To contact the Open EYE campaign, please write to openeye@btinternet.com or visit www.savechildhood.org

OPEN

EYE

CA

MPA

IGN

THE “OPEN EYE” CONFERENCE

HOLLOWAY RESOURCES CENTRE, LONDON

SATURDAY 16 FEBRUARY 2008

FULL REPORT

Introduction

Margaret Edgington, Early Years Consultant and member of the Open EYE steering group, opened the conference by welcoming everyone and thanking them for their support.

Before introducing the first speaker, Margaret said she wanted to

2

challenge some myths and misrepresntations that had been in some of the media. She made it clear that:

Open EYE members are not 'anti EYFS' and do not want total de-regulation -  we are campaigning about some of the Learning and Development requirements (see our paper setting out our Seven Points of Concern)

Open EYE members do know which bits of EYFS are statutory and which are non-statutory - However, Margaret Quoted from a speech by Beverley Hughes, Minister for Children and Families in Oxford on 22nd November 2007.  She talked about ‘using data both within settings and across the local authority… to drill down and identify when children need extra support to improve their developmental progress’ and about ‘making sure the important principles we’re applying in schools – of personalising learning, monitoring, assessing progress and intervening quickly when a child starts to slip behind – are given active expression in early years settings too.’ This makes it clear that the non-statutory grids will be seen as a representation of normal development and as a tool for tracking progress.

Open EYE is not a small alternative fringe group - it has broad representaion and support across the political spectrum and the maintained, private and voluntary sectors. It belongs to everyone who wants to see change in the direction of English early years policy. 

She then introduced the first speaker, Professor Lilian G. Katz, Professor Emeritus of Early Childhood Education, University of Illinois.

Professor LILIAN G. KATZ, Ph.D. “Current Perspectives on Early Learning: A North American Perspective”

Professor Katz spoke with energy, enthusiasm and erudition, and her sense of humour enlivened the audience while emphasizing the following points:

(1) The “push down” phenomenon, i.e introducing children earlier and earlier to various educational experiences, was confusing a “can do” approach with what should be a “should do” approach to early years education. She emphasized that the long-term influence of this approach (which we might call hot housing) is still relatively unknown.

3

(2) One of her key themes was “dispositions”, and she pointed

out that acquiring early reading skills is not necessarily encouraging a child to have the “disposition” to become a reader. Dispositions are in fact, in her view, “habits of mind” and can not be learnt from plain instructions - hence a “damaged disposition” was not easy to remediate; i.e. a child turned off reading by being forced to read at an early age may later be disillusioned with books.

(3) She emphasized that we must esteem children by consulting with them where possible, and helping them to make choices, and pointing out that we should ask ourselves if the disposition we wanted the child to learn - e.g. kindness - could be seen in us.

(4) She pointed out that academic goals are not necessarily intelligent goals for young children, and that deciding what things are worth a child learning is our responsibility. She illustrated this point by referring to a class in North America where the children were going to “cut, colour & paste” Autumn leaves – a paper exercise; but outside it was “Fall” and they were surrounded by the trees, flowers etc. Thus the academic goal of learning about the shape of leaves etc. in a classroom was not the intelligent goal of giving these children a life-long learning experience which combined learning with feelings and understanding the world outside. This approach was later referred to as the “skill & drill” and “play & paste” styles of teaching, but these are not the only types of learning. (In England, our emphasis on project work does encompass learning through experience with the more academic learning and in most schools practical trips out, e.g. to a castle, is an integral part of the “Tudor Period” topic).

(5) However, by the age of 8 responsible adults must be able to say “Trust me, this is a bit boring but useful”. She pointed out that one dictionary definition of “academic” is of “little practical value”! She went on to explain, however, that “enjoyment” is not the goal of education, it is the goal of entertainment. Education must therefore engage the mind fully and help children to “analyse, theorize, speculate, ponder and conjecture”, and that introducing children to formal instruction too early does not allow these dispositions (i.e. analysis etc.) to flourish. Teachers, for example, do not have the time to allow “Johnny” to go off on a tangent, if we are intent in “teaching” to a particular educational concept e.g. 2 + 2 = 4, which must be learnt by a certain age as decreed in the National Curriculum.

4

(6) Early formal instruction is more damaging to boys because their brains develop differently. (Sue Palmer later developed this concept.) She said that boys were supposed to be assertive and active and show it, whereas girls learnt to put up with nonsense early.

(7) She emphasized that the younger the child, the larger the role of the adult in helping them to achieve social competence; and unless the child achieved minimal social competence by age 6, they were at risk for the rest of their lives. (Sitting little boys down behind desks does not sit well with the above theory as it does not encourage social competence, it only promotes teacher control.)

(8) Professor Katz emphasized that and redeveloped the importance of social competence by asserting that children rejected by their peers find each other and bond with a shared hatred that gives them a sense of closeness, i.e. we are friends, we share the same enemy. (Very important in understanding the psychology of “gang culture” and the growth of terrorism.)

