Developmentally Appropriate Practice and a National Literacy Strategy

This article was downloaded by: [Heriot-Watt University]On: 08 October 2014, At: 12:10Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: MortimerHouse, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

British Journal of Educational StudiesPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbje20

Developmentally Appropriate Practice and a NationalLiteracy StrategyRos Fisher aa Rolle School of Education , University of PlymouthPublished online: 02 Jul 2010.

To cite this article: Ros Fisher (2000) Developmentally Appropriate Practice and a National Literacy Strategy, BritishJournal of Educational Studies, 48:1, 58-69, DOI: 10.1111/1467-8527.00133

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.00133

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the “Content”) containedin the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose ofthe Content. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content should not be reliedupon and should be independently verified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shallnot be liable for any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and otherliabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to orarising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematicreproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in anyform to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rbje20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1111/1467-8527.00133

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8527.00133

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

DEVELOPMENTALLY APPROPRIATE PRACTICEAND A NATIONAL LITERACY STRATEGY

by ROS FISHER, Rolle School of Education, University of Plymouth

ABSTRACT: This paper questions the introduction of national teach-ing strategy for all ages from five to eleven. It is proposed that the lackof developmentally appropriate practice in the early teaching of literacyis inappropriate and may be counter-productive to the long term goalsof high literacy standards.

Keywords: literacy teaching, standards, primary education

Debates about the best way to raise literacy standards are not new.Whilst there is general agreement that there is a need for high lev-els of literacy, there is no consensus about the best way to achievethis, or even what this really means. This debate is particularly acutewhen focused on the early years of education. Early childhood edu-cation in the UK, based upon learning through experience and play,used to be admired throughout the education world (Kelly, 1994).This was, however, at a time of economic growth and full employ-ment. The decades of the 1980s and 1990s have seen economicrecession and competition for jobs. Now education is increasinglyseen as the means of improving a country’s economic prospects.There is, however, a dichotomy between the relationship between lit-eracy and prosperity at a general level and the means of achievingthis.

One important area of this ongoing debate is the best age atwhich children should start to be taught to read and write. Views onthis are influenced by people’s beliefs about how children learn.Research that has revealed emerging literacy skills in very youngchildren has challenged the views of those who have argued thatyoung children are not sufficiently mature to learn the complexitiesof literacy. However, this evidence of children’s developing under-standing of literacy has, in some ways, exacerbated the problem ofascertaining the best way to achieve high standards of literacy. Sincevoters may not wait several years to see results, policy makers needimmediate evidence of progress.

Blackwell Publishers Ltd. and SCSE 2000

58

BRITISH JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL STUDIES, ISSN 0007–1005VOL. 48, NO. 1, MARCH 2000, PP 58–69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Achieving short term gains in literacy standards, however, may notresult in the long term goal of a literate adult population. Indeed,there is concern that some means of achieving high literacy stan-dards at the early stages may be detrimental to other aspects of chil-dren’s development. Unfortunately, the particular needs of theyoungest members of society can be overlooked in the search foradult competence, ‘childhood is marginalised (or excluded) in asociety in which adulthood is thought of as being of paramountimportance’(Qvortrup, 1994, p. 21). Teachers are finding it moreand more difficult to defend activities that do not have an immedi-ate recordable learning outcome. Play and other opportunities forchildren to explore in their own ways their developing understand-ings of the world do not yield immediate and observable gains,although their benefit in the long term are acknowledged (Blenkin,1994). There is an increasing need for education to show clear linksbetween the process of education and the product. This has givenrise to challenges to those views of early childhood education whichacknowledge the importance of play and exploration in learning.Thus, alongside the need to raise literacy standards there is anunderlying suspicion of early years practice which can be seen not tobe contributing immediately to literacy development. This hasseverely threatened the ideals of early childhood education onceheld in such high esteem.

