Primary First

Setting the scene.

Consider for a moment, what skills, attitudes and dispositions we might anticipate will be at a premium in our children's futures. Further complicate this, as will inevitably be the case, by trying to agree what working knowledge our children may need to have at their disposal in 2030 and beyond, and the scope and difficulty of the challenge facing society in planning a 21st Century education becomes clearer.

Unfortunately, as if the task wasn't sufficiently daunting, there is a further complication. A one- size-fits-all service will not work. Gone are the days when that might have been effective, even if was ever justifiable. Gone for good, as diversity is increasing in all spheres of human activity. In one respect, the present push towards more autonomous schools, on the face of it, should contribute to making the education system truly 'fit for all' because of this diversity and the impact this ought to have on strengthening the argument in favour of greater localisation. Sadly, the current direction of reform looks more likely to take us away from the objective of matching provision to the needs of individual learners. Mixed messages are emerging from central government over the balance of power in education. 

From the situation just a couple of decades ago, when most people would have made a spontaneous, fairly accurate guess at the different types of schools operating in their community, even for someone with a background in education, I was shocked to count in excess of a dozen varieties available in today's "market". (Another example of the influence of commercial/industrial language in education!)

There may be nothing wrong with this development. But a closer examination of the system reveals a complex relationship between local and national factors making it difficult for parents to know where accountability lies. In such matters as admissions, pupil exclusions, curriculum and the length of school day/term, to cite just a few examples, parents are often confused about who has responsibility and for what. With the increased powers vested now in the office of the Secretary of State for Education and a lack of clarity over the role of local authorities, families find it difficult to know where to turn for help and advice when they have a grievance.

Much, though not all of this has happened in response to the perceived need to shake up the secondary school system. This came about for many reasons, not least of which was to address Britain's standing in international league tables of pupil performance. Throughout the history of public education in our country, primary education has been viewed as a means of preparing young children for the more rigorous and important education they would receive at secondary school. Interestingly in their turn, secondary schools were valued mainly for how well they prepared young people for the world of work or higher and further education. Whereas it can be argued that education has a certain utilitarian value, that is surely not its main function. 

Education Perspectives is all about the need to advance the process of education reform. Short-term changes have for too long be allowed to distort the longer-term reform programme necessary to address persistent problems of underachievement in the system. Unlike many others, I believe this needs to be tackled at the primary phase first.

Making The Primary Case 

When referring to the primary phase, I include both the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) and Key Stages 1&2. The reasons for initially concentrating on reform in the primary phase are many. Essentially, however, it comes down to the importance of investing more in building strong foundations for learning developed around children's natural curiosity. Not enough is being done at present to concentrate on building sound foundations for learning before testing children and measuring them against their peers. There is a time for testing but it is more important that effective assessment takes place to support learning and to build confidence.

The most effective provision for young children is found in situations where clear aims generate an appropriate curriculum, where learning is accessed through structured activity (especially through play) and when children are sufficiently secure in their understanding to take risks and make progress in learning because they enjoy the challenge.

Historically, the youngest children (of the poor) were taught by a single individual in large groups. The teaching was didactic, the curriculum focused very narrowly on discrete subjects, rote learning of factual content made it easy to test what pupils could recall, understanding was not seen as particularly important and discipline was strict. It was, arguably better than no education at all, but it was a world away from what they need for their future success.

Naturally, over the decades, changes were introduced and the overall quality of education continues to improve to this day, despite concerns that more could and should be happening to 'close the achievement gap'. But, not everything changed in recognition of our increased understanding of early childhood development and the desire for greater social mobility.

Today, there is an opportunity to strengthen the foundations of learning by basing our practice on knowledge of what works in what situations and for which children. The recognition of the importance of this type of individualised learning, already enshrined in the Early Years Foundation Stage, is seen more widely to offer better outcomes for more children, but the implications of this for education funding are immense. This is why it is important to engage in a national debate about what we want and expect education to provide for children emerging from our schools at the end of Key Stage 2.

There is a greater chance of achieving this if the issue of strategic planning in education is dealt with first.

This is why action must be taken to reach a consensus over the reform of the present politically biased system. Historically we have seen that those who exercise power have had their way, and provided the silent majority has not felt itself too disempowered, there has been little serious resistance from parents and professionals about the direction of change. That will not serve us well in the future. 

Ultimately, funding primary education according to need, as opposed to historical trends, will have to be considered. I suggest before we attempt this, we should give very careful consideration to the overall aims for education. Only then will we be clear about where primary education fits in the big picture and the ideal level of funding required. We may have to agree to move by stages in redistributing finite resources if we are not prepared to increase overall education funding. The nettle will have to be grasped. The sooner the better.