(9) She re-iterated throughout her talk that “young children” must learn through interactive experience rather than passive instruction, and develop the disposition to go on learning.

(10) She ended with some very powerful and profound observations:

Education is not covering a subject, it is uncovering a subject.

To be educated is not to have arrived at a destination; it is to realize that it is in the midst of our journey that we arrive at our true destination.

Everybody must come to care about everybody else’s children. When someone needs life-saving surgery it will probably be performed by someone else’s child.

Be expectant, and resist the temptation to become like your enemies, since enemies have a tendency to come to resemble one another.

Remember that our future Prime Minister may be in an early years setting right now, and we all hope that he or she is having a good experience.

Dr DOMINIC WYSE, Ph.D “Riot in the Reading Act: Teaching & Learning Early Reading”

5

(1) The act of reading can be compared to a riot. Imagine the response that a child engrossed in Where the Wild Things Are will have when they come to the “wild rumpus” that marks the high point of the story! Even better when they are encouraged to become a wild thing and dance to music/sounds they compose for the scene. This was one meaning that the title of Dominic Wyse’s presentation hinted at. Another meaning was: reading the riot act. There are many who would say that this characterizes the approach that government has taken to curriculum development over the last 20 years or so.

(2) We know from research about the dangers of high-stakes testing which tends to narrow the curriculum. In this context the nature of the early-learning goals, as a formally assessed part of the curriculum, is particularly significant. The value of their existence, and the emphasis they give to different aspects of the curriculum, need considerable thought.

(3) One of the things that the EYFS emphasizes is that

“None of these areas of Learning and Development can be delivered in isolation from the others. They are equally important and depend on each other to support a rounded approach to child development.”

(4) The idea of a rounded approach is a promising one. Unfortunately other sections of the EYFS contradict this idea. For example the goals for reading suggest an emphasis on phonics first and foremost, that may not appropriately emphasize the importance of a contextualized, or a “rounded approach”, to the teaching of reading. There are also questions about the developmental appropriateness of some of the goals for literacy.

(5) Dominic explained that his approach to reading in the early years is encapsulated (at one level) in his book for parents (How to Help Your Child Learn to Read and Write – Pearson Educational). 1. The expression and interpretation of meaning should drive the learning and teaching of literacy; 2. Texts both in book form and those that feature in the environment are a vital aspect; 3. Learning about language and its features is a natural extension of learning about meaning and text.

(6) The overriding question that faces people at all levels of education is should political leaders impose curriculum and teaching methods? The Primary Review at the University of Cambridge has shown some of the undesirable consequences of imposition (see report by Wyse, McCreary,

6

and Torrance). In view of the reviews that are currently taking place in relation to the primary curriculum, it is important that early-years educators engage with this for the mutual benefit of both early years and primary children. We must continue to campaign for more balanced, carefully considered policy that is developed over sufficient time-scales.

There then followed a video specially made for the conference and sent by STEVE BIDDULPH from Tasmania, Australia – transcript below:-

There is much that is good about the EYFS, and certainly it’s well intentioned. But there is some kind of a mental block operating, the UK government just isn't listening to what  Child Development people have been telling them for at least a decade.  

The shift in children's learning style around the age of six, which is based in neural development, is the heart of the matter. Again and again, we notice in studies that when learning is forced or regimented with the under-six child, they actually do worse, become averse to learning, and lose the most important aspect of all, which is motivation.  In reading it’s the most noticeable - because for all the classroom forced reading we could ever make kids do, unless kids "catch" the love of reading and start to do it because they want to, in their spare time, it’s never enough. Schools have created children who hate reading for centuries, whereas a love of reading and wish to do it are very high in children who were helped to learn it in their own time.  The under-six child is self-organizing with their learning; we can't improve on that with lock-step curriculum.

Even with disadvantaged or extremely deprived children, the best approach is to enrich, not to regiment.

The UK education system is burdened with its historical origins in the Industrial Revolution, and early starting is probably the worst of these legacies. Most progressive countries in Europe start school at six or seven. The recent Primary Review from Cambridge University found there was no evidence to support starting early, and that it could not be recommended on any educational grounds. Children in Germany start two years older than British children, only attend school in the mornings, and show better attainment by the end of primary school.   

The Weikart study, which is very large and very well designed, found this most worrying negative effect of forced academic programmes for preschoolers...  (quoting my transcript..) 

Dr David Weikart, who some of you will remember as an original researcher of the Perry Pre-School Project, in  2006 reported on his final large-scale ten-nation study of what makes good pre-primary education.  This huge and up-to-the-minute study found two striking  outcomes common to all ten nations studied. Weikart’s  RESULTS WERE CRYSTAL CLEAR -

7

childrens language performance gains DECREASE in proportion to the time spent in forced group academic activities.  They INCREASE in proportion to the amount of time spent in free choice and expressive activities.