Alongside these views of how children learn are the needs of theyoung child as a human being in a new social setting. Nall (1993)explains that,

Contemporary society and the education profession are grap-pling with an assortment of purposes. These purposes range fromsocialising young children, facilitating the development of thewhole child, reducing the poverty and illiteracy rate, readiness forfirst grade and teaching the basics. (p. 26)

Wells (1987) has shown how classrooms do not always provide thebest environments for learning where the needs of the curriculumand the teacher’s agenda can stifle the child’s disposition to learn.Fisher (1997) in a case study of teachers teaching reading to chil-dren in their first year of school showed how these teachers tookaccount not only of cognitive concerns but also the social and affec-tive needs of the young child. Decisions made by these teachers wereinfluenced by the need to teach reading but also by concern for chil-dren’s confidence, sense of security and social development. Clearlythere is a dilemma for the early years teacher. On the one hand theopinion of society as evidenced by policy makers and parents puts

NATIONAL LITERACY STRATEGY


59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

pressure on those working with young children to want to demon-strate progress in literacy from the beginning. On the other hand,the early years practitioner knows the value of play, of children’s ownexploration of concepts and of the personal and social needs of theyoung child.

In response to this dilemma the International ReadingAssociation (IRA) and the National Association for the Education ofthe Young Child (NAEYC) in the USA have recently brought out ajoint position paper entitled: Learning to Read and Write:Developmentally appropriate practices for young children. This followedexamination of the accumulated evidence and extensive debateamong international experts in the field, both through conferencesand electronic communication. The position statement recognisesthe need for high literacy standards but acknowledges an increaseddiversity among children starting school. It acknowledges the per-sistence of a maturationist view of young children’s developmentamong some early childhood teachers which resists any attempt atformal intervention with young children; but also expresses concernthat recognition of emergent literacy has resulted in some cases ininappropriate teaching practices more suited to older children. Thepaper argues firmly for developmentally appropriate practice forchildren in the early years of schooling (that is up to eight years ofage) (IRA/NAEYC, 1998).

This view is supported to some extent by the Agreed Framework forEarly Learning developed by the Quality in Diversity Project based atGoldsmiths College, London. This proposes a developmentallyappropriate model of practice for children in the age ranges 0–3, 3–5and 5–8. It emphasises the particular needs of the young child: theimportance of relationships and self concept; the need for activelearning which builds on what children have already achieved; andthe importance of children building up their own understandingsthrough active processes such as play and experience of the world.

The consensus arrived at in the IRA/NAEYC position paperasserts the complex and multifaceted nature of the reading processwhich requires a wide variety of instructional approaches. It empha-sises the importance of learning and teaching being an interactiveprocess with the child as an active participant encouraged to con-struct their own understandings. There is no support for a matura-tionist view which proposes a notion of ‘readiness’ to read and writebut reinforces emergent literacy and literacy goals which are chal-lenging but achievable. There is however strong argument for devel-opmentally appropriate practice. The paper asserts that develop-mentally appropriate literacy activities:



60

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

teach children a great deal about writing and reading but often inways that do not look much like traditional elementary schoolinstruction. Capitalising on the active and social nature of chil-dren’s learning, early instruction must provide rich demonstra-tions, interactions, and models of literacy in the course ofactivities that make sense to young children. … In classroomsbuilt around a wide variety of print activities, and in talking, read-ing, writing, playing, and listening to one another, children willwant to read and write and feel capable they can do so.(IRA/NAEYC, p. 204)

One important feature of this paper is the way it presents a contin-uum that is divided into five phases, one for each of the years fromfour to eight. This is similar to the continuum put forward in FirstSteps, a reading and writing programme widely used in Australia.These stages are also reflected in the three age ranges proposed bythe Agreed Framework for Early Learning described above. Theseviews of literacy learning recognise that children in any given classwill function at a variety of phases along the continuum and the writ-ers stress,

Estimating where each child is developmentally and building onthat base, a key feature of all good teaching [my italics], is particularlyimportant for the kindergarten teacher. Instruction will need tobe adapted to account for children’s differences. (IRA/NAEYC,p. 203)

In contrast to this view there has been increasing concern in the UKabout recent government policy that has reduced the definition ofearly years from the internationally recognised 0–8 years to 0–5 yearsand enforced a more and more formal education programme onyoung children. Blenkin (1994) maintained that the NationalCurriculum is at odds with the empirical evidence about early learn-ing and notes how there is now an international consensus, based onresearch, for a developmentally appropriate curriculum for youngchildren. This consensus is not reflected in the current NationalLiteracy Strategy in England and Wales. Whereas the NationalCurriculum laid down what should be taught the National LiteracyStrategy (NLS) also lays down how children from age four to elevenshould be taught.

