Since the beginning of 2024 school year Stoke Primary School has engaged with wider stakeholders to improve the evaluation of school systems. This work has particularly focussed on the pedagogical developments in Key Stage 1.
Principles of Continuous Provision applied to Key Stage 1 pedagogy.
Year 2 Case Study - Flexible Routes and Flourishing Learners
During 2024-25 academic year Emma Lewry (Early Years Consultant and Play based curriculum development) worked with the Year 2 team on a year long case study, evaluating the impact of the pedagogical approach on pupil outcomes through formative and summative assessment, alongside Wellbeing & Involvement analysed through Leuven Scales.
Outcomes from the strategic development and review have been shared in the following publications.
Chartered College of Teaching - IMPACT - Rethinking Series - Oct 2025
Title - Play Matters : Rethinking Year 1 by Ellen Parker
ELLEN PARKER, ASSISTANT HEADTEACHER, STOKE PRIMARY SCHOOL, UK
Introduction
The transition from the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) to Key Stage 1 (KS1) marks a significant juncture in a child’s educational journey, characterised by a noticeable shift from a play-based, explorative curriculum to a more instruction-based approach. This transition raises pertinent questions about the suitability of current practices and their impact on the holistic development of children within education.
This concern was particularly relevant for our school, an inner-city, two-form-entry primary school serving a diverse pupil population. The IDSR (2022) identifies the school characteristics as:
percentage of FSM6 (free school meals within the last six years) within the highest quintile
percentage of pupils receiving SEND (special educational needs and disability) support within the second-highest quintile
percentage of pupils identified as EAL (English as an additional language) within the highest quintile
percentage of stability within the lowest quintile
the school’s location indicator for deprivation within quintile 4.
This leads to key challenges, such as persistent absence and low school readiness in terms of executive functions and self-regulation. When looking at transition and continuity from Reception, we observed previous cohorts struggle with the demands of a formal Year 1, such as increased curriculum expectations and prolonged periods at desks, resulting in a passive approach to their learning and reduced learning time due to its discrete nature. To maximise outcomes for our Year 1 learners, we understood that our approach needed to evolve by building upon the principles and practice of the Early Years.
Research indicates that our ‘most vulnerable pupils are at risk when play is absent from… learning’ (Allee-Herndon et al., 2019), as play provides opportunities for executive function development (Eberhart et al., 2023). Executive functions – for example, cognitive flexibility and self-regulation – are considered more reliable indicators of academic success than areas such as early literacy (McClelland et al., 2014). Moreover, studies have highlighted correlations between poverty and lower executive function (Blair and Raver, 2015), emphasising the importance of addressing this disparity. However, it should be recognised that the benefits of play-based learning extend beyond our most vulnerable learners.
Developmental characteristics are not unique to specific year groups; children enter our classrooms with diverse starting points and their own early experiences. Play understands this and allows for a more inclusive and developmentally sensitive approach to education (Fisher, 2020), recognising and responding to the individual needs and strengths of each child, regardless of background or circumstance. To reduce play to a ‘prop’ ignores its potential to harness engagement and contribute to the learning of all children (Howe, 2016). Contextually, it is noteworthy that Wales extends its Foundation Stage to age seven and Scotland to age eight, underscoring the value attributed to Early Years education.
Pedagogical approach
With a school ethos that recognises strong early learning as a vital foundation for long-term success, our methodology needed to provide the best educational experience for our youngest learners. Crucial to this was the role of play in both academic and personal development. Barriers to learning and the challenges these posed to teachers were mapped, supporting the transition to a continuous provision methodology and play-based approach to learning, motivated by our passion to:
facilitate contextual learning
bring the essence of childhood to the classroom
maximise learning outcomes
ensure that transition to formal learning is not a reward for success in a continuous provision model
empower teachers.
Firstly, extensive prior planning and CPD (continued professional development) took place for the Year 1 team, enabling a shared vision to form. This training highlighted the vital role that the environment plays in unlocking effective learning, a key question being: ‘Whatwill the classroom look like?’ Drawing insights from literature, such as Can I Go and Play Now? (Bottrill, 2022), we identified and mapped key areas within the environment – for example, the outdoors, construction and craft – and defined the roles of adults within this approach. Alongside this, the desired learning system was matched to Year 1 National Curriculum objectives, and exploration of how these could be covered in the context of a play-based approach began. At this point, concerns started to arise:
How could certain objectives be achieved?
Would this approach allow enough time to cover everything?
What would evidence look like?
