The early years foundation stage

Early childhood education and care have a long history in England, perhaps beginning with ‘Dame’ schools providing a childcare service for working mothers in the eighteenth century (Whitbread, Reference WHITBREAD1972; Bristol, Reference BRISTOL2000). The foundation stage curriculum, initially for 3-to-5-year-olds, has evolved considerably over the last 20 years (QCA/DfEE, 2000). Statutory from 2008, the EYFS framework ‘sets standards for development, learning and care of children from birth to 5 years old’ (DfE, 2010, p. 2).

Responding to practitioners’ concerns of an overly complex and time-consuming framework, the ‘Tickell’ review (DfE, 2011) recommended considerable reform. Revisions included reducing the number of early learning goals from 69 to 17, as well as reorganising the curriculum to focus on three prime areas: Communication and Language, Physical Development and Personal, Social and Emotional Development and four specific areas: Literacy, Mathematics, Understanding the World, as well as Expressive Arts and Design (DfE, 2012). The Characteristics of Effective Learning (CoEL) became a salient feature of the revised EYFS framework. Central to all seven interconnected areas of learning and development, they comprise: ‘playing and exploring’ (engagement); ‘active learning’ (motivation) and ‘creating and thinking critically’. Non-statutory guidance in the form of ‘Development Matters’ (Early Education, 2012) was published to support practitioners to implement the statutory requirements.

The EYFS framework has recently undergone another major revision, initiated in 2018 and implemented in September 2021. Early responses during the consultation process were not encouraging (Early Education, 2021). ^{Footnote 1} The critique highlighted the imbalance of emphasis, continuing to move away from holistic learning and developmental pathways with the needs of children as the central focus, to the narrow, formal, outcome-driven approach to learning, with the final goal being to prepare children for Year 1. ^{Footnote 2}

The accompanying non-statutory guidance, ‘Development Matters’ (DfE, 2021), has also been revised. A coordinated response from a Coalition of Early Years Sector Organisations described their disappointment, as well as listing a catalogue of ongoing concerns, not least referencing the inconsistent pedagogic approach. Crucially, they pointed out that Development Matters did not acknowledge children’s comeptence and capacity as active learners. ^{Footnote 3} A further collaboration by members of the EY Sector Coalition has resulted in developing a new non-statutory guidance document, ‘Birth to 5 Matters’, published in 2021.

Tracing the evolving iterations of the EYFS framework demonstrates the constant state of flux and change for practitioners, children and their families. This unprecedented lack of continuity and stability in early years provision, policy and practice in England can only create a source of challenge and tension, as working practices are continually revised (Brooker et al., Reference BROOKER2010).

Introducing the challenges

Tensions arise with conflicting perspectives on the purpose of early learning. A narrow, economic perception of early childhood education ‘as a form of “human capital” investment’ (Ang, Reference ANG2014, p. 188), with an emphasis on preparing children for school and employment, contrasts with the ‘social pedagogy tradition’ (OECD, 2006, p. 13), namely, to prepare ‘citizens to live in, and participate in, the world’ (Sims, Reference SIMS2017, p. 3). This dichotomy of purpose is reflected in the respective pedagogical practices and approaches. The holistic, child-centred, play-oriented approach of the EYFS, deemed to have a ‘horizontal dynamic’ (OECD, 2006), differs from the ‘top-down’, centrally imposed National Curriculum with associative emphases of monitoring, accountability, standardisation, testing, attainment targets and preconceived learning outcomes (BERA, 2003; Soler & Miller, Reference SOLER and MILLER2003; Wallerstedt & Pramling, Reference WALLERSTEDT and PRAMLING2011). Papatheodorou (Reference PAPATHEODOROU2010) notes the ‘challenge for early years practitioners who are caught between two conflicting worldviews and discourses of childhood’ (p.13).

A centralised universal assessment protocol for measuring and tracking progress, the Baseline Assessment scheme, introduced with the Education Act of 1997, was designed to assess pupils in the first weeks of a child’s compulsory school life, some barely past their fourth birthday. The scheme also served a school accountability function, monitored by Ofsted (Office for Standards in Education) ^{Footnote 4} inspection teams. Schools need to demonstrate a ‘narrative of progress’ by providing data to evidence the ‘value they add between Reception and Year 6’ (Bradbury & Robert-Holmes, Reference BRADBURY and ROBERTS-HOLMES2017, p. 7).