Likewise, children’s cognitive performance increases when children spend less time in whole-group activities and more time in free play. Much of the argument for early input for disadvantaged kids came from the Headstart programmes, which were interestingly also researched by Weikart in what was called the Perry Pre School Project.

But these were very intensive and targeted  programmes, and involved parental support which has over the years proven to be the real key to improving early learning. This is very different to immersing disadvantaged children in general programmes and making those programmes formal. The gap between disadvantaged and advantaged kids actually increases as each year of school passes.   

I think the Steiner and Montessori systems, who are the most aggrieved at the intrusion of government through the EYFS, are traditionally anchor points of good practice in early childhood: they arose in the pre-scientific era but were based on such good observation of children that they were validated by brain scanning technology when it came along.  This showed us what was happening neurally with children only gradually developing the structures that make formal learning work. The European, and English, play-based pre schools and kindergartens that were a model for the whole developed world were right all along.

Of course, there are cultures, particularly in Asia, where children as young as three are forced into rote learning in long days behind desks.  The general feeling amongst educationalists is that these cultures pay a terrible price in creativity, individuality, and even overall intelligence by doing this.   

In the end, I think the worst aspect is the tendency of bureaucrats to wield sticks more than carrots.  It’s easier when you are remote from the coal-face, but lacks respect, trust, or close-up knowledge.  Its not a good way to manage either teachers OR children. In Australia there is a 50-point standard for childcare centres, that says "Every child is greeted by name when they arrive at the door". If you have to mandate that, or if it’s done by rote to fulfil the guideline, I think you've already lost the race. It leads to robotic behaviour!

Better teacher training,  and high quality programmes targeted at high-need communities, seem the best approach to social equity.  "Do no harm" seems an important first rule in working with the very young.

 Dr PENELOPE LEACH “EYFS and the real foundations of children’s early years”

Dr Leach’s speech is available in full & is posted up separately on the web-site. See section entitled Open EYE Conference Speeches Full Texts.

8

SUE PALMER “Too much Too soon for Little Boys”

(1) Sue Palmer began by emphasizing that the 1997 National Literacy strategy disempowered teachers, and then she proceeded to elucidate the following principles related to the fact that we now have far more children who are suffering from a variety of Autistic disorders and those with Aspergers syndrome. Nowadays 2 year olds are as sedentary as office workers. Why?

(2) A huge change has occurred in Consumer Society. We must keep the market moving by buying more of everything, and advertisers are now aiming their marketing at 6 month old children. We are increasingly competitive, trust each other less, and are taking on board concepts “under the wire” - i.e. a brand name taken by a child/toddlers will stay with him for life.

(3) Also, the status of women has changed due to the emphasis on being economically independent, smaller families and the explosion in child care. We now face a massive change, especially electronically, and all manner of electronic baby-sitters are now available.

(4) However, children’s brains have not changed. We all have cro-magnum brains, programmed to develop at a biological time, which we are trying to develop faster and faster. We are accelerating cognitive development but there is a lot more to development than this.

(5) Boys are more work/hunters orientated, whereas girls are by nature, nuturers. There is a big difference in the development of boys, and we must acknowledge what their bodies are telling them – “get up and go” = energy. Boys are not ready for early school and this Anglo-Saxon obsession with the earliest possible start is cruel. It ignores socio-emotional development. This emphasis on early starting drives boys to ADHD/Aspergers syndrome. (More boy sufferers than girls.) <<<???

(6) She then referred to the work of Simon Baron-Cohen, “The Essential Differences Between Men & Women”. Previously 1 in 50,000 suffered ADHD-type disorder. It is now 1 in 58. Of course we now have better diagnosis, but Cohen believes that the male brain is hard-wired to learning how things work, whereas the female brain is hard-wired to discover how people work.

9

(7) She quoted an experiment in which equal numbers of boys and girls were shown two pictures, one of a woman called Jennifer and one of an alien. The boys responded more to the alien, the girls to the picture of Jennifer. Cohen believes that the essential differences are present in the amniotic fluid, and the experiment which analysed the presence of high B and low G testosterone later confirmed the essential differences in the way boys and girls respond to various stimuli.

(8) It is important to remember in “the dance of communication” that boys do not respond to socialization and are more difficult than girls. Boys are more “screen based” and are from an earlier age, trained to the screen; thus media and videos are affecting child development. We must all talk to children, but boys learn through contact play – rough and tumble.

(9) There is an old “proverb principle” – first 7 years are for play, the next 7 years are for education. The three key ingredients to successful child development are love, time and play.

(10) Hilary Clinton is right when she says “it takes a whole village to raise a child”. Also, never doubt that a handful of anthropologist communities can change the world.

Prepared by:ANNA FIRTH, Campaign Co-ordinator.On behalf of the Open EYE Campaign.

FURTHER INFORMATION

More information about the campaign, our well-supported Downing Street petition, and our international conference, to be held in London on Saturday 16 February, can be found on our website – www.savechildhood.org

10