The Need and Effectiveness of Early Years Education in the UK - Term Paper Example

The need and effectiveness of early years education in the UK I. Introduction In England, as in many other countries around the world, the use of newtechnologies into childrens classrooms ‘sometimes appears to have occurred with revolutionary speed; on the other hand, growing from a small strand in the first National Curriculum for children ages 5 to 16 (National Curriculum Council [NCC], 1989), ICT (Information and Communications Technologies) has become an important medium for learning across the curriculum while for the last two years, it also has been a component of the Foundation Stage curriculum (Qualifications and Curriculum Agency [QCA], 2000), which provides a framework for the learning of children ages 3 to 5 in a range of preschool settings, from family child care to nursery schools and integrated centers’ (Brooker, L., 2003, 261). In the above context, and ‘combined with research supporting the developmentally appropriate and constructivist use of computers in early childhood education (Haugland & Wright, 1997; Yelland, 1999)’ the argument of Edwards (2005, 25) holds that ‘children are likely to have had experience with computers even before they attend early childhood educational programs; Positioning the computer as separate from childrens development and learning within the early childhood educational context is arguably akin to denying the role it plays in their sociocultural experiences outside the educational setting, since childhood itself is a historically mediated concept located in specific sociocultural and economic contexts which frame its meaning (Marsh, 2002, p. 133 in Edwards, 2005, 25). On the other hand, according to a research made by Bawden (2006, 1) ‘the government is one of the highest spenders in the world on pre-school education, according to figures published in the official website while the report Education at a Glance 2006, published by the OECD, shows that whereas in most western countries parents have to pay around 20% of the costs of sending their children to nursery, in the UK, 95% of the costs are meet through the public purse; moreover, the UK has steadily increased spending from 4.3% of GDP in 1990 to 5.5% in 1995, and at 6.1% in 2003, the figure is above average; Another issue that has to be noticed is that the bulk of the increase in education spending went on schools. While the average growth in school funding was 33% across the OECD, in the UK, it was 49%. Per capita spending is also higher. Expenditure per primary pupil is $7,376, more than $1,000 per head higher than average’ (Bawden, A., Guardian Unlimited, September 2006, Internet 2). The above figures prove that UK is among the countries with the highest funds available for educational reasons, a fact that can lead to the continuous development of the country’s specific sector in the future. To a similar direction, according to Nind (2002, 77) early years education and special needs education ‘have been the focus of UK government interest in recent years, with a strong emphasis on joined up thinking across professional boundaries in order to plan and provide cohesive and increasingly inclusive programmes of education and care’. The study of Nind ‘considers the potential for joined up thinking and action across the early years and special needs education domains with the argument that there is often neglected common ground between the two, such as the shared need for a holistic perspective, partnership with parents, multidisciplinary collaboration and developmentally appropriate practic’ (Nind, 2002, 77) II. Childhood as an element of the socioeconomic culture – relationship with learning abilities and educational programs Recent contemporary work shows us how biological immaturity is fact of `childhood; innocence is a socially constructed phenomenon (James & Prout, 1990). This image of childhood innocence is ‘powerfully influential in the policy and practices of early childhood education. It is, for example, embedded in much of our advocacy work, particularly in relation to child protection and childrens rights; However, some contemporary writers see this construction of childhood innocence as problematic for early childhood curriculum and pedagogy; On the other hand, the conception of the child as the embryo adult is a very powerful public and professional image. This view of childhood is strongly implicated in early childhood education philosophies, practices, and policies and has been reinforced through the dominance of the frame of child development’ (Woodrow, 1999, 8, 10). The philosophical approach used for the description and the analysis of the child’s position in the educational sector is closely connected with the socioeconomic environment of the particular country. In this context but using a different theoretical approach it has been stated by Cline et al. (2002, 143) that ‘early childhood educators and early interventionists need information on the motor abilities and movement skills of young children whereas practitioners need tools to identify children who may need early intervention in these areas; after children begin receiving interventions aimed at enhancing their abilities to move in their environments, practitioners also need tools to ensure that these interventions are appropriate and effective; The terms movement and motor are sometimes used interchangeably, but they actually refer to different