Reception baseline assessment (RBA), fraught with controversy, continues to be debated, accompanied by a series of campaigns including ‘Better without baseline’ ^{Footnote 5} (2015) and ‘More than a score’ ^{Footnote 6} (2019). Alliances have been formed from numerous organisations, incorporating academics, teaching unions and practitioners, united in the common belief that schools should not introduce RBA, that the scheme is flawed, unreliable, wasteful of public money and potentially harmful (Bradbury & Robert-Holmes, Reference BRADBURY and ROBERTS-HOLMES2017). Two further studies (Goldstein et al., Reference GOLDSTEIN2018; Roberts-Holmes et al., Reference ROBERTS-HOLMES, FUNG LEE, SOUSA and JONES2019) have continued to add to the evidence base regarding the value, reliability and ethics of RBA. The British Educational Research Association (BERA) convened an expert panel to consider the evidence to support and justify the government’s proposals to introduce baseline assessment, namely, for the purpose of holding primary school leaders to account, for the progress children have made 7 years later by the end of Key Stage 2. The conclusion drawn can be summed ‘the government proposals for the reception baseline assessment are flawed, unjustified and wholly unfit for purpose’ (Goldstein et al., Reference GOLDSTEIN2018, p. 5).

A segue from this theme of longitudinal accountability leads to a brief consideration of the purpose and nature of assessment practices in the EYFS. Summative assessment of learning outcomes, accomplished by testing for attainment, recording what has been learnt, contrasts with assessment for learning (AfL) procedures (DCSF, 2008). Also referred to as formative assessment, AfL is a diagnostic tool applied to determine at what stage a pupil is in their learning, where they need to go and how best to get there (ARG, 2002). Thus, ‘AfL encourages learning and promotes motivation by emphasising progress and achievement rather than failure.’Footnote ⁷

The Expert Group on Assessment (Bevan et al., Reference BEVAN, BRIGHOUSE, MILLS and ROSE2009) recommended combining summative and formative assessment practices. Basford and Bath (Reference BASFORD and BATH2014) highlight the juxtaposition of the positivist and interpretative paradigms resulting from these summative and formative assessment strategies. These authors suggest that the developmental approach based on the illusory ages and stage measurement norm of the ‘typical child’, by default, yields a deficit view of another child who does not conform to this set of predetermined early learning goals. In pursuit of the ‘readiness’ agenda, this product-oriented, developmental, positivistic model sits at one end of the assessment continuum. In contrast, the emphasis of the sociocultural, interpretative approach inherent to formative models of assessment is found at the other (Basford & Bath, Reference BASFORD and BATH2014).

A further dimension for Reception teachers to consider, when monitoring progress and planning next learning steps, involves taking children’s interests and dispositions to learn (Ofsted, 2015) into account. Considered essential to lifelong learning, learning dispositions’ such as curiosity, playfulness, perseverance, confidence and responsibility, are central to the ‘Te Whāriki’ early childhood curriculum of New Zealand (Ministry of Education, 2017). Equally, Ofsted (2015) acknowledges that the CoEL, describing how children learnFootnote ⁸ , are particularly important in the EYFS, as ‘early education is about every aspect of a child’s development. It is about more than imparting knowledge’ (Ofsted, 2015, p. 8), contrary to the view that may yet prevail, that the very young child represents an ‘empty vessel to be filled with knowledge’ (OECD, 2006, p. 193).

A growing body of research considers the relationship between executive functioning, self-regulation abilities, metacognitive skills and educational achievement (Bingham & Whitebread, Reference BINGHAM and WHITEBREAD2012; Moriguchi, Reference MORIGUCHI2014; Bryce et al., Reference BRYCE, WHITEBREAD and SZŰCS2015; Robson, Reference ROBSON2016; Zachariou & Whitebread, Reference ZACHARIOU and WHITEBREAD2015; DfE, 2021). Deemed important for learning and development, young children’s ability to focus and pay attention, remember instructions and demonstrate self-control, whilst exercising autonomy in their learning, develop rapidly during the pre-school years (Moriguchi, Reference MORIGUCHI2014; Pascal et al., Reference PASCAL, BERTRAM and COLE-ALBÄCK2017; DfE, 2021).

