5.2.2. “I know I don’t read enough or even pick up a book in the baby room sometimes”
Practitioners report that they engage in daily incidental literacy activities but state that they do not sufficiently model good early reading habits with under-threes. Yet, they do report that they do feel that they sufficiently model good early reading practices with older children aged three plus. Wade and Moore (2000) argue that “the advent of literacy depends on adults showing children how books work” (p. 40). If the practitioners in this research study are not modelling or engaging with reading as part of their practice, or modelling reading, it could be suggested that they are not promoting reading as a worthwhile activity, which has consequences for the children’s motivation and enthusiasm for reading as a pleasurable and fun activity. This has a significant influence on the children’s perception and value of reading and will have consequences for children’s later reading practice. It appears that the practitioners in this study are not engaging with or sufficiently modelling reading in practice to support under-threes with their attitude and motivation for reading as a fun, enjoyable and worthwhile activity.
Critically, practitioners comment that they are confused about how reading and sharing books with under-threes connects with children as ‘readers’. It is evident from the data that some babies and toddlers in this study do not have access to books and are not being read to, which is in keeping with Beauman and Duffy’s (1997) view that these children are not given adequate “opportunities to read themselves, or see their caregivers read” (p. 22). The EYTTs cited reasons such as “children don’t always show an interest in reading” and “we just don’t have the cause to read during the day ourselves” to explain why they don’t model reading practices.
In addition, the evidence suggests that practitioners and under-threes are not interacting with digital literacies. The findings also highlight that the practitioners in this research are largely using paper based materials only, which is somewhat limiting to provision, given the wide range of opportunities and experiences afforded by digital literacies (Marsh et al., 2016). Under-threes, consequently, do not appear to have role models that value literacy and reading as entertainment and fun, as a fundamental influence in supporting children in being readers.
Significantly, the practitioners in this study did not appear to associate or situate early reading development within the dimensions of role play and literacy, despite this being well documented in research and training (Wood, 2013). The findings did not contain any references to play or role play for early reading experiences. These findings support Roskos and Christie (2007) who argue that the important role of play in the process of learning to read is indeed disregarded by many practitioners or, at best misjudged.
5.3. What are the experiences and challenges of EYTTs in supporting very young children with early reading?
The experiences of EYTTs are diverse and when asked to focus particularly on early reading for under-threes, this led to some key reflection and change impact. Practitioners note that they are anxious about early reading with under-threes; they use trial and error in their planning, a variety of phonics programmes of study, which in turn affected how they rated their confidence to teach and support early reading. The tension surrounding phonics and the government drive to firmly place phonics high on the curriculum agenda (DfE KS1 Phonics Screening Check; EYFS, 2012; ‘National Curriculum’, 2014) is influencing how practitioners are engaging with early reading in practice with under-threes. As such, practitioners are teaching phonics, as they believe this is the national and local policy directive.
EYTTs initially reported in the survey that they were confident with supporting under-threes with early reading, but having conducted deeper qualitative research, I discovered that this was indeed not the case. It appeared that their reported confidence was grounded in some knowledge or training in teaching phonics and it was related to their length of experience. The EYTTs changed their viewpoint on how confident they were when the focus was on supporting early reading activities with under-threes and not teaching phonics, which is an interesting finding. Once more, this suggests that the dominant discourse surrounding early reading is fixated on phonics.
The terminology of early reading, understanding reading and the confusion surrounding early reading and phonics is raised as a key challenge. EYTTs often used terms such as “complex” “challenging” and “too confusing” in their narratives. EYTTs note that the perplexity of when and how to teach phonics and the confusion of progressing from informal activities to formal teaching is also challenging for them, as they cited that the advice was “very confusing” from the LA and their own settings. Significantly, this demonstrates that they need to be supported with their knowledge and understanding of ‘reading’ overall and in particular for under-threes. Higgins (2013) suggests that “the question of what age children should start learning to read is complex, particularly in comparison with Europe and Scandinavian countries, as children start formal schooling much later that children in the UK” (p. 10). He proposes that there have been no firm conclusions drawn from research and that it is the quality of the early experiences provided that makes the most difference for many children.
Furthermore, the data highlights that a high proportion of the EYTTs reported that they do not have an early reading policy in place in their setting to support them and state that they have no support for early reading for under-threes at all, which is a worrying finding. The EYTTs in this study reported that “they wouldn’t know where to start with writing an early reading policy” and they would need “some specific training and support” in order to devise this policy for their settings.
Nevertheless, this research has revealed that practitioners have a genuine desire to do the right thing and actually really worry about getting early reading right, yet are often confused and a bit bewildered. As a consequence, the phonics debate and school readiness agenda has been allowed to penetrate their definitions of reading and their practice with young children, which is apparent in the fact that they are engaging in phonics activities with under-threes and teaching phonics, whilst not valuing the many other wider early reading activities of reading books, sharing stories or engaging in exploring the wide range of digital multimedia. One EYTT commented in the survey “I am really interested in this research as I think it is really important. We need to know if we are getting it right for early reading!” which illustrates that there is a desire to do the ‘right thing’ to support under-threes in their settings.
