In the Key findings it stated:
"We found various views on the definition of school readiness and whether the term refers to readiness to start school on entry to Year 1 or at the start of entry into Reception."
Regarding 'Children's readiness for school' it stated:
- The term "school readiness' features in many reviews of education and statutory guidance. However the precise characteristics of school readiness and the age of the child to which it applies are interpreted variously by the providers we visited. There is no nationally agreed definition.
- The Allen Report encouraged the promotion of the best early intervention
programmes to make sure that all children are able to be "school ready" at 5. The
Field Report set out the importance of pre-school and look in particular at how
home background determined a child's readiness for school.
- The Tickell Report found it helpful to consider it from the perspective of its opposite- school 'unreadiness' – and described how most children begin Reception class at age four, and how for most parents and carers this is when school life begins.
The Ofsted report further commented:
'Where providers had developed close partnerships they were more likely to have developed a localised mutual understanding of what was expected in terms of children's readiness as they transferred. Defining what school readiness means is an essential factor in ensuring that children can be well prepared for starting school.
Parents were an integral part of establishing a child's starting points at moment of transfer. They provided a clear indication of any variations in their child's behaviour, development and attitudes that occurred in the home environment as compared to the setting. Accurate assessment of children's attainment on entry placed a strong emphasis on gathering parental views and information, and helping families to understand what was expected in terms of children's level of "readiness'.
In the best examples, staff from the early years setting and the school visited each other's workplaces and discussed learning materials and assessment approaches so that continuity was assured. Comprehensive assessments of each child were shared, and children's next steps identified and used to plan seamless transition in learning so that little time was lost.
Importantly, we found rigorous cross-moderation resulted in more consistent assessment practice that ensured children's progress was uninterrupted and their special educational needs and/or disabilities identified.
A strength of cross-moderation was in the care taken to ensure assessment of key areas of development were robust and accurate.'
Go back to May newsletter |