constructs (see, e.g., Burton & Miller, 1998): The term movement commonly refers to the observable behaviors involved in a change in posture or locomotion while the term motor commonly refers to the neuromuscular or other non-observable internal processes or traits assumed to affect movement behaviour’ (Cline et al., 2002, 143). On the other hand, for many people in the world, especially in Western societies, ‘childhood is closely related to play; In the context of preschool education, the importance of play is generally accepted; Although theories of childrens learning have changed throughout history, in most theories, play is viewed as an act of learning or as an object of learning (i.e., play means something by itself and therefore is of value for childrens well-being); Play in preschools has been called "free play" to emphasize that childrens role-play is partly free from the teachers planning and involvement. This view is based on a maturity perspective of child development, where "the natural child" is seen as being nourished by his or her own creativity in play (Bruner, 1996). Maturation is viewed as the basis for childrens learning’ (Samuelsson et al., 2003, 2). From this point of view, Ghafouri et al. (2005, 279) stated that play ‘provides a particularly rich medium in which children explore and develop social literacy because they are free to construct their own social micro-worlds, each with its own boundaries that establish a "we-ness"; But what does it mean for teachers, educators, parents, or anyone who works with and for children? The findings of this study show the importance of the social environment for childrens life in school; For those working with young children, a second implication is to suggest a more relaxed, open approach in teachers who observe children working at the edges of including others in their play whereas educators of young children could understand these episodes as complex forms of social work being acted out by the children’. The use of the above theoretical approaches in order to evaluate the needs of children within the modern educational environment has to take place after a thorough and extended examination of the particular site’s needs as well as the ability of the participants to be adapted to the specific plan. III. Early childhood education – description and characteristics As Hedges (2000, 16) has accepted ‘teaching in early childhood is a complex activity requiring a myriad of knowledge, skills, and capabilities and for this reason programs in early childhood education settings have often been based on a `developmental play curriculum following Piagetian theories of childrens cognition; Normative, sequenced and predictable descriptions of development made application to educational practice easy to identify, interpret, and plan for’. On the other hand, Cullen (1994) states that ‘early childhood programs need to incorporate developmental, cultural, and knowledge dimensions’. So, while research on cognitive perspectives in early childhood education ‘has extended the constructs of social constructivism to make teaching and learning approaches appropriate to development, learning and culture more explicit, the question of content knowledge has yet to be resolved’ (Hedges, 2000, 16) Moreover, the study of Schuster et al. (2001, 109) showed that ‘in many countries, early childhood education has become the first step in the general education system while the level of quality in early childhood education can have long-term effects on a childs attitudes towards further education and educational achievement; To meet the needs and the rights of the child, as well as the demands of society, the content of early childhood education and the pedagogical environment have to be organized in such a way that the surrounding world becomes visible, understandable, and comprehensible, thus creating optimal possibilities for the child to learn and develop; To guarantee quality in early childhood education, methods to evaluate, describe, visualize, and improve various pedagogical processes must be made available’. However, in many cases even if all the necessary measures are applied, the success of an educational system cannot be guaranteed. In fact, each particular educational environment can have certain characteristics which will differentiate it from the others of the same industry. The appropriateness and the effectiveness of the plans designed for educational purposes should be therefore regarded as a difficult target. In the financial area of the educational environment, any potential investment should be used wisely towards the achievement of the most urgent targets. Towards this direction, Gornick et al. (2003, 380) stated that ‘public investments in early childhood education and care (ECEC) have grown substantially during recent decades in most of the industrialized welfare states’. Moreover, the above researchers referred to a study made in the US and which has documented the salutory effects of high quality ECEC on childrens cognitive skills in the short term; a handful of these studies also suggest that these early gains translate into longer-term improvements in education and earnings; but the production of such high quality ECEC is costly and, if provided through private markets, well beyond the purchasing power of low-income families while by equalizing access to developmentally enriching care, public ECEC has the potential to reduce human capital