A long-standing corps of research literature provides evidence for the contribution of early musical behaviours and practices between infant and carer to support these processes. These include the multi-modal and prosodic nature of proto-conversations (Dissanayake, Reference DISSANAYAKE, Malloch and Trevarthen2009); infant-directed speech (Trainor, Austin, & Desjardins, Reference TRAINOR, AUSTIN and DESJARDINS2000); communicative musicality (Malloch, Reference MALLOCH1999); affect attunement (Stern et al., Reference STERN, HOFER, HAFT, DORE, Field and Fox1985); intersubjectivity, as well as instinctive musicality (Trevarthen, Reference TREVARTHEN1999–2000; Street, Reference STREET2006); emotional bonds of attachment (Bowlby, Reference BOWLBY1988) and infant-directed song (Fernald & Simon, Reference FERNALD and SIMON1984; Cooper et al., Reference COOPER, ABRAHAM, BERMAN and STASKA1997). Indeed, infant-directed song serves communicative and regulatory functions, accompanying daily routines, such as sleep preparation, bathing, feeding and nappy (diaper) changing. Soothing, calming lullabies contrast with rhythmic playsongs intended to stimulate, excite and entertain. Zachariou and Whitebread (Reference ZACHARIOU and WHITEBREAD2015) add to this body of research by tentatively concluding that different musical play contexts allowed for self-regulatory behaviours to emerge in the same way as previously reported studies referencing socio-dramatic and pretend play (DfE, 2021). Moreover, more self-regulatory behaviours were afforded by the musical play opportunities with less teacher involvement, particularly those that offered a degree of choice and control, as well as allowing child agency to set the level of challenge.

The ‘school readiness’ agenda presents a further challenge for Reception teachers. This is particularly evident at the transition ‘pinch’ point between the YR and Y1. The discontinuity between the play-based, relational pedagogic approach of the EYFS and the more formal, structured and outcome-focused pedagogy of Year 1 (Fisher, Reference FISHER2009, Reference FISHER2011; Dubiel & Kilner, Reference DUBIEL and KILNER2017), combined with a lack of alignment between the early learning goals and the expectations of the National Curriculum (Ofsted, 2017; Dubiel & Kilner, Reference DUBIEL and KILNER2017), results in increasing downward pressure from Key Stage 1 to narrow the early years curriculum (Ang, Reference ANG2014; Hedges & Cooper, Reference HEDGES and COOPER2014). Teachers report the difficulties of managing this transition effectively due to the shift in emphasis from ‘process’ in the early years to that of ‘content-based’ learning in Y1 (Dubiel & Kilner, Reference DUBIEL and KILNER2017). The tensions arising from attempting to reconcile holistic child-centred approaches with the downward pressures resulting from outcome-based pedagogies have been described as the ‘schoolification’ of the early years (Ang, Reference ANG2014; Pascal et al., Reference PASCAL, BERTRAM and COLE-ALBÄCK2017; Dubiel & Kilner, Reference DUBIEL and KILNER2017).

This second discourse illuminates some of the contemporary issues and priorities which challenge the fundamental principles and approaches to early childhood education. It presents a picture of centralised, ‘top down’ prescriptive intervention that perhaps responds to and is influenced by socio-economic imperatives, rather than a ‘ground up’ perspective which places the child at the centre (Plowden, Reference PLOWDEN1967; Wall et al., Reference WALL, LITJENS and TAGUMA2015; Nutbrown, Reference NUTBROWN2018).