5.4. What influences EYTT’s practice in the settings in encouraging children’s development in reading?
As previously highlighted, the phonics political and educational agenda appears to be influencing pedagogy and provision for under-threes, which is consequently potentially detrimental to practice. Early years education is not preparation for primary provision and this notable difference alone is a strong rationale for under-threes not being subjected to phonics. Additionally, the feeder schools’ perspectives influence how practitioners support early reading development, as this external perceived pressure is often aligned with parental pressure and misconceptions of the demands of schools. Interestingly, Page, Clare and Nutbrown (2013) contend that the landscape is changing and the “boundaries of education are no longer fixed at the school starting age” (p. 14), which does not seem to be the situation with these practitioners’ perceptions associated with early reading. These pre-requisites for reading and reading readiness skills and, in effect, ‘making’ children ready to read by teaching phonics do not consider the vast experiences or information that children already hold about literacy (Mandel Morrow and Dougherty, 2011).
5.5. What are the implications of this for the training of EYTs?
The research findings have significant implications for training EYTs. This study suggests that EYTs and indeed all ECEC practitioners need to have specific early reading training. Early years practitioners need to know and understand the importance of early experiences with books, songs and rhymes as part of the wider literacy debate, together with the central importance of supporting language, since Hulme and Snowling (2013) argue that “learning to read is a key objective of early education and difficulties in learning to read can have serious adverse consequences” (p. 1). They also need to know about the impact on young children’s lifelong learning if this early exposure and engagement is not part of their daily practice and provision.
I would recommend initially producing a set of good practice guidelines for all practitioners, so that they at the very least have something to support them as a starting point, particularly for practitioners working with babies. The National Literacy Trust already produces documentation to support families to encourage reading with under-fives, called the ‘Early Reading Connects Family Involvement Toolkit’ (National Literacy Trust and DfCSF, 2009), but this needs to be addressed within all early years training and made explicit to all training providers. All early years training urgently needs to have a focus on children’s language skills foremost, as this is widely considered to be influential on reading success and wider literacy skills (Noel et al., 2008; Reese et al., 2010; Shanahan and Lonigan, 2010). Elkin (2014) argues that the “critical influence of story, rhyme and song in the development of babies’ and toddlers’ early language” (p. 60) and the significance of these early experiences is still poorly understood by many. She suggests that education and support is still lacking for parents and caregivers. I would argue that this research has demonstrated that this is indeed the case for EYTTs.
In addition, all early years training must continue to raise the profile of working with under-threes to support early reading and to ensure that practitioners working with the youngest children value the ‘right now’ in their provision – not the constant preparation for later and for school, that ECEC workers face. This is also an issue for policy, building on the recommendations previously highlighted by Roberts-Holmes (2013) who argued that, despite the fact that teachers with QTS in the maintained sector and EYPs, EYTs in the PVI sector follow a “unified Foundation Stage Curriculum”, it is absurd that the pay and conditions, “hence their professionalism” (Roberts-Holmes, 2013, p. 349) varies greatly, which devalues the fundamental work of practitioners and EYTs work with under-threes. It never ceases to amaze me that the most important first five years is where the poorest paid and often lowest qualified practitioners are working (Nutbrown, 2012).
Likewise, policy also needs to address the issue that meeting the narrow, prescriptive Teachers’ Standards (Early Years) (NCTL, 2013) and ‘suggesting’ early reading as part of the training content for all training providers is absolutely insufficient. There needs to be an urgent investment in early reading with a particular focus on under-threes.
Subsequently, a clear definition of what early reading means in practice for under-threes needs to be included in the EYFS, with some clear guidelines about what this means for practitioners and leaders. I would advocate that the content of EYTS training needs to be reviewed to address the deficit in early reading and language development. The ‘Education Excellence Everywhere’ (DfE, 2016a) white paper highlights the need for CPD for teachers, with good to outstanding schools expected to lead the way. The question remains as to where this will leave PVI settings if policy is dictating that schools hold the answers to the training needs for education excellence, as it appears from this research that schools and school readiness is compounding the issue for early reading and is possibly detrimental to practice for under-threes (Roberts-Holmes and Bradbury, 2016a).
The practitioners themselves appeared to greatly benefit from taking part in this research, suggesting that another way forward is to engage in more research with practitioners, rather than more prescriptive and at times ambiguous Teaching Standards.
Teaching in the early years is a demanding profession, which is different in many respects to teaching in general. There is much more to working in the early years than merely gaining professional knowledge and skills.
(Rekalidou and Panitsides, 2015, p. 347)
This knowledge is vital in supporting under-threes with early reading development and deserves to have more than an average of two or three sessions across the EYTS training devoted to this crucial area of development.
Share with your friends: |