Elucidating the Dilemma of P1 in Western Australian Schools: Towards a Solution

Abstract

Currently in Western Australian schools, the early childhood education profession faces profound change, as a result of changes to classroom combinations. One of these is an innovation called 'P1', which involves grouping pre-primary and year 1 students in the one class. Unlike other composite primary year classes, P1 demands an amalgamation of early childhood and primary curriculum and philosophy. To date, the basis on which P1 curriculum is to be built has yet to be established. No formal process been articulated for dealing with the ideological differences and beliefs that exist in schools with respect to early childhood and primary education. This article draws on a five-year Western Australia (WA) study, which examined teachers' conceptual and behavioural positions toward P1. The findings indicated a need for leadership, specialised staff, resolution of philosophical differences, curriculum guidelines, quality support structures and the enhancement of school and community relationships. There were also concerns that government and curriculum expertise had not kept pace with the needs of staff.

‘Push-Me’ or ‘Pull-You’? An Opportunity for Early Childhood Leadership in the Implementation of Queensland's Early Years Curriculum

“…Concerns regarding the 'push-me' or push-down phenomenon have been a feature of ECEC conversations for at least the last two decades, both in the USA (Shepard & Smith, 1988;Walsh, 1989;Graue, 1992;Stipek & Byler, 1997), the United Kingdom (Evans & Fuller, 1998) and, more recently, in Australia (Corrie, 1999;Grieshaber, 2000;Stamopoulos, 2003a). Pressure to adhere to more formalised, skills-based approaches emanates from a number of fronts including parents, school administrators, education authorities and governments (Tayler, 2006).…”

“…Forewarning of the challenges that lie ahead may well forearm those who would passionately resist the 'push-me' phenomenon in Queensland. The challenges experienced in Western Australia since the introduction of the Pre-primary Year have been documented in research undertaken by Tayler (2006), Corrie (1999) and Stamopoulos (2003a). Predictably, these articles address themes that are also emerging in the Queensland context as stakeholders prepare for the implementation of the Preparatory Year there.…”

“…Predictably, these articles address themes that are also emerging in the Queensland context as stakeholders prepare for the implementation of the Preparatory Year there. Issues such as provisions for professional development and dealing with partnerships (Tayler, 2006), facilities for Pre-primary classes (Corrie, 1999) and the complexities surrounding Pre-primary/Year One composite classes (Stamopoulos, 2003a) underpinned concerns in Western Australia. Indeed, commentators such as Woodrow & Brennan (1999) have previously described such tensions (particularly in terms of problematic relationships between early childhood teachers and school administrators) as they emerged during the introduction of the (soon to be superseded) Preschool Curriculum Guidelines (Queensland School Curriculum Council, 1998) in Queensland.…”

“…Notably, all forms demand action. Stamopoulos (2003a) provides a clear association between the leadership of principals, their knowledge base and aspects of school development within the context of the introduction of the Pre-primary Year in Western Australia. Accordingly, she notes that minimal knowledge or understanding of 'content and structure of the curriculum for pre-primary education [makes] it difficult [for leaders] to provide educational assistance to teachers' (p. 200).…”

Here and now: the attendance issue in Indigenous early childhood education

“…6. See Stamopoulos (2003) for a critique of pedagogical implications of such arrangements following this policy change. 7.…”