The place of music within the EYFS

Music, along with art, movement, dance, and role play were initially located under the umbrella term ‘Creative development’ (QCA/DfEE, 2000), later rebranded the ‘Expressive arts and design’ learning area (DfE, 2012). The EYFS Profile Handbook (STA, 2014) lists two ‘Expressive arts and design’ (EAD) early learning goals, ELG 16: ‘Exploring and using media and materials’ and ELG 17: ‘Being imaginative’. Revised in 2021 to ‘Creating with materials’ and ‘Being imaginative and expressive’, ‘performing’ appears to be the principal focus for the music ELG:

This development also highlights the tension between process and product-oriented models of musical learning and experience. Morin (Reference MORIN2001) demonstrates this dichotomy by contrasting ‘large-group, teacher-directed instruction’ with child-initiated ‘musical play’ (Morin, Reference MORIN2001, p. 25). Moreover, Knudsen (Reference KNUDSEN2008) records that the ‘prevailing tendency is to simplify and ‘scale down’ [musical] material and methodology’ designed for older children (p. 290), rather than adopt ‘an appropriate model designed to best serve the developmental capabilities and learning proclivities of this age phase’ (Young, Reference YOUNG2007, p. 20).

A balance between child-initiated and adult-led activities represents one of six key indicators of effective early childhood practice. Initially recommended in the seminal ‘Researching Effective Pedagogy in the Early Years’ (REPEY) report (Sylva et al., Reference SYLVA2004), this has been reiterated many times since (Broadhead, Reference BROADHEAD2006; Keeble, Reference KEEBLE2016; Ofsted, 2017; Early Education, 2021). Dubiel and Kilner (Reference DUBIEL and KILNER2017) acknowledge the challenge that achieving an effective balance of these modes of delivery incurs, remarking that many schools resolve this concern by establishing ‘Continuous provision’.Footnote ⁹ Defined by Early Education (2021) as the ‘environment and resources provided for children to explore freely, which support learning with or without an adult and enable children to revisit and build on their learning’ (p. 118).

Research studies and reports evidence the importance of a child-centred and developmentally appropriate play-based relational pedagogy in the early years (Wall et al., Reference WALL, LITJENS and TAGUMA2015; Roberts-Holmes et al., Reference ROBERTS-HOLMES, FUNG LEE, SOUSA and JONES2019), whilst simultaneously recognising that effective early year’s pedagogy blends different approaches ‘Children learn through play… and through guided learning and direct teaching’ (DfE, 2021, p.10). The facilitative role of the teacher is emphasised, recommending that adult–child interactions should involve ‘sustained shared thinking’ to differentiate and extend each child’s learning, as well as provide on-going, formative feedback (Wall et al., Reference WALL, LITJENS and TAGUMA2015; Early Education, 2021). However, the terminology surrounding the pedagogical nature, as well as expectations of effective practice in the YR is increasingly noted to be a source of confusion for practitioners, as they navigate the range of teaching approaches and directives issued in a plethora of statutory documentation, reports, guidance and research studies (Ofsted, 2017; Dubiel & Kilner, Reference DUBIEL and KILNER2017).

A further measure of effective practice in the early years concerns teacher ‘Knowledge and understanding’ of both child development and the curriculum (Sylva, et al., Reference SYLVA2004; TDA, 2008; Wiggins & Wiggins, Reference WIGGINS and WIGGINS2008; Keeble, Reference KEEBLE2016; Poulter & Cook, Reference POULTER and COOK2022). This is particularly pertinent for music on account of the long-standing and ongoing generalist/specialist primary school teaching debate (Mills, Reference MILLS1989; Alexander et al., Reference ALEXANDER, ROSE and WOODHEAD1992; Holden & Button, Reference HOLDEN and BUTTON2006; Wiggins & Wiggins, Reference WIGGINS and WIGGINS2008; Hallam et al., Reference HALLAM2009; de Vries, Reference DE VRIES2011, Reference DE VRIES2013; Hennessy, Reference HENNESSY2017; Welch, Reference WELCH2020). Generalist class teachers are expected to have a working knowledge of approximately 10 National Curriculum subjects at Y1 or seven learning areas in the EYFS (Welch, Reference WELCH2020). Indeed, a degree of specialist knowledge is helpful, particularly if teachers are to engage children, as well as differentiate and scaffold learning towards Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (Vygotskii & Cole, Reference VYGOTSKII and COLE1978; Bond, Reference BOND2015). This is also particularly pertinent for Reception teachers engaged in ‘In the moment planning‘ (Ephgrave, Reference EPHGRAVE2018). Responding to a child’s interests, the role of the adult is one of observation and reflection, followed by a judgement about whether a teacher interaction would benefit the child’s development at that moment in time. This potential teacher involvement may require knowledge and understanding of both child development and music in order to enhance, rather than interrupt or extinguish learning through play (Berger & Cooper, Reference BERGER and COOPER2003).

