Early years specialists are busy puzzling over what has happened to the Government's proposals to establish a nationally directed programme for Foundation Stage training.
The Department for Education and Skills published a summary of the responses to its consultation on 'Expert support for the development of Foundation Stage practice' three months ago (Nursery World, 22 August). It indicated that just over 80 per cent of respondents backed its plan for Foundation Stage support for early years development and childcare partnerships (EYDCPs). But since then, nothing has been heard of the proposals.
The plan would see a national director appointed to lead the programme and oversee the work of regional teams of Foundation Stage training and development directors and special educational needs specialists.
While respondents to the consultation exercise, which was conducted last autumn, felt that national guidelines would ensure consistency and promote quality, some of them believed the proposal would add another layer of bureaucracy to an already heavily burdened structure. Others called for the scheme to be flexible and adaptable to ensure that local initiatives were fully recognised, as they suggested there was already adequate early years training provision in many areas and the proposal duplicated existing arrangements.
Jo Goodall, school improvement consultant early years for Walsall local education authority, says, 'It would be useful and interesting to see all the responses and know what people's views are, and to understand what is going to happen next.'
Subject to delay
Observers wonder if the proposal has got lost in the restructuring of the DfES, which has seen the early years unit become the Sure Start, Early Years and Childcare unit. One insider comments, 'It (a national Foundation Stage training programme) seems to have sunk without trace, just the same as Investors in Children. There is a lot of politics going in the department.'
Early years consultant Margaret Edgington adds, 'Re-organisation of the DfES cannot help the introduction of this initiative. The bringing together of the three units would, I imagine, take some time to settle down.'
It is not clear whether the ministerial upheaval at the department following the resignation of Estelle Morris and appointment of Charles Clarke as education secretary is delaying the introduction of the scheme.
In response to detailed questions about implementation, a DfES spokesman's sole comment was, 'The expert support for the development of Foundation Stage practice is still being considered by ministers.'
Another explanation for the delay is that the Government is already committed to a training programme in support of the National Foundation Stage Profile, the assessment system replacing baseline assessment, which was introduced this term.
Some practitioners believe that rather than launch two training programmes in tandem, the Government will focus on developing statutory training for the Foundation Stage Profile (see Nursery World, 12 and 26 September). In this case, Margaret Edgington warns that many practitioners would miss out, because the profile is conducted during the reception year. Such a strategy could mean training was centred on people delivering the end, rather than all phases, of the Foundation Stage.
Experience helps
However, it is clear that practitioners and head teachers want more training. A study on the implementation of the Foundation Stage in reception classes, published on the DfES website (see box), reported that while the vast majority of head teachers and reception class teachers view the Foundation Stage as 'a good thing' (91 per cent and 95 per cent respectively), they felt more training was wanted.
The study bore out the observations of experienced early years practitioners such as Lynn Hand, co-ordinator of the early years unit at Adamsrill School, Lewisham, London, that schools where the head teacher has a background or interest in early years have embraced the Foundation Stage more enthusiastically. She says, 'One course I went on opened my eyes to how little many head teachers know about the Foundation Stage. They were being asked very simple questions about what was available in the early years units and whether they had sand trays and water trays. Hardly any of them had any idea, let alone what they would be used for.'
The survey found that head teachers who had initially trained in early years were far more likely to have undertaken specific training in the Foundation Stage. Conversely, those who had no initial early years training and therefore were arguably most in need of Foundation Stage training were least likely to have accessed it. Indeed, 19 per cent of head teachers had neither been early years-trained initially nor received Foundation Stage training.
The vast majority of reception class teachers (86 per cent) had received some specific training in the Foundation Stage: 74 per cent had been trained on the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, 60 per cent in reception class literacy and 55 per cent in reception class numeracy. But only a third felt they had received enough training to help them deliver the Foundation Stage.
A quarter of reception class teachers surveyed had less than three years'
experience teaching this age group and they particularly wanted more training. The specific areas highlighted were planning, assessment, Foundation Stage guidance, literacy, numeracy, and information and communications technology (ICT).
Jo Goodall at Walsall says that whatever training framework is adopted, it must take account of the high turnover of reception class staff as reflected in these statistics, and there should be a rolling programme of training to cater for newcomers.
'What is needed is not a plethora of documentation and another ton of guidance material,' she says. 'All that does is lower morale and lower energy levels and enthusiasm. What people need is inspirational training which is practical and sensitive to the ways people work, whether that is in a reception class or a church hall.'
National or local?
Although the demand for more training is clear, there is heated debate over whether it should be nationally directed or locally determined. Judith Stevens, Lewisham early years adviser, who wrote the Lewisham partnership's response to the consultation, argues that it would be better to increase funding for partnerships like Lewisham to develop their high-quality training programmes and to act as mentors for EYDCPs which are struggling to provide adequate Foundation Stage training.
Ms Stevens says, 'It is unclear what a nationally directed team, with inevitably limited knowledge of local history and needs, would have to offer us. Lewisham EYDCP believes that the proposals, if they were to go ahead, would represent a waste of scarce resources. If it does go ahead, there is a danger that there will be a uniformity of training which meets the needs of neither the most experienced nor least experienced practitioners.
'There is also the burning issue of where the proposed national director or regional team would be recruited from. There is a dearth of suitably qualified, experienced and skilled early years trainers available.'
Margaret Edgington adds, 'I think there are better ways of spending the money, when you think of the expense involved in appointing a national director and regional teams and support staff. It is clear to me on my visits to different areas that local authorities that have effective training programmes running do not want this.'
However, Ros Lilley, quality and training co-ordinator for Bradford Early Years and Childcare Service, favours the appointment of a national director and regional teams because she believes they will raise the profile and boost the status of the early years sector. She says that a national Foundation Stage training body would be able to facilitate the exchange of best practice, set standards for local authority training, lead a national debate to arrive at a consensus on what constitutes early years specialism for teachers, and encourage, commission and organise research and so enable the sector to develop reflective practice.
Ms Lilley says, 'Regional teams could bring together wonderful nation-al and international exhibitions or a gallery of good practice. For example, if they had existed in 2000 they could have brought the Reggio Emilia exhibition to the UK. In Bradford we offer a wide ranging training programme with excellent courses within our nursery schools, but there is always room for a national, inspirational view on what inclusive good practice looks like.'
Further information
* The document Expert support for the development of Foundation Stage practice -summary of responses is available on www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations.
* Implementing the Foundation Stage in reception classes by Taylor Nelson Sofres in conjunction with Professor Carol Aubrey, University of Warwick, was published as brief number 350 in June 2002 and is available on www.dfes.gov.uk/research/. The study involved interviewing 799 head teachers and 752 reception class teachers. It was commissioned after concerns about the successful implementation of the Foundation Stage were raised at conferences held by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority by EYDCPs, local education authorities, teacher associations and the Foundation Stage Working Group.
