As early years practitioners, advisers and academics, we welcome aspects of children's secretary Ed Balls' proposals to review the primary curriculum (News, 17 January). We have consistently pressed for continuity from the Foundation Stage into Key Stage 1 and argued the case for summer-born children and for boys. Proposals in the briefing letter challenge the myth that formal schooling must start in Year 1, but they bypass various initiatives designed to return decision-making to teachers since the publication of Excellence and Enjoyment in 2003. Unfortunately, they do not address the downward pressures exerted by the primary strategy, and ignore our rich heritage of child-friendly approaches to primary education.
There will be widespread welcome for the suggested flexibility in age of entry, especially for summer-born children - but incredulity in those local authorities that gave up termly admissions, mainly due to the demands of the literacy and numeracy strategies, coupled with administrative and financial considerations. Although there is a worrying lack of reference to the disciplines of science, technology and ICT in the briefing, Mr Balls' suggestion of extending Foundation Stage approaches into Year 1 and beyond makes sense. What makes nonsense is the concurrent tightening up on arbitrary early learning goals for literacy and numeracy. Since a high proportion of children have not reached less demanding expectations over four years' experience of the Foundation Stage Profile, it is regrettable that assessment is explicitly left out of the review.
We hope Jim Rose will take into account the findings of the independent Primary Review, directed by Professor Robin Alexander, which is an object lesson for Government in principle and practice.
By Wendy Scott, president of TACTYC. For the text of the letter from Ed Balls to Jim Rose, go to www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2008_0003.