Class teachers are reported to lack confidence, demonstrating low self-efficacy beliefs, with regard to facilitating musical learning and development in the Reception classroom (Stunell, Reference STUNELL2010). Oft quoted reasons are on account of a perception that formal musical training or a particular musical skill set, or a ‘musical ear’, is required to teach music (Hennessy, Reference HENNESSY2000; Wiggins & Wiggins, Reference WIGGINS and WIGGINS2008; Burak, Reference BURAK2019; Poulter & Cook, Reference POULTER and COOK2022). Poulter & Cook (Reference POULTER and COOK2022) note that this view may be exacerbated by the emphasis on performance. Indeed, it has been suggested that the performative focus on singing and playing instruments, rather than musical play, perpetuates the specialist/generalist discourse. Even more so, should these teacher perceptions be framed by performative criteria, judged against professional Western European, classical, high art ideals, rather than their ability to engage in musical practices with children (Ehrlin & Wallerstedt, Reference EHRLIN and WALLERSTEDT2014; Nieuwmeijer et al., Reference NIEUWMEIJER, MARSHALL and VAN OERS2021).

A recently published position paper paints an international picture of concern, recommending a need for improved music preparation for early childhood education teachers (Bautista et al., Reference BAUTISTA, YEUNG, MCLAREN and ILARI2022). Contributory factors include: (1) trainee teachers may have limited general musical experience of compulsory music education or extracurricular musical activities prior to enrolment (Koutsoupidou, Reference KOUTSOUPIDOU2010), although Henley (Reference HENLEY2017) notes the positive impact of the primary whole class ensemble teaching initiative in England, changing the ITE entry profile of student experience; (2) limited opportunities for music education within generalist teacher education courses (de Vries, Reference DE VRIES2011); (3) music may be incorporated into generic creativity programmes or integrated with other art forms as identified by the work of the Researching Arts in Primary Schools ProjectFootnote ¹⁰ ; and (4) pre-service music courses have been critiqued for ‘being too short, overly theoretical or abstract, and for lacking practical opportunities’(Bautista et al., Reference BAUTISTA, YEUNG, MCLAREN and ILARI2022, p.3). Thus, Reception teachers gaining qualified teacher status (QTS) in England may feel underprepared to facilitate musical learning and development in their Reception class.

In-service Teacher Education (INSET), an essential factor in continued professional development (CPD), is considered to be ‘critical to improving teachers’ practice at all career stages’ (DfE, 2011, p. 7) and should apply to all areas of learning, including music (Hallam et al., Reference HALLAM2009). Research evidence reports, first, that teachers may not be offered music-related development opportunities and, second, that those training experiences may be considered unhelpful, ineffective or lacking in challenge (Bond, Reference BOND2015). Pursuing the theme of access, the report, ‘Foundations for quality’ (Nutbrown, Reference NUTBROWN2012), tasked with reviewing early education and childcare qualifications records:

Further contributory factors related to the limited provision of EC musical professional development opportunities include school leaders opting for CPD connected to whole school priorities, to keep apace of government demands, initiatives and changes, perhaps at the expense of individual teacher needs (Hennessy, Reference HENNESSY2017; Bautista et al., Reference BAUTISTA, YEUNG, MCLAREN and ILARI2022).

To sum, these three discourses combine to present a complex picture of the early years phase of education and care in England. Unique to the YR, the working context for teachers may be described as one of constant change, tension and challenge as they navigate a variety of pedagogical practices and assessment protocols. This review serves to set the scene in anticipation of the exploratory study, drawn from a thesis, as to the nature of the musical experiences and opportunities offered to children in the Reception class in a region located in the East of England.