest children that is sometimes barely sustainable in Y2: too much adult-directed material, often drawing heavily on published material that may or may not be connected to the children’s own interests. I have already highlighted this in discussing HMI 2610.
It need not be like this. In fact, this really should be a very small part of the day for young children, and taken into account when thinking of an appropriate balance of child-initiated and adult-led activity.
What may (I think it’s contestable, see below) need to change is a view that children “just pick this stuff up.” The new model of reading, the so-called simple view, knocks this on the head, and points the way – perhaps a little unsteadily – towards a need for direct teaching. But I am unsure how many schools, how many teachers, would want to think like that any way. I think it’s contestable because I feel it’s a gross over-simplification to say that EY practitioners have such a poor view of children that they do not understand how young children learn. If anything, the contrary might be argued: that very many EY practitioners know this one thing very well, but what they don’t know is how to articulate that knowledge. What I am less sure of is how the talk of improving outcomes sits with a vision of child as a competent learner, a co-constructor of their world view. There is still some work to do at what we might call a philosophical distance (and by implication, no real time to do it properly, such is the pace of change) around how the first themes of Early Years Foundation Stage marry with this deficit model of education, and a view that children need x or y because the Government has organised it to be so.
Perhaps final word goes to the EYFS FAQs, then:
Will I have to change my practice now that we have EYFS?
No – as long as you have been using Birth to Three Matters and/or the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage effectively, as the EYFS brings these two documents together. You will now be able to see more easily how your work with any group of children fits into the birth to five continuum. What providers will need to do is check that their provision meets all the statutory requirements. The introduction of the EYFS gives all providers and practitioners the chance to review their current provision and to ensure that they are meeting the needs of all the children in their care.
More on this another time, perhaps.
nicktomjoe 