Opinions about the best way to teach young children and support their learning seem to be increasingly polarised - an important development in the context of the current review of the EYFS in England.
Earlier this year (1 July), Nursery World published a controversial article by Tom Burkard about his report for the Centre for Policy Studies, which argued for direct instruction in literacy as the prime factor in improving the achievement and life chances of disadvantaged children.
Investment in Sure Start was a waste of money and the EYFS should be scrapped, were Burkard's unequivocal conclusions.
This week, we have Oli de Botton of the CfBT Education Trust on CfBT's research project into the effectiveness of early years programmes (Analysis, pages 10-11). The six programmes that showed the most evidence of 'educational impact' by the start of formal schooling were found to have key features, including an emphasis on teacher-led practice and academic outcomes such as letter and word recognition.
The findings go against the beliefs and instincts of most early years experts and practitioners in the UK. Moreover, there is a growing international movement looking to stop the eradication of 'playful learning', which it believes is the best way to equip children with the skills needed for the future.
In 'Party time' (pages 20-21), we look at the work of Professor Kathryn Hirsh-Pasek, author of many books on play and organiser of the Ultimate Block Party in New York next month, an event to showcase the importance of play and fuel the impetus to change classroom practice.
Who is right? Both sides can quote research to back their argument, of course. We need to shout loudly if we are to make the case for play now and in the future.
