Holistically turning the world on its head

Abstract

I receIved a letter this month, page 11, that highlights a problem in our school admissions system that often gets overlooked, and that adds to the pressure our PvI settings are facing. The letter also goes straight to the heart of a much bigger problem in our education system, and one which I have touched on before, namely its artificial nature. Take some time to look at theories of child development. What do you notice? do you notice that they are divided into four chunks – early, primary, secondary, higher? No. You won’t find those terms or divisions anywhere. They have no relevance to how a child develops. Now turn your attention to theories (or your own experience) of how children learn and think? any sign of the four horsemen? No. again, no relevance. So, what point am I trying to make here? Simple, how we structure our education system does not have any direct bearing or relevance on what our best knowledge tells us of how children grow, learn, play, develop, experience or thrive. They do not do so in chunks. But that is how we teach them, and that is how we separate them, and that forms the basis of every tinkering, tailoring and candlestick making of every policy that tells us how and when and what to teach children. The more you look at it, the more peculiar our education system becomes. Leaving content aside – and I was shocked recently to hear panel members and civil servants talking of teaching ‘knowledge’; really, makes you wonder why all children aren’t high achievers – it is the very nature of these artificial faultlines that cause so much, if not the most (controversial?) trouble in the education experience of our children, and parents, and even schools and settings themselves. When we talk of transitions, we should be talking about transitions of learning – whether styles or experiences – not buildings, key stages and types of education, our system should not be in conflict with itself. We should be talking of learning journeys, not which type of setting a parent feels pressured into putting their child in, scared that they might miss out on a primary school place. We should be talking about the richest experiences we can offer children, not the continued under-funding of the early years sector. Yet there has never been the political will, the financial backing or the collective knowledge in the corridors of power to effect real and lasting change. The Cambridge Review recommended extending the influence of the eYFS into key stage 1. In my opinion, the reception year should replace year 1, it should form a key stage 1 transition for children whose bodies and minds are developing towards a time when they are ready for different challenges. In an ideal world, the walls of the artificial boundaries between key stages would be broken down forever, leaving one continuous learning journey from birth to adulthood and beyond with an education system that supports and complements the development of each unique child. daydreaming perhaps, well, if it’s not broke... see Latest developments (page 10) and Foundation framework (page 20) for the government’s vision of a revised eYFS. Editor Neil Henty MSc