Whatever happened to infant play?
Pat Gordon-Smith tracks the history of England’s focus on formal
education for five and six year olds, and looks for examples of success
with an extended play curriculum.
Gail Bedford has no doubt that life in
school has become more pressured for
young children since she began teaching
more than 30 years ago. ‘The kind of
attainment we used to aim for so that
seven year olds could make a successful
transition to juniors,’ she says, ‘now seems
to be what we expect in five year olds as
they leave reception.’ Now an education
consultant, Bedford recently retired as
head of Mount Pleasant Primary School in
Dudley, West Midlands, where she
introduced a flexible approach to play in
Year 1. ‘Children who acquired those early
literacy and numeracy skills by the end of
their infant career were open and
confident,’ she says, ‘because they had
enjoyed a creative learning environment
and experienced responsibilities. We seem
to have forgotten how important it is to
nurture their sense of self-worth.’
Independent early years adviser Julie
Fisher agrees. ‘In trying to introduce the
more formal elements of literacy and
numeracy so early, we are undermining the
confidence of too many children,’ she
says. ‘You can fail in this country at an age
when children haven’t even started school
elsewhere.’
So how did we get here? Why are we
sending four year olds to school so they
can spend part of their day learning letter
sounds or tracing letter shapes? And why
are so many five and six year olds learning
in ways that are divorced from real
experience?
The road to formal learning
Legislative inertia is partly to blame.
Britain’s children find themselves in school
earlier than elsewhere because of a
Parliamentary decision back in 1870 which
set the school starting age at five. This
continued, more or less, until 1988, when
the delegation of LEA budgets to schools
accelerated a growing trend for placing
four year olds in school. The attraction of
extra funding led schools to compete with
early years provision, and to persuade
parents that school was the best place for
their young children. Starting school at
four became the norm.
But that does not explain the intensity of three years later, Blunkett’s successor,
today’s focus on children acquiring literacy Ruth Kelly, announced that synthetic
and numeracy skills very early on, to the phonics would be the primary tool for
exclusion of play-based learning. For that, teaching children to read, following
we need to look to the influence of Chris recommendations by Woodhead’s one-
Woodhead, ex-Chief Inspector of Schools. time colleague, Sir Jim Rose.
‘There was an argument that starting Rose has now embarked on another
formal education early could compensate review for the government: a wide-ranging
for the difference in home background,’ appraisal of the primary curriculum.
says Caroline Sharp of the National Whether it will take account of the Primary
Foundation for Educational Research Review under way at Cambridge University
(NFER), ‘which was taken up by Chris is uncertain. Led by Robin Alexander (who,
Woodhead prior to the introduction of the alongside Woodhead and Rose, co-
Foundation Stage in 2000.’ Interviewing authored the influential ‘three wise men’
Woodhead in 2002, Dina Rabinovitch primary curriculum report in 1992), the
identified his personal relationship with Cambridge review is a collection of expert
teacher Ruth Miskin – originator of the reports and newly commissioned research.
literacy programme which carries her name Its interim findings that tests are
– as the foundation for a belief that children contributing to children’s anxiety in
can ‘master the basics of reading before modern life (Alexander & Hargreaves 2007)
they are six’. This complemented his have been rejected by the government.
conviction that there was no truth in the
view that young children learn best through Counter-arguments
play. ‘I’ve read the research and the In the UK today, only England and
evidence that has been produced,’ he told Northern Ireland now concentrate on
Rabinovitch, ‘and it does not persuade me. formal teaching for five and six year olds.
The people doing these studies made up The Foundation Phase in Wales is
their minds before starting.’ introducing continuous, experiential and
Woodhead had not convinced the then play-based learning for children from three
Education Secretary, David Blunkett, to to seven and, in Scotland, there is a similar
introduce early phonics teaching by the approach in the forthcoming Curriculum
time he left his post in 2000. But, less than for Excellence, although early phonics will
be running alongside. Caroline Sharp says
she is ‘not sure that anyone is actively
arguing for an early start now’, but
policymakers in England are yet to show
the confidence in children’s playful learning
that appears to exist in Scotland and
Wales. It is true that the Children, Schools
and Family Secretary, Ed Balls (2008), has
invited Jim Rose to consider extending the
Photos courtesy of the Oxford transition project
Foundation Stage into Year 1 in his review
7 Early Education Summer 2008
of primary education, but it is a tentative
invitation. For the time being – while the
directive to teach reading through
synthetic phonics indicates a goal for early
reading attainment – children in England
will enter the formal curriculum at five.
Campaigners wanting to extend the play
curriculum cite the success of other
countries where play-based learning is the
norm until five, six or even seven. Julian
 Grenier (2008), for instance, notes that
children in countries where they start
school later were ‘rated much happier than
ours’ in the Unicef (2007) report which
judged the UK to be the very worst
industrialised nation for children’s
wellbeing. But, with children’s attainment
so high on the policymakers’ agenda,
Grenier is understandably drawn to justify
this in terms of attainment, adding: ‘Their
children are also better readers, better at
maths, better learners all round in
practically every measurable way.’
