ABSTRACT
In Chapter 2, we concluded that young children demonstrate an inherent capacity to engage in role-play and that it is a central feature of their early development. Few would dispute this. Yet how such insights are to be translated into pedagogical practice has presented the field with some of its most enduring challenges. We established at the outset that the overarching aim of the project was to explore the relationship between role-play and pedagogy, between teachers’ provision and children’s responses to that provision and that the children’s perspectives on these matters are at the heart of our concerns. But our discussion would not be complete without some consideration of what their teachers thought about role-play and how they organised their classrooms accordingly. The introduction of the Foundation Stage in 2000, and with it greater official recognition of how play contributes to young children’s education, was already well established by the time we began working with our teachers in 2003. According to the documentation, all early childhood settings are required to offer children appropriate educational experiences within the remit of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (CFGS) (QCA 2000), which endorses a play-based, informal curriculum that is responsive to the developmental, social and physical needs of children in this age group. In spite of these significant changes to policy regarding the educational experiences of children below statutory school age, an extensive piece of research conducted by Adams et al. (2004) noted a range of continuing problems for teachers and children in reception classes, particularly in relation to fulfilling the requirements of the CGFS to provide a play-based active learning environment. Top-down pressure from the SATs (Standard Assessment Tasks), a target-driven culture in primary schools, leagues tables and concomitant expectations from colleagues and parents placed many reception-class teachers under continued pressure to prepare children for formal learning. In a similar vein to the study by Adams et al. (2004), Fisher notes the pressure exerted on reception-class teachers from the National Literacy Strategy (NLS), where the emphasis is on the so-called ‘literacy hour’ rather than developmentally appropriate practice (2000: 134).