inequalifies between more-and less-advantaged children (Gornick et al., 2003, 380). Although the stages for the evaluation of the use of capital gathered through the investments made in education are many, there is always the possibility for a misuse of the relevant monetary amount which can be translated as an investment failure or as a case of fraud. Moreover, Coplan et al. (1999, 78) tried to ‘explore differences in the social and cognitive development of 4-year-old children in junior kindergarten, taught by groups of differentially educated instructors; indices of social competence and social skills (i.e., solitary play, reticent behaviors, sociodramatic play) and cognitive skills (i.e., vocabulary, storybook knowledge, counting) were assessed for children in classrooms instructed by early childhood educators (with 2-year college degrees in early childhood education) and by teachers (who have obtained a university teaching certificate); results from a series of MANOVAs indicated that children taught by differentially educated teachers did not differ in terms of social and cognitive skills’. It seems from the above findings that the educational level of the teachers does not influence (at least directly) the performance of the pupils in a specific class. Towards this direction, a survey was conducted in a small primary school in Hertfordshire by Drummon. After ‘observing carefully the behaviour of the children and studying the results of the survey’ the author came to the conclusion that ‘in those classrooms where expectations of the children were high, the quality of learning was also high; When the activities made demands on children’s powers to think, to solve problems, to imagine, to create, to build, to express themselves and to organise their work, the children responded actively and with enthusiasm but when the programme required the children to sit and listen for long periods of time, to follow instructions, to produce prescribed outcomes, the children met these expectations, certainly; but opportunities were lost for richer and more rewarding learning (Drummon, 2000, 7). The above study shows that in order for children to increase their level of knowledge they have to be offered the chance to participate actively in a particular educational environment. If they don’t have such an offer, it is very possible that they will remain at a stable and limited level of knowledge. IV. Curriculum in early educational stages – format and development According to an article published in BBC News, ‘the national curriculum in England is to be revised so children are taught to read primarily using the method known as synthetic phonics; Phonics - letter sounds - must happen alongside paying attention to speaking and listening; Phonics focuses on sounds - rather than, for example, having children try to recognise whole words; In the widely-used analytic phonics, words are deconstructed into their beginning and end parts, such as "str-" and "-eet". In pure synthetic phonics, children start by learning the sounds of letters and of letter combinations: "ss-t-rrr-ee-t"; Only once they have learnt all these do they progress to reading books’ (BBC News, March, 2006, Internet 1) It is also noticed by Brooker (2003, 262) that since 1989, ‘the curriculum for children ages 5 to 16 in publicly funded schools (NCC, 1989) has been regulated by the government while a minimal requirement to use computer technology, in the first version of this curriculum, has since expanded to call for computer use across subject disciplines and, in recent years, use of the Internet to access subject knowledge; meanwhile, those working with the youngest children have been engaged in matching new technologies to traditional early childhood goals and principles, ensuring that childrens learning is: Child-initiated and child-centered Exploratory and open-ended Supportive of social interactions Supportive of positive learning dispositions Supportive of equal opportunities for childrens individual needs. (Brooker, 2003, 262). Moreover, Craft (2003, 49) explored creativity as characterised ‘in two significant curriculum landmarks applicable to young children: The first of these was the 1967 Plowden Report, its recommenda- tions and influence, on child-centred approaches to teaching and learning; Although not specifically about creativity, the Plowden Report spawned changes in ways in which pedagogy and learning were conceived of and resourced; Creative pursuits formed an important part of the conceptualising of the curriculum; The second major set of influences examined in this article involves three policy initiatives rooted in the 1990s; the Early Learning Goals for 3 - 5 year olds (2000), the report of the National Advisory Committee on Creative and Cultural Education: ‘All Our Futures’, or the NACCCE report (1999), on the place of creativity in the pre-school and school curriculum - and the National Curriculum, for children aged 5 – 16’. Taking into account the above curriculum schemes, Craft (2003, 49) propose ‘a distinct notion of creativity which belongs to neither of these two eras, but which grows from them. It is a notion of ‘personal effectiveness’, or ‘little c creativity’ as way of concep- tualising creativity representing a ‘third way’ or ‘third wave’ of understanding the meaning and potential of creativity in the early years of education; It involves using imagination, intelligence, self-creation and self-expression, and does not