To address these apprehensions, strong leadership, coupled with open communication between all stakeholders, was key. Firstly, a ‘through the eyes of the child’ framework was co-constructed, identifying core areas of learning throughout the curriculum that would guide planning and enable children to develop a broad set of skills ahead of Year 2. Shared planning time with core subject leaders was fundamental to ensuring quality objectives through the provision, complemented by development of a timetable allocating discrete teaching time for core and foundation subjects. It is important to note that these teaching moments were focused and short, followed by child-led exploration. When evidencing learning, emphasis was placed on the quality of teacher knowledge rather than collecting evidence for its own sake. Each child had a learning journal, where evidence was collated from various sources, including work produced from adult-led and provision moments, photos and QR codes.
The benefits of play-based learning were celebrated, but the possible limitations need to be a key feature of review. As McLane (2003) suggests, we must recognise the potential of play without romanticising it. While play offers invaluable opportunities for holistic development and exploration, it cannot fully address certain areas of learning. Fisher (2010) underscores this point, highlighting that play is not inherently suited to teach skills such as handwriting, phonics or specific factual knowledge, and that we should consider what play can teach and what it can consolidate.
Findings and implications
The adoption of a play-based approach in Year 1 has led to a wealth of findings and implications, despite being in the early stages of implementation. This case study represents just one school’s experience, and therefore has its limitations. However, it may be useful for practitioners working across the Early Years and Key Stage 1, along with senior leaders, in respect to reflecting on their pedagogical standpoint regarding play and the benefits that this brings to developing the whole child as an individual and as a learner.
Throughout the year, continuous reflection on our practice allowed us to refine, improve and challenge our thinking in real time. This exposed how, despite a strong rationale, there were challenges identified that needed to be addressed:
the shift in thinking to planning through a play-based approach
challenging more confident learners
ensuring that independent learning activities were open-ended.
In response, we implemented strategies aimed at providing children with both focus and agency within the provision, designed in collaboration with wider leaders. This involved providing topic-related activities while also allowing the children to pursue their own ideas on how to complete these. The process of evidence collection has sought to dispel the notion of daily book work, emphasising the importance of varied evidence collection from the provision instead. Despite these challenges, the benefits of the play-based approach were evident in the enriched learning experiences and increased engagement for all children, balanced by a reduction in behaviour-related challenges and leading to strong outcomes for the cohort.
Anecdotal evidence has been abundant from both staff and children, providing valuable insights into the impact of this approach on learning outcomes and overall practice.
The most prevalent impacts on learning have been:
a significant increase in time spent applying new skills
continuous support and challenge tailored to each child’s individual starting point
a notable rise in learning talk among the cohort
enhanced insights into each child as a learner and the skills that they can use
application of skills and knowledge across various contexts.
A significant finding is the notable increase in children’s motivation to write. By engaging in play-based learning experiences and fostering emotional connections with their learning, children have demonstrated increased motivation and enthusiasm to write. This contrasts with the previous formal approach, where writing was met with reluctance and disinterest.
Importantly, our journey highlighted that the challenge in Year 1 did not stem from what was being taught, but how it was being taught. By reviewing pedagogy rather than curriculum, we created an environment where children actively engaged in self-directed learning, confidently extending themselves and collaborating with peers.
Recommendations
For practitioners embarking on the journey of adopting a similar approach – embrace the journey!
To ensure the success of a play-based approach, consider the following:
Develop a deep understanding of and belief in the effectiveness of play
Commit to ongoing reflection and refinement
Be willing to shift your mindset.
In practical terms, when beginning the development of this approach, consider:
Connect with schools in your locality or beyond that have already implemented play-based learning models beyond the Early Years
Take time to assess your current learning environment and craft a clear vision
Dedicate time to developing your curriculum and defining the roles of adults within the provision.
Finally, I would encourage practitioners to approach this with courage and resilience. While the transition to a play-based approach may provoke apprehension and uncertainty, due to perceptions and stereotypes, it is essential to remember that this decision is rooted in what is best for our youngest learners.
References
Allee-Herndon KA, Dillman Taylor D and Roberts SK (2019) Putting play in its place: Presenting a continuum to decrease mental health referrals and increase purposeful play in classrooms. International Journal of Play 8(2): 186–203.
Blair C and Raver CC (2015) School readiness and self-regulation: A developmental psychobiological approach. Annual Review of Psychology 66(1): 711–731.
Bottrill G (2022) Can I Go and Play Now? Rethinking the Early Years. London: SAGE Publications.
Eberhart J, Paes TM, Ellefson MR et al. (2023) Executive functions and play. Trends in Neuroscience and Education 30: 10198.
Fisher J (2010) Moving on to Key Stage 1: Improving Transition from the Early Years Foundation Stage. London: Open University Press.