The National Literacy Strategy introduced in England in 1998,contrary to the views expressed above, requires that teachers adhereto a strict formula for teaching literacy. All children from age four toeleven should be taught a ‘literacy hour’ each day. This hour should



61

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

follow a prescribed format of fifteen minutes whole class teaching onwhole text objectives; fifteen minutes whole class teaching on word orsentence level objectives; twenty minutes in which most childrenshould work independently on set tasks while the teacher undertakesguided reading or writing with a small group; and, finally, ten min-utes whole class plenary. This format is to be followed in all classes.Even where extra guidance was produced for teachers of four-year-olds the emphasis is on preparation for the literacy hour rather thanencouraging developmentally appropriate practice. ‘Teachers shouldplan to introduce a full literacy hour as soon as possible and, at thevery latest, by the end of the term before children move into Year 1’(i.e. five years of age) (DfEE, 1998, p. 103). This despite the recog-nition of early years educators that, ‘the younger children are themore vital it is that they are offered a curriculum which responds totheir developmental needs’ (Hurst, 1997, p. 14).

Beard (1999) in a review of the research and inspection evidenceunderpinning the NLS, argues strongly for the importance of theStrategy in the reception class. He emphasises the ‘window of oppor-tunity’ in the child’s first year of school in which children make mostprogress. The importance of the child’s first year at school has beenwidely reported, but it is important to look at the context of theresearch cited: the age of the children referred to and the type ofcurriculum recommended. Crévola and Hill (1998) argue that theearly years of schooling are of importance for making a differencein helping children with difficulties (my italics). However, it should berecognised that they refer to children of a preparatory year (age5–6) and year 1 (6–7) in which children in year 1 (6–7) made thegreatest progress. An often cited, early study which identified thefirst year of school as being important (Pedersen et al., 1978) isfocused on a first grade teacher whose pupils over many yearsachieved considerable and lasting success in educational attain-ment. As a teacher from the USA the children in her class wouldhave been six to seven years old and her attributes seem to havebeen her ability to raise children’s confidence in their abilities andthe amount of time ‘after hours’ she put into helping individuals.

Beard (1999) examines the appropriateness of the content of theNLS for young children, including the importance of oral language,reading stories to children, the importance of phonological under-standing and the development of orthography. He does not, howev-er, address the format of the hour itself nor the organisational strate-gies recommended. Focused and appropriate intervention is notdevelopmentally inappropriate; what could be seen to be develop-mentally inappropriate is the ‘one size fits all’ (Wragg, 1998)



62

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

approach. Whilst acknowledging that concerns about inappropriateprovision are valid, Beard cites Tizard et al. (1988) in a study of 33schools who found that children made relatively more progress inliteracy learning between beginning school and the end of thereception year than they did in the other infant years. This is aninteresting finding when we consider the type of education thatthose children were receiving at the time of the research. Tizarddescribes how similar the infant classes studied were to nursery class-es:

They would have many of the same play activities – water play,sand play, creative activities with paint and modelling materials,and so on. They would be laid out in a similar fashion to the nurs-ery … just as in the nursery children would be engaged in differ-ent activities from each other, rather than all working on the sametask or even the same subject area. The teacher would constantlybe moving around the classroom, helping and guiding each childwith their particular work, and only very rarely standing at thefront of the class and teaching the group as a whole. (p. 34)

Riley (1996) also stresses the progress that is made by children in thereception class. However, her findings also show that children whowere judged to be unsettled at school made significantly lessprogress than would have been expected from their attainment onstarting school. Riley comments, ‘it should be recognised that achild’s maturity may affect his or her ability to concentrate and topersist at a task’ (p. 69). She recommends that teachers shouldmatch their teaching closely to the child and take into account thechild’s stage of development.

Although early childhood educators internationally share a largemeasure of agreement about the importance of developmentallyappropriate practice, it is not only policy makers in the UK whoappear to accept a view of appropriate and effective literacy teach-ing being seen as a homogeneous concept rather than developmen-tally appropriate. This view is reflected by two major studies pro-duced in England recently. Medwell et al. (1998), in a study of effec-tive teachers of literacy, make next to no mention of developmen-tally appropriate practice. Apart from comment that there were dif-ferent practices in the different age phases, there is no considera-tion of whether effective teachers of literacy in the early years mightbe different from teachers of children aged over seven. Similarly,Wragg et al. (1998) in a large scale study of teachers of literacy alsotake the whole of the primary years, from four to eleven, as theirfocus. Here again there is mention of teachers adopting different



63

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

approaches and content for the different age phases but the con-clusions drawn relate more to overall strategies for the four to elevenage range.