necessarily involve a product-outcome’. With a special reference to the content of curriculum, Alford et al. (1994, 372) state that ‘curriculum, by its very nature and function, is a national issue; because the national public uses the results of curricular processes, public policy issues cannot be avoided or obscured, since the compelling concerns question what is being taught, how well it is being taught and learned and, what should be adopted, adapted, modified, or altogether deleted; It follows therefore, that any approach to curricular design, in particular, creative curriculum, must eschew haphazard, simplistic approaches and, instead, incorporate systematic, developmental planning’. It should be highlighted however that the content of the curriculum in a particular country although based on certain principles that are applied globally, can be varied however in accordance with the ethics and the culture of this specific country. V. The role of teachers in the early educational stages The role of teacher in an educational environment was the main point of the study of Jalongo (2003, 225). More specifically, the above researcher tried to resolve the problem ‘What does it mean to be a "creative" teacher?’ The author stated at a first level that ‘some people mistakenly believe that it means generating better than average lesson plans or visual aids while if an educators effectiveness is determined by her or his ability to develop creative thought and expression in children, however, much more is necessary’. Moreover, the above researcher referred to the study of Fryer in 1996 on 1,028 teachers in the United Kingdom which has helped her arrived at some essential characteristics of creative teaching. The top five ‘included teachers commitment to: * Deepen learners understanding of the world * Believe in the creative ability of all students * Adapt the curriculum to meet childrens individual needs * Encourage empathy in learners * Value creative expression in learners, and teach in ways that facilitate it. These findings suggest that creative teaching involves dispositions as well as pedagogical skills’ (Jalongo, 2003, 225) From the same point of view, Goodfellow (2005, 57) stated that ‘fostering a culture of professional inquiry sits comfortably within the early childhood professional context because of practitioners recognition of the value of reflection and their personal/professional approaches to working with children while in the field of education and care, early childhood practitioner evidence-based research holds considerable promise at a number of levels within and beyond the contexts in which early childhood practitioners work; It also enables practitioners to develop a greater appreciation of their professional practice and provides an increased opportunity to review and challenge the assumptions and values that underpin such practices’. The above assumptions should be criticized however as of their applicability in the terms of a real educational environment that is when coming out of the theoretical evaluation of the specific issue. The premium role of teachers is also supported by Beswick et al. (2005, 128) who found that ‘the first step in preventive early intervention is assessment; In practice, early literacy assessment is largely a context-based, informal process during which teachers observe emergent literacy skills and make judgements about each childs skill and ability, developmental rate, and responsiveness to instruction while these contextual observations are often supported by the use of developmental continua and rubrics in the form of checklists or rating scales’. The application of the above findings in a particular educational site could help increase the participation of children in the curriculum – related activities. However, the above study also revealed that ‘since early literacy assessment is a precursor to preventive early intervention, it has both academic and social consequences for children; thus, we must ensure that teachers are knowledgeable assessment practitioners who are cognizant of these variables, aware of their capacity to influence assessment results, and informed as to their potentially negative impact on the academic and social trajectories of students’ (Beswick et al., 2005, 128). According to a more detailed reference to the teacher’s abilities and credentials, Carney et al. (1997, 175) stated that ‘the teacher must construct (a) an understanding of the childs current abilities, (b) a description of the kind of instruction the child should receive to make progress, and (c) a recommendation regarding the extent and intensity of intervention that is necessary’. The existence of other methods for the delivering of a specific curriculum is also possible. However, a standard theoretical and practical basis could help the teacher to be more proactive when participating in a specific educational environment. On the other hand, Drummon (2000, 3) stated that another difficulty for educators today may reside ‘in the emotional domain as it is possibly—more or less—painful to be expected to tolerate children’s expressions of emotions, such as cruelty, rage, and hatred, which, as adults, and particularly perhaps as early childhood educators, we have long learned to stifle and repress; but the core of the matter is surely that all educators (and I include myself) prefer to focus on those characteristics of children that match our educational aspirations, our aims