TOO MUCH TOO SOON
  • HOME
    • HISTORY
  • Why it matters
    • THE EVIDENCE >
      • THE FLOURISH MODEL
      • NORDIC v PRESCHOOL
      • RELATED RESEARCH
  • CAMPAIGN GROUPS
    • Get Involved
  • LATEST NEWS
  • Contact

School Readiness

The campaign supporters believe that early childhood should be treated as a vital developmental stage in its own right – not merely as a preparation for school, but uniquely as a preparation for life. Nearly 9 in 10 of the world’s nations currently have a school starting age of 6 or 7 – and hardly any countries have England’s effective starting age of 4. National
 curriculum
 frameworks
 exist
 within
 other European
 countries,
 but
 they
 are
 used
 as
 instruments
 of general
 guidance
 rather
 than
 policy
 instruments
 to
 bring about
 a 
set
 of
 pre‐defined 
standards 
for 
a 
child’s
 entry 
into primary
 school.

"We argue that the provision of a mere ‘curriculum’ is inadequate for children in English primary schools’ Reception, Year 1 & 2 classes.  A more holistic and balanced approach is required for young children in these crucial years of development than a framework of curriculum content, to be ‘transmitted’ in lessons.  A ‘pedagogy’ is required, a broader concept than ‘curriculum’ in that it also encompasses the physical and social environments of young children, placing equal value upon their care, upbringing and learning. 

Such a pedagogy needs to start from the interests, experience and choices of young children within their individual social contexts, and practitioners working within this approach will need to recognise that what a child learns influences how they will develop.  The aims of such a pedagogy will not be so much content-related but process-related; there will need to be an emphasis upon supporting the learning of skills and acquiring dispositions which will be useful to the child in their life-long learning, not just to pass short-term standardised tests....
In summary, what we need to consider is not how to make children ready for school, but how to make schools ready for children."
TACTYC Summary Report by Sue Bingham and Dr David Whitebread 

See the full report  A Critical Review of Perspectives and Evidence, TACTYC Publication - Sue Bingham and David Whitebread, 2012

False Judgements and Expectations are Failing Young Children - TACTYC, Nov 2013
What Age Should Children Start School? - Richard House, Mother Magazine, Oct 2013

See SCM Advisor Lilian Katz's article 'Standards of Experience

See the PACEY Report of School Readiness

See Lillian Katz's Paper STEM in the Early Years, 2010

“While early formal instruction may appear to show good test results at first, in the long term, in follow-up studies,such children have had no advantage. On the contrary, especially in the case of boys, subjection to early formal instruction increases their tendency to distance themselves from the goals of schools, and to drop out of it, either mentally or physically.”

—Lilian G. Katz, Professor Emeritus, U. of Illinois


Collected Papers from the SEED (STEM in Early Education and Development) Conference, 2010

See Moving up the Grades: Relationship between Preschool Model and Later School Success Rebecca A. Marcon, University of North Florida, 2002, 

Discussion Paper on School Readiness, 2012- 
British Association for Early Childhood Education (BAECE)

Michael Gove on School Readiness, Nursery World 2011

UNICEF on School Readiness

UNICEF - Getting Ready for School - A child-to-child approach

Children's School Readiness: Implications for Eliminating Future Disparities in Health and Education.Pagani LS, Fitzpatrick C. Source1Université de Montréal, Montreal, Quebec, Canada

American Academy of Paediatrics on School Readiness 

American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Early Childhood, Adoption, and Dependent Care and Council on School Health.

See the recent Parliamentary debate about Summerborn Children

Read about the Institute of Fiscal Studies Report - urgent policy action needed to help summer-born children
See the September 2013 update from the Institute of Fiscal Studies


See the recent Nursery World article  - Children starting school years behind expected developmental level

Children taught to read at seven still learn at same pace as a four year old/ University of Warwick Report, Medical Press, 2011

School Starting Ages (calculated from http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.AGES)

Age 7 start: 44 countries
Age 6 start: 133 countries
Age 5 start: 24 countries

"What we can say is that a later start does not appear to hold back children’s progress (although it is important not to forget the important contribution made by children’s experiences at home and in preschool). Certainly, there would appear to be no compelling educational rationale for a statutory school age of five or for the practice of admitting four-year-olds to school reception classes." CAROLINE SHARP, School Starting Age: European Policy and Recent Research, 2002 See the full report

In early childhood settings 'readiness' normally means developmental readiness i.e. that the child’s natural physical, neurological, social and emotional development is sufficiently developed to cope with the task in hand, with adequate challenge, but not undue stress. What we are increasingly hearing in government policy, however, are the two phrases ‘readiness to learn’ and ‘readiness for school’.