Caroline Sharp is circumspect on this
issue. Findings from her comparative
research (Riggall & Sharp 2008) agree to
some extent with Grenier, but they point
more to roughly equivalent levels of
attainment. She is certainly not prepared
to make a direct correlation between
outcomes and age of starting school. ‘This
is very difficult to pin down,’ she says, ‘as
there are lots of things in different systems
and societies that have an impact. The
particularly late start in Scandinavia is
cited as a key to achievement in these
countries, but there could be a number of
contributing issues, including greater
respect for education.’ Early Education’s
president, Iram Siraj-Blatchford, agrees.
‘The problem with drawing comparisons
with the Scandinavian model,’ she says, ‘is
that they are small countries which are
more homogeneous and relatively more
middle class.’
So the argument that England should
look to other countries for a model of
provision is not clear cut. What is clear is
that children find the transition from play to
formality very hard. ‘Children all over the
world express the same concerns,’ says
Caroline Sharp. ‘But the younger you make
demands on children, the more likely it is
that some will find it hard to adapt and to
cope with expectations.’
The children participating in Julie
Fisher’s research in Oxfordshire primary
schools confirm this view. ‘Twenty-five per
cent of children in their reception year said
something negative about moving up to
Year 1,’ she says. ‘Some said they were
8 Early Education Summer 2008
looking forward to being bigger, but most
were not looking forward to sitting down a
lot.’ Their views echo those expressed in
NFER’s national study of transition from
Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1 (Sanders
et al. 2005). Fisher’s observations in
Oxfordshire also support NFER’s national
findings that children’s approach to
learning changes in Year 1. ‘Because they
are initiating less and sitting at tables, they
are not engaging fully. The drive to be
active explorers of their world disappears.
And this,’ she adds, ‘ties in with what I see
as the main problem for children: the
almost wholesale movement from active
learning to passive learning.’ For Fisher,
the extension of a child-initiated, play-
based approach into Key Stage 1 is vital if
children are to remain engaged, and she
reports some positive early results from
the introduction of play – alongside adult-
directed learning – to the Year 1
classrooms in her Oxfordshire project.
‘Now that children are writing as part of
their role play rather than in formal sit-
down session, we find their attitude has
improved,’ she says, ‘and so has their
writing.’ Similar good practice in
Northamptonshire primary schools was
reported by Iram Siraj-Blatchford.
Julie Fisher is not alone in seeking to
blur the division between the early years
and national curriculums in England.
Others are doing it, and are attracting
funding from the DCSF.
Continuous curriculums
At Bursted Wood Primary School in
Bexleyheath, the reception teacher is
making fruit smoothies, following
instructions from the children. Those who
speak out do so confidently and all the
children appear to be enjoying the session.
But they are not learning through play.
Although the children are directing the
contents of the smoothie, they are all
seated on the carpet while the teacher
alone touches the fruit and operates the
blender. Meanwhile, a parent chops the
fruit out of sight at the back of the class.
Of course, this is not very formal teaching,
and it is not unusual in a reception class.
But it is also not quite what I had
expected.
Bursted Wood is one of eight primary
schools in the London Borough of Bexley
which has adopted a continuous
curriculum known as the Creative Learning
Journey (CLJ). It uses the six Foundation
Stage areas of learning as the basis for
teaching in cross-curricular topics and is
applied from the nursery through to Year 6.
The school is successful, with rising SATs
results and a recent outstanding
judgement from Ofsted.
‘The Foundation Stage offers such
challenge and fun,’ headteacher Ely
Prynne told me. ‘It fits the bill for both
excellence and enjoyment.’ And yet, while
the content of the Foundation Stage was
clearly visible in the school’s planning
materials, the key aspect of child-initiated
learning seemed largely absent beyond
frequent mind-mapping exercises. This
was particularly noticeable in the nursery,
where the activities that children were
happily engaged in (slapping blue paint on
to a vast piece of paper, dressing up,
playing with a selection of natural objects)
were planned to serve the CLJ’s thematic
structure, not to follow the children’s
interests. ‘The activities link to our current
topic,’ said nursery teacher Judith
Magness. ‘We do leave some freedom for
child-directed play, but I guess some
Foundation Stage practitioners would feel
that it is not starting with the child.’
It is important to acknowledge the staff’s
work and to respect the school’s
achievement in the current climate. But the
measurable success of a school like Bursted
Wood creates difficulties for any argument to
extend free play into Key Stage 1 because it
appears, on paper, to provide a working
model of how the Foundation Stage can
work for older children. And DCSF funding
for the school means that the government is
aware of this model. ‘This sounds like the
best of worlds and the worst of worlds,’ says
play expert Pat Broadhead. ‘When heads
who have not been pre-school trained think
about learning through play, they only ever
see it as a teacher-led activity. But the
REPEY study shows us that child-initiated
activity in a facilitated environment is the
most effective.’ Iran Siraj-Blatchford makes a
different point. ‘We must be careful about
what we mean by ‘play’ and what we really
want to extend into Key Stage 1,’ she says.
‘There is a place for purposeful structured
play as well as for free play. Children can
learn a lot from structured play.’