and ambitions, our pedagogical purposes’. The existence of emotions when teaching – mostly at the first stages of education – should be regarded as unavoidable. However, the use of these emotions creatively could help teacher to enforce the children’s learning abilities and help them to be adapted in their social environment. Conclusion In order to evaluate the success of the methods used in several educational sites, Kerry (2000, 50) observed that the successful teaching methods have certain ingredients: ‘Strong management A well – focused curriculum Good teaching High and sustained expectations of attainment Clear communication with parents Essentially what makes the difference are the clarity, intensity and persistence of the school’s work’ On the other hand, Hargreaves et al. (1998, 2) also supported that the success inside an educational site is depended on the existence of a particular strategy which has usually one of the following elements: ‘a) new and often tightly defined curriculum targets, standards or outcomes that emphasize various kinds of higher order thinking, b) more systematic and pervasive forms of standardized testing alongside more ‘authentic’ portfolio and performance – based kinds of classroom assessment, c) innovative teaching strategies such as cooperative learning, manipulative mathematics and reading recovery, d) the impact and rapid spread of new technologies, especially computers, on classroom practice, and so on’. The above elements of success are not exclusive. This means that there may be a series of other facts or strategies that can lead to the successful delivery of curriculum within an educational site. The most common and fundamental criterion for the existence of such a success has to be the level of children’s performance (from an educational aspect) both in the class involved as well as in the classes that follow. References Alford, A., Anyanechi, M., London, C., Parris, R. (1994). ‘A Critical Perspective of Multiculturality as a Philosophy for Educational Change’ Education, 114(3): 368-379 Beswick, J., Sloat, E., Willms, D. (2005) ‘A Comparative Study of Teacher Ratings of Emergent Literacy Skills and Student Performance on a Standardized Measure’ Education, 126(1): 116-137 Brooker, L. (2003). ‘Integrating New Technologies in UK Classrooms: Lessons for Teachers from Early Years Practitioners’ Childhood Education, 79(5): 261-267 Cline, G., Greenwood C., Kuntz, S., Leitschuh, C., Luze, G. (2002). ‘Developing a General Outcome Measure of Growth in Movement for Infants and Toddlers’ Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 22(3): 143-159 Coplan, R., Lagace, D., Mcvey, M., Rachlis, L., Wichmann, C. (1999). ‘The "Degree" of Instructor Education and Child Outcomes in Junior Kindergarten: A Comparison of Certificated Teachers and Early Childhood Educators’ Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 14(1): 78-91 Craft, A. (2003). ‘Early years education in England and little c creativity: the third wave?’ Journal of thinking and problem solving 13(1): 49-58 Cullen, J. (1994) ‘Why retain a developmental focus in early education’. In E.J. Mellor & K.M. Coombes (eds) Issues in Early Childhood Services: Australian Perspectives. Dubuque, ID: William C. Brown, 53-64 Drummon, M. (2000). ‘Comparisons in Early Years Education: History, Fact and Fiction’ Early Years Education and Practice, 2(1): 1-8 Edwards, S. (2005). ‘The Reasoning Behind the Scene: Why Do Early Childhood Educators Use Computers in Their Classrooms?’ Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(4): 25-38 Ghafouri, F., Wien, C. (2005). ‘"Give Us a Privacy": Play and Social Literacy in Young Children’ Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 19(4): 279-292 Goodfellow, J. (2005) ‘Researching With/for Whom? Stepping in and out of Practitioner Research’ Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 30(4): 48-64 Gornick, J., Meyers, M. (2003). ‘Public or Private Responsibility? Early Childhood Education and Care, Inequality and the Welfare State’ Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 34(3): 379-407 Hargreaves, A., Lieberman, A., Fullan, M., Hopkins, D. (1998) Introduction in A. Hargreaves & A. Lieberman & M. Fullan & D. Hopkins (Eds), International Handbook of educational change (pp 1-7). Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers Hedges, H. (2000). ‘Teaching in Early Childhood: Time to Merge Constructivist Views So Learning through Play Equals Teaching through Play’ Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 25(4): 16-22 Jalongo, M. (2003). ‘The Childs Right to Creative Thought and Expression’ Childhood Education, 79(4): 218-232 Nind, M. (2002). ‘Early childhood education and special needs education: some neglected common ground?’ Westminster Studies in Education, 25(1): 77-90 Samuelsson, I., Sandberg, A. (2003). ‘Preschool Teachers Play Experiences Then and Now’ Early Childhood Research & Practice, 5(1): 1-15 Schuster, K., Sheridan, S. (2001). ‘Evaluation of Pedagogical Quality in Early Childhood Education: A Cross-National Perspective’ Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 16(1): 109-134 Woodrow, C. (1999). ‘Revisiting Images of the Child in Early Childhood Education: Reflections and Considerations’ Australian Journal of Early Childhood, 24(4): 7-13 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4818516.stm [Internet 1] http://education.guardian.co.uk/earlyyears/story/0,,1870677,00.html [Internet 2] Read More