In contrast to this, research and theory in early years educationshows clearly the importance of developmentally appropriate prac-tice. Pugh (1996), in a policy statement for the National Children’sBureau, argues that the youngest children in school in the UK oftenreceive an inappropriate curriculum due to the perceived demandsof the National Curriculum. She argues that children develop in dif-ferent ways reflecting their different personal circumstances andthat all aspects of their development are interwoven (emotional,intellectual, social, moral and physical).

This position reflects views of early childhood education widelyaccepted by researchers and practitioners world-wide. Blenkin et al.(1996), writing about the initial findings of the large scale study,Principles into Practice: Improving the Quality of Children’s EarlyLearning, express the concern felt by many practitioners inter-viewed that a high quality early-years curriculum should be develop-mentally based. They found that early years practitioners in thisstudy believed there should be a ‘greater emphasis on how childrenlearn instead of what they learn’ (quoted in Blenkin et al., 1996, p.12). They state:

this evidence shows that early years practitioners believe that thedevelopment of self-confident, motivated and well adjusted younglearners requires a curriculum that provides them with the mostsuitable learning environment. (p. 17)

This does not imply a rejection of teacher intervention or the fos-tering of emergent literacy. Kostelnik (1998) examined the misun-derstandings that can arise from ideas of a developmentally appro-priate curriculum. She argues that teaching is important and thatteachers who implement a developmentally appropriate curriculumeffectively ‘utilise a broad repertoire of instructional techniques’ (p.20). She argues against people who say there should be no ‘acade-mics’ in a developmentally appropriate programme and proposesthat people who claim this adopt a narrow definition of literacylearning as being a series of subskills. ‘They confuse concepts withmethods and ignore how reading, writing and number relatedbehaviours and understandings emerge in young children’s lives.’She argues:

Thus there is no specific time when academic learning is appro-priate or inappropriate. These evaluative labels are better applied



64

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

to the parameters within which academics are defined and thestrategies teachers use to address academic learning. (p. 21)

She goes on to argue that ‘congruent with this conceptualisation isthe recognition that no one instructional strategy is best for everylearning situation’ (p. 24), and that there is no one set of rules andprocedures that can be applied as developmentally appropriatepractice. ‘It involves considering every practice within the context inwhich it is occurring and making a judgement about what is hap-pening to a particular child in a particular place in a particular time’(p. 24). Indeed, Pugh (1996) argues that the adoption of formalapproaches too early in a child’s education does not arise from highexpectations of children’s learning potential. She asserts that thereis too often a lack of cognitive challenge, a mismatch between teach-ers’ low expectations and children’s capacities, and an over-empha-sis on formal and sedentary tasks (Pugh, 1996, p. 2).

There are aspects of the NLS that are to be welcomed. The impor-tance afforded to literacy and the focus on a large scale in-servicetraining for teachers with some increased funding has been wel-comed by many teachers (Fisher and Lewis, 1999). The principlesunderpinning the strategy are in many ways laudatory. The formatof the hour supports inclusion and encourages teachers to havehigh expectations of all pupils so that those who might in the pasthave been excluded from sharing high quality text with their peersare now able to contribute orally to discussions. This reflects theprinciples of an instruction strategy based on dependence, interde-pendence and independence where teacher scaffolding is an impor-tant part of the hour but with a short section allocated to individualwork where children can explore literacy independently. The basicstructure of the hour provides elements that enable teachers tomanage a large class effectively, drawing on fundamental principlesof learning such as scaffolding and modelling.

However, although a small section in the NLS document refers togood teaching being ‘discursive, interactive, well-paced, confidentand ambitious’ (p. 8), the main thrust of the document and theextensive training that runs alongside implementation focuses onthe structure and content of a literacy hour that is to be taught to allchildren from four to eleven. This provides an inflexible model forteachers to work with: it does not acknowledge that the needs ofchildren may be different or that the teacher may want to adapt herteaching to the needs of her class.

Not only is it not possible to prescribe a pedagogy that fits chil-dren as vastly different in experience and development as four-year-



65

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

olds and eleven-year-olds, but evidence is emerging that it couldactually be detrimental to the very goals it sets out to achieve. Sharp(1995) looked at the relationship between children’s date of birthand length of time in school with test results at age seven. Theyshowed that children who started formal schooling near to theirfourth birthday did not do as well as children of the same age whohad been at school for less time.