Fisher J (2020) Moving on to Key Stage 1: Improving Transition into Primary School. London: Open University Press.
Howe S (2016) What play means to US: Exploring children’s perspectives on play in an English year 1 classroom. European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 24(5): 748–759.
IDSR (2022), Gov.UK Inspection Data Summary Report, 19 October 2022 (accessed 21 March 2024)
McClelland MM, Cameron CE, Duncan R et al. (2014) Predictors of early growth in academic achievement: The head-toes-knees-shoulders task. Frontiers in Psychology 5: 599.
McLane J (2003) Thinking about play in the early childhood classroom. Erikson Institute. Available at: www.erikson.edu/wp-content/uploads/OP_mclane.pdf (accessed 21 March 2024).
Continuous Provision at Stoke Primary: A Seamless Learning Journey from Ages 2 to 7 and Beyond
Michelle Windridge, Dec2025
At Stoke Primary, continuous provision isn’t just an Early Years strategy — it’s a school-wide approach that nurtures curiosity, independence, and deep thinking.
Stoke Primary School is forging an exciting path in the development of continuous provision, extending a play-rich, inquiry-led pedagogy from nursery through to year 3 and, increasingly, across the wider school.
In a climate where many schools feel the pressure to formalise learning increasingly earlier, Stoke stands out as a bold example of how deeply child-centred, research-informed practice can elevate outcomes, strengthen wellbeing, and create a culture of confident, independent learners.
Copyright: Michelle Windridge. Used with permission.
Through close observation, pupil tracking, and in-depth conversations with staff and leaders, it is evident that Stoke’s approach is making a transformative difference to children aged two to seven, and to the adults who teach them.
The power of movement and choice
What strikes me most as I walk through the school is how active and busy the children are — moving freely, out of their seats — yet the atmosphere remains calm, purposeful and deeply focused.
One of the clearest advantages of continuous provision is the natural physical movement it affords children. They are more active throughout the day, not having to ask permission to leave their seat, but trusted to do so in order to support their chosen learning path in that moment.
In a traditional model, movement might be limited simply to transitioning from the carpet to a table. The contrast is stark. For many children, particularly those who rely on physicality to regulate or maintain focus, this movement is not an optional extra but a vital condition for success.
Continuous provision embeds these opportunities throughout the day, ensuring that children are not confined to a single posture or workspace, but instead are empowered to choose how and where they learn best.
This freedom was illustrated in year 3, where I observed children exploring star constellations. What could have been a simple worksheet-labelling activity became a rich, creative investigation.
Copyright: Michelle Windridge. Used with permission.
Each child used an individual basket to collect resources from the pantry, selecting how they wished to map their constellation. Some arranged shells into star patterns, others sculpted forms from playdough, while some chose the more traditional pencil-and-paper route.
Every pupil had genuine autonomy over their learning. Once finished, they photographed their creations using an iPad and uploaded them to their personal learning journal — a process often seen in early years but far less typical in key stage 2.
Headteacher Mat Ascroft explained how this approach ensures every child is included. Some pupils know instantly how they want to present their work and dive straight in; others prefer to pause and process the teacher’s input before beginning.
Both approaches are not only accepted but valued. This flexibility allows all learners to access the task at their own pace and in their own way, without pressure or constraint.
Copyright: Michelle Windridge. Used with permission.
A culture of conversation and deep thinking
Another feature of Stoke’s provision is the richness of children’s talk. In acase studyby Parker and Emma Lewry - Early Years consultant, pupils were observed to be engaged in discussion with peers or adults for approximately three-quarters of each session.
This talk was purposeful and sophisticated: asking questions, articulating their thinking, reflecting on outcomes, negotiating roles, and even teaching one another skills and knowledge across a range of subjects.
Importantly, children are encouraged to explore their ideas, take risks in their learning, and learn from their failures — understanding that mistakes are part of the process rather than something to be feared.
After the initial teacher input, the role of the teacher shifts to that of a facilitator, supporting children as they follow their own lines of inquiry and make decisions about how to pursue their learning.
Researchtells us that we should prioritise the development of children’s communication and language through socially meaningful interactions. Children thrive on conversation with people they have a strong relationship with, particularly when the discussion focuses on topics that interest them and are relevant to their experiences.
Continuous provision at Stoke evolves as children progress through the school. In the early years, learning is highly flexible – allowing for open-ended exploration.
Copyright: Michelle Windridge. Used with permission.
As children move into key stage 1 and then key stage 2, the provision adapts. Older pupils are introduced to weekly ‘must do’ challenges that provide structure and clear objectives, while still allowing them to exercise choice, collaborate with peers, and pursue their own interests.
This was introduced by Stoke’s Ellen Parