When any group in central government turns their attention to a particular phase or field of education, it creates mixed feelings of joy and despair - that there might be an increase in funding, or that it may be manipulated for short-term political gains.
Of course, it is quite right that governments should focus on the early years. Any society will benefit from paying attention to young children and to finding ways of helping them to stay safe, to be healthy and to achieve well, so that they make a strong contribution as they grow. Any developed society would also take special care of its most vulnerable members and there is also a wealth of compelling evidence from neuroscience to support the idea of a critical period of learning in the very earliest years (Blakemore 2000).
Under Labour
Since coming to power, this Government seems to have worked hard to extend services for young children and to create policies to support them and their families. Every Child Matters, the Ten-Year Childcare Strategy (2004) and the subsequent Childcare Act (2006) have set in place Sure Start, children's centres and the Children's Workforce Development Council. The Birth to Three Matters Framework (2002) was a significant response to a need for guidance for those taking responsibility for babies and very young children. Indeed, Government websites make compelling reading, gathering up parents, childcare workers, local authorities and trainers in their extensive and expensive journey towards 'driving up standards' in every section of care and education.
But there is always a price to pay for such close attention from Government agencies. Along with the crusade to drive up standards comes the discourse that we are becoming used to in public service. The language is, for example, 'targets', 'standards', 'accountability' and 'evidence'. The model for early years practice now is simply that of 'plan, monitor, assess'.
While no doubt there is a need for agencies responsible for children to attend to their safety and well-being and to be accountable, this way of redefining approaches to childcare and early education may not be the answer.
Inspiration for new policy initiatives does not always come from research or local best practice. Both policy makers and practitioners often look overseas for inspiration and support. Indeed, many travel to see alternative practices for themselves, with politicians looking to the United States and practitioners to Europe.
Even with a universal and robust determination to improve 'standards', with world travels for inspiration, with 'respect' agendas, the rebranding of Early Years Professionals and firm control over early years literacy teaching, there seems still to be a lack of a coherent national vision. In this country, we are simply not clear, in any public sense, how we construct childhood and what we expect of children and their educators. In spite of this, there appears to be a political will to invest in early childhood for both social and economic reasons. The recent report by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Starting Strong II (2006) offers a range of international research, including our own Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) study, to support the idea that 'the benefits delivered to societies by high-quality early childhood services are greater than its costs' (OECD 2006:37).
The idea that investing in children and childcare now will not only save money in social care later, but will also contribute to the economic growth and wealth of a nation, is clearly very attractive. However, what is understood by 'high quality' is contentious and may vary according to whose views are sought. If you talk to parents of babies and children about what they want from care and education settings, they will, without exception, ask that their children be kept safe from harm and are happy. A random sample of parents, questioned about their priorities, also said that they wanted their children's carers to be experienced, qualified and dedicated to their childcare jobs and to children. And yet, in the UK, those employed to care for the youngest and most vulnerable in society are frequently the least qualified, least experienced and lowest paid educators.
With both political intentions and investment now committed, how are we supporting childcare and education settings to care for children? What are this nation's priorities for young children?
Who cares?
In primary education, during the past 20 years, curriculum documents have proliferated. Reference in the media and in public documents is frequently made to 'high-achieving schools'. The two curriculum areas that are most valued are literacy and maths, 'core subjects' central to Ofsted inspections and targets. Sadly, these emphases are having a downward pressure on education and care settings for the youngest children. For example, the Review of the Teaching of Early Reading (2006) makes a case for introducing direct instruction in reading, through the use of one specified approach, for children before they are five. More proscription is on the way in the shape of the Early Years Foundation Stage framework, for children from birth to five.
Academic attainment appears to be the single most important factor in national policy terms. Already, in recent advertisements for nursery positions, requirements were for those experienced in 'management', 'planning', 'assessment' and 'curriculum', the most frequently used vocabulary in job descriptions. It is difficult to find anybody advertising for an employee who might be, for example, 'experienced in playing with children'. Indeed, this level of experience seems not to be what is required at all. And yet, from the review of research supporting Birth to Three Matters, three strong conclusions were drawn. These are that babies and young children:
* need loving, responsive, sensitive key people around them who recognise their fascination with and curiosity about what is going on in their world, who cater for their drive to explore through active learning, who provide opportunities to play, make friends and share experiences, and yet allow time for them to be deeply focused alone but near others, as well as ensuring all their health needs are met
* should be respected as people in their own right
* should live in a society which is informed about their development and learning, and which is involved and delighted in their amazing abilities.
(David et al, 2003, 2005).
While it is important that children's environments and experiences are thoughtfully planned, carefully monitored and evaluated, the central business of loving and caring for children seems at times to be taken for granted, or even completely overlooked.
Much attention has been given to the Unicef report claiming that children in the UK suffer from a poorer sense of well-being than children in most other countries. It may be timely now to review how much attention is given to the well-being of the youngest children, how they are being cared for and educated, and to reflect on what society requires of services designed for their purposes.
Being confidently and critically literate and numerate will certainly contribute to children's well-being and developing sense of self worth; reducing or removing child poverty will also have a huge impact. However, being respected and loved as children, rather than as future employees or economic commodities, seems still to be the key to well-being.
Achieving loving, respectful practices is possible through play rather than didactic practices, by players rather than curriculum managers, and is evaluated by the simple evidence of happy, playing and achieving children rather than by crude national benchmarks.
This Government has pledged that by 2010 there will be 3,500 children's centres, one for every community, which is a huge investment. Whatever the underlying economic aims are, what happens inside these or any other centre or setting, who the people are who will be employed and how 'quality' is to be measured, should be high on every discussion agenda. NW Kathy Goouch is a senior lecturer at Canterbury Christ Church University
References
* Blakemore S J (2002) 'More Questions than Answers', in Interplay, summer 2002
* David T, Goouch K, Powell S and Abbott L (2003) Birth to Three Matters Framework: A review of the literature, London: DfES/Surestart
* David T, Goouch K, Powell S (2005) Research Matters in Birth to Three Matters: supporting the framework of effective practice, Buckingham: OUP
* Sylva K, Melhuish G, Sammons P, Siraj-Blatchford I and Taggart B (2004) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project, Technical Paper 12 - The Final Report, London: DfES/Institute of Education, University of London.
* OECD (2006) Starting Strong II, Early Childhood Education and Care, Paris: OECD Publishing