Purves and Elley (1994), in an examination of the results of theInternational Association for Educational Achievement (IEA) cross-national survey of reading achievement, point out that the threecountries where children begin formal instruction at the age of fiveshowed very large gaps in achievement between boys and girls. It isargued that boys, at least, may be too immature to begin formalinstruction at age five. Although results from the UK were notincluded in this survey, there is widespread concern about theincreasing gap between achievement in literacy of boys and girls. Areport by the Qualifications and Assessment Authority (1998) con-firms this deficit in the literacy achievement of boys as evidenced bynational test figures.

In addition to concern about the relationship between boys’achievement in literacy and the age of beginning formal schoolingthere is also concern about the appropriateness of a curriculum-ledprogramme for the youngest children. Barrett (1989) notes thatalienation and disaffection from school can now be seen in the earlyyears and David et al. (1992) point to the evidence in the USA whichwarns of children ‘burning out’ by ‘too early formalisation.’

It seems that policy makers need to look closely at policies thattake all children from four to eleven and demand that they shouldbe treated in the same way. This rejects what we have learned fromresearch and practice over the years about how children develop aslearners. It is not that much of what is in the National LiteracyStrategy is wrong, it is rather that one model for all ages and all con-texts militates against the teacher being able to use her professionaljudgement to adapt and develop the curriculum in a way that isappropriate to her class. Moreover, the prescriptive nature of thehour and the pressure of time in the school day can result in the fur-ther reduction of time for young children to learn in a variety ofappropriate ways.

A letter from a teacher in a recent edition of a widely read maga-zine for teachers took issue with advice that time in the literacy hourcould be found for browsing through books, role play and a placefor children to explore writing (Fisher, 1998). The teacher arguedstrongly that there was no time for this in the literacy hour, ‘Surely



66

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

the overriding motivation of the literacy hour was to provide quali-ty, structured, direct teaching of literacy … teaching a child to writeneatly with finger spaces, putting in place phonic strategies andlearning basic spellings by heart is vital’ (Mullen, 1999, p. 12). Whilethis teacher also argues for play and browsing through books atother times in the day, she clearly sees this hour as a specific time forone form of learning. The wording of her opinion also implies thatthis time within the hour has higher status than that outside thehour when there would be time for ‘flicking through books andchatting about the pictures’. This seems to exemplify the way inwhich teachers, under pressure to ensure children achieve measur-able results quickly, begin to devalue and maybe ultimately rejectother modes of learning that are as, or even, more developmentallyappropriate for the children in their class.

The greatest danger in the implementation of the NLS ariseswhen teachers, feeling deskilled by a plethora of initiatives toimprove their teaching, follow the format of the NLS rather than theprinciples behind the model of teaching. ‘When demands weremade on children’s powers to think, solve problems, to imagine, tocreate, to express themselves and to organise their work, the chil-dren responded actively and with enthusiasm’ (Drummond, 1995).There is no reason why a literacy hour cannot be taught in a respon-sive and imaginative way that acknowledges developmentally appro-priate practices and provides a manageable way of dealing with largeclass sizes which was not available through an individualisedapproach.

Developmentally appropriate practice does not limit what chil-dren learn by adopting a maturationist view of development.However, it does recognise that children develop literacy behaviouras well as other behaviours along a continuum and that differentstages of development require different approaches. This does notmean returning to a Piagetian model which limits each stage to par-ticular behaviours, but one that allows the experienced professionalto exert professional judgement in her choice of teaching strategies.

REFERENCES

BARRETT, G. (1989) Disaffection for School? The Early Years (London, Falmer Press).BEARD, R. (1999) National Literacy Strategy: Review of Research and Inspection Evidence

(London, Department for Education and Employment).BLENKIN, G.M. (1994) Early learning and a developmentally appropriate curricu-

lum: some lessons from research. In G.M. BLENKIN and A.V. KELLY (eds) TheNational Curriculum and Early Learning (London, Paul Chapman).

BLENKIN, G.M., ROSE, J. and YUE, N.Y.L. (1996) Government policies and early



67

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

education: perspectives from practitioners, European Early Childhood EducationResearch Journal, 4 (2), 5-19.

CRÉVOLA, C.A. and HILL, P.W. (1998) Evaluation of a whole-school approach toprevention and intervention in Early Literacy, Journal of Education for StudentsPlaced at Risk, 3 (2), 133-157.

DAVID, T., CURTIS, A. and SIRAJ-BLATCHFORD, I. (1992) Effective Teaching in theEarly Years: Fostering Children’s Learning in Nurseries and in Infant Classrooms (Stokeon Trent, Trentham Books).

DfEE (1998) National Literacy Strategy Framework (London, Department forEducation and Employment).

DRUMMOND, M.J. (1995) In School at Four: Hampshire’s earlier admissions programme.Final Evaluation Report (University of Cambridge Institute of Education).

FISHER, R. (1997) Building bridges in early literacy, International Journal of EarlyYears Development, 5 (3), 189-198.

FISHER, R. (1998) Reading helpline, Child Education (September 1998).FISHER, R. and LEWIS, M. (1999) Anticipation or trepidation: teachers’ views on

the literacy hour, Reading, 33 (1), 29-34.HURST, V. (1997) Planning for Early Learning 2nd edition (London, Paul Chapman

Publishing).INTERNATIONAL READING ASSOCIATION and NATIONAL ASSOCIATION

FOR THE EDUCATION OF YOUNG CHILDREN (1998) Learning to read andwrite: developmentally appropriate practices for young children, The ReadingTeacher, 52 (2), 193-214.

KELLY, A.V. (1994) Beyond the rhetoric and the discourse. In G. BLENKIN andA.V. KELLY (eds) The National Curriculum and Early Learning (London, PaulChapman).

KOSTELNIK, M.J. (1998) Misconstructing developmentally appropriate practice,Early Years, 18 (2), 19-26.

MEDWELL, J., WRAY, D., POULSON, L. and FOX, R. (1998) Effective Teachers ofLiteracy. A Report of a research project commissioned by the Teacher Training Agency(Exeter, University of Exeter).

MULLEN, A. (1999) Feedback, Child Education (February 1999, p. 12).NALL, S. (1993) Historical and sociological perspectives of the contemporary

kindergarten in the USA, International Journal of Early Years Education, 1 (3), 23-28.PEDERSEN, E., FAUCHER, T.A. and EATON, W.W. (1978) A new perspective on

the effects of first-grade teachers on children’s subsequent adult status, HarvardEducational Review, 48 (1), 1-31.

PUGH, G. (1996) Four year olds in school: What is appropriate provision? Childfactsfor the National Children’s Bureau (Winter, 1996).

PURVES, A.C. and ELLEY, W.B. (1994) The role of the home and student differ-ences in reading performance. In W.B. ELLEY, The IEA Study of Reading Literacy:Achievement and instruction in thirty two school systems (Oxford, Pergamon).

QUALIFICATIONS AND CURRICULUM AUTHORITY (1998) Can Do Better:Raising Boys Achievement in English (Hayes, QCA Publications).

QVORTRUP, J. (1994) Childhood matters: an introduction. In J. QVORTRUP, M.BARDY, G. SGRITTA and H. WINTERSBERGER (Eds) Childhood Matters(Aldershot, Avebury).

RILEY, J. (1996) The Teaching of Reading: the Development of Literacy in the Early Yearsof School (London, Paul Chapman Publishing).

SHARP, C. (1995) School Entry and the Impact of the Season of Birth on Attainment(Slough, NFER).



68

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

TIZARD, B., BLATCHFORD, P., BURKE, J., FARQUHAR, C. and PLEWIS, I.(1988) Young Children at School in the Inner City (Hove, East Sussex, LawrenceErlbaum Associates).

WELLS, C.G. (1987) The Meaning Makers (London, Hodder and Stoughton).WRAGG, E.C. (1998) Times Educational Supplement (April 3rd).WRAGG, E.C., WRAGG, C.M., HAYNES, G.S. and CHAMBERLIN, R.P. (1998)

Improving Literacy in the Primary School (London, Routledge).

CorrespondenceDr Ros FisherRolle School of EducationUniversity of PlymouthExmouthDevon EX8 2ATEmail: [email protected].



69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Her

iot-

Wat

t Uni

vers

ity]

at 1

2:10

08

Oct

ober

201

4

Documents

Developmentally Appropriate Practice and a National Literacy Strategy