For Gail Bedford, the lack of evidence-
based research into play in Key Stage 1 is
the most serious stumbling block to change
at national policy level. At Mount Pleasant
Primary, she extended the Foundation Stage
into Year 1 in response to the needs of one
year group. ‘Out of 50 children in one
cohort,’ she says, ‘32 were summer born.
They were predominantly boys and simply
were not ready for the National Curriculum
agenda.’ Even so, Bedford does not feel
happy to support the idea of extending play
to the end of Year 2 without seeing some
trials of how it can work successfully. ‘The
problem is that there is currently little
evidence to say that children make
appropriate progress from different
approaches than those which are normally
provided in Key Stage 1.’ And she voices
the clear mismatch between an education
system that is keen to see children make
early progress towards attainment targets
and any wish to extend play beyond the
Foundation Stage. ‘There is genuine
apprehension among headteachers,’ she
says, ‘that if they change their approach,
they will not make their Key Stage 2 targets.’
Evidence from Wales suggests a similar
problem there. It is a sign that the effective
operation of the Foundation Phase is not
yet a done deal and that confidence in
young children’s learning through play
remains shaky. ‘Early years teachers in
primary schools are concerned,’ says Ann
Roberts, Early Education’s vice-chair for
Wales, ‘because they are not sure that all
headteachers understand the benefits of
the Foundation Phase. Instead, some
heads worry that it will make it harder to hit
Key Stage 2 targets.’ Iram Siraj-Blatchford,
director of the evaluation of the
Foundation Phase pilot, echoes the
problem. ‘Headteachers have expressed
concern that they won’t have enough
money to implement the lower 1:8
adult:child ratios expected for the
Foundation Phase in the maintained
sector. But they are missing the point. ‘In
the pilot,’ she says, ‘schools in the
maintained sector did better where they
had trained teachers with an
understanding of early years in their
leadership regardless of the ratios. This
has also been consistent in the EPPE
study and the 300 centres assessed for
the Millennium Cohort Study. Heads
should be worrying about their own levels
of understanding and knowledge; they
should be looking to upskill, particularly on
an appropriate pedagogy for the young.’
Of course, the Foundation Phase is
welcomed by many teachers and parents
in Wales, with some reporting to Ann
Roberts their delight at the advantages for
children of having role play up to Year 2.
But there is disappointment for early years
practitioners across the UK who might
have hoped that the Foundation Phase
could provide the longitudinal, evidence-
based research that Gail Bedford says is
sorely needed to facilitate change. For,
while the pilot project was carefully
evaluated, there are, says Iram Siraj-
Blatchford, ‘no current plans for evaluation
once the Foundation Phase is rolled out
from September 2008, so that any benefits
will be difficult to measure’.
There may be no quick and easy road to
change for young children’s learning in
England – and, indeed, in the UK as a whole.
But pockets of good practice such as those
in Oxfordshire and Northamptonshire, along
with practice which emerges in Wales and
Scotland, will continue to inform
campaigners and policymakers alike. And
there are signs in the Children’s Plan and in
Ed Balls’s briefing letter to Jim Rose that the
government is asking serious questions of
the current system in England. There are
reasons to be positive.
But without consensus over a clear and
demonstrably effective approach to play
for five, six and seven year olds in the UK,
how are we to move forward? ‘I’d like to
follow up innovative projects, and
contribute to generating evidence about
their effectiveness,’ says Gail Bedford. Her
belief in the need for flexibility for young
children, and commitment of early years
experts and practitioners across the UK, is
the strongest engine we have for change
and for ensuring better experiences for
young children in school.
For more debate about this and other issues in
the early years, visit the National Education Trust
website: www.nationaleducationtrust.net
Pat Gordon-Smith is a freelance writer
and editor for the early years. She edits
Early Education.
References
Alexander, R. & Hargreaves, L. (2007) Community
soundings: the Primary Review regional
witness sessions. Cambridge: University of
Cambridge Faculty of Education.
Balls, E. (2008) Briefing letter to Sir Jim Rose for
his independent review into primary education
in England. London: Department for Children,
Schools and Families (www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/
pnattach/20080003/1.pdf).
Grenier, J. (2008) Time to abolish Key Stage One,
Nursery World, 10 January: 10–11.
Primary Review (2007–08) The Primary Review:
the condition and future of primary education in
England. Cambridge: University of Cambridge
Faculty of Education (www.primaryreview.org.uk).
Rabinovitch, D. (2002) Off on the right foot,
Education Guardian, 9 July.
Riggall, A. & Sharp, C. (2008) The structure of
primary education: England and other
countries. Primary Review research survey
9/1, Cambridge: University of Cambridge
Faculty of Education.
9 Early Education Summer 2008
Sanders, D., White, G., Burge, B., Sharp, C.,
Eames, A., McEune, R. & Grayson, H. (2005)
A study of the transition from Foundation
Stage to Key Stage 1. NFER report. London:
Department for Education and Skills.
Unicef (2007) An overview of child wellbeing in
rich countries: a comprehensive assessment
of the lives and well-being of children and
adolescents in the economically advanced
nations. Florence: Unicef Innocenti Research
Centre.