The number of children identified with learning difficulties in England is five times the European average. A fifth of pupils, or 1.6million, have been identified as having special educational needs (SEN). They represent 19.8 per cent of the school population, compared with an EU average of 4 per cent, according to an analysis of European Commission figures from 29 countries. The statistics are revealed in a book from the ARK Schools chain of academies and the CentreForum think-tank which claims youngsters are being routinely over-classified as having SEN.

Young children do not need to be 'prepared' for later learning. They are extraordinary natural learners in their own right. What they need is to be given supportive environments where they can fully develop their own natural skills and capacities.

Young children have multiple intelligences, all of which need to be recognised and nurtured. Focusing on any one or two of these is likely to be at the detriment of others.
Picture
The expressive arts are essential for children and enable them to share their thoughts and experiences in ways that have meaning for them.

Children
 leaving
 the
 Foundation
 Stage
 and
 arriving
 in primary
 school
 are
 being
 measured
 against
 a
 ‘deficit model’ 
- an inappropriate,
 one‐size‐fits‐all 
standard 
of  ‘readiness’
  for
 school. This
 approach
 fuels
 an increasingly 
dominant
 notion 
of
 education 
as 
‘transmission and
 reproduction’,
 and
 of
 early
 childhood
 as
 preparation for
 school
 rather
 than
 for
 life.

Readiness testing has very limited predictive validity and test results are therefore of 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.

Learning
 depends
 on the development of strong neural
 networks
 distributed
 across
 visual,
 auditory
 and kinaesthetic
 brain
 regions. This means
 that
 opportunities
 for multi‐sensory,
 active 
learning,
 for
 repeated 
practice
 and
 for progressively 
increasing 
the
 challenge 
offer
 the 
best
 means for
 development
 and 
the
 acquisition 
of
 expertise. Play
 is 
a central
 vehicle
 for
 such
 learning,
 allowing
 children
 to imitate
 adult
 behaviours,
 practise
 motor
 skills,
 process emotional
events,
 and 
develop
 understandings
 about
 their world. Both 
free
 play
 and 
guided 
play
 are 
linked 
to positive 
social and
 academic
 development.

English frameworks have started to be increasingly based upon externally-set ‘norms’ and ‘standards’, with each child measured against such norms and assessed accordingly. These assess the child according to his or her lack of opportunity, judge the child on the pre-defined norms and make little allowance for age or gender variation in the rate and nature of individual development and learning. The onus is on the child to measure up to those externally- set expectations. In this respect we are asking children to be ‘ready to learn’ what we require of them to fit the system, and this does not necessarily mean that this is right for the child or developmentally appropriate. In fact there is increasing evidence to show that such early pressures are damaging to later performance and wellbeing.

There is a real danger that by pressurising children to achieve outcomes that are developmentally inappropriate they may learn the necessary skills, but at the loss of the disposition to carry on doing them. In other words it erodes the joy and fulfilment of the natural process.

See the Institute of Fiscal Studies publication - When you are born matters for academic outcomes: urgent policy action needed to help summer-born children 

See the Ofsted Report on the Education of Six Year Olds in England, Denmark and Finland, July 2003

See more evidence on the SCM Early Years Education Group site 
We have tried to ensure that all the information on this site is as accurate as possible. Please let us know if you spot any errors.

A Save Childhood Movement Initiative
www.savechildhood.net

  • HOME
    • HISTORY
  • Why it matters
    • THE EVIDENCE >
      • THE FLOURISH MODEL
      • NORDIC v PRESCHOOL
      • RELATED RESEARCH
  • CAMPAIGN GROUPS
    • Get Involved
  • LATEST NEWS
  • Contact