Children in the UK are amongst the lowest age in the world when they start school. This was a decision first made in 1876 on the Factory Act’s recommendation, to stop child labour, resulting in making school compulsory for children aged between five and ten in 1880. In fact, only 22% of the world’s children start school so early and almost all come from former or current commonwealth countries, as the British influence spread. Since that date we have steadily increased the school leaving age, so that more children have a wider range of opportunities to support them into work. This begs the question why has no one looked at the other end, the starting point? Why are our children starting so young, with what is, after all, the legacy of Victorian decision-making based on an emerging need for safeguarding?
Some would argue that the earlier they start, the better; it gives parents more opportunity to work and there may have been some merit in the economic argument in the past, but now that most working parents in England are entitled to 30 hours funded childcare from three years of age, this is somewhat outdated. There is no evidence to support that starting school earlier improves educational outcomes; if it were true the UK would have one of the highest performing education systems in the world. According to the PISA1 results published by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation (OECD) in 2016, we are currently ranked in 15th place for Science, 26th place for Maths and 23rd place for Reading. Of course, there are many other factors at play as to why our children are not doing as well as they could be, but it is clear to see that them being there earlier is not giving them any advantage.
Why does this matter? It matters because we now have a clear understanding of how children develop and learn that we perhaps were not so clear about in the Victorian age, and that the systems, culture, pedagogy and practice that are commonplace in schools do not always support the developmental needs of children nor do they enable their learning. You could argue that the building is not the important factor, but what happens inside and the culture ethos and vision that the school holds around early education, and, indeed, there are examples of good practice.
However, this is not the norm and it is not uncommon to see reception aged children in school sitting for long periods of time on the carpet or at tables doing their ‘work’ and made to complete tasks for which they are not developmentally ready, inhibiting their development and preventing them from learning. The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) is built on the characteristics of effective learning, playing and exploring, active thinking and creating and thinking critically. If you think about it this is how we all learn isn’t it? Think learning to drive, or baking a cake or learning to sail, you learn by doing not by sitting and watching, or by cutting out and labelling pictures.
The increasing pressure schools feel under to improve their results is resulting in a top down approach whereby children are required to sit still, hold pencils and complete a range of, often inappropriate, adult-initiated tasks in order that they are better prepared for Key Stage One. Indeed, the new baseline that is being developed, has conceded that learning in Reception classes needs to be more in line with Key Stage One, because a significant number of children are still not meeting the early learning goals, which are deemed to be the benchmark for school readiness and the national curriculum. No one appears to be asking the question why this is the case, nor are they considering the possibility that it is the Key Stage One curriculum that needs to be brought in line with the EYFS, so that more children can develop at their own pace and succeed.
Of course, many schools do value play-based learning, but they are increasingly torn by the real challenge and pressure to improve results, so they make every effort to get children ready for the demands in Key Stage One in the hope that this will improve results. This is a flawed approach, as we know that, to learn, children need to have their needs met and that means ensuring their physical and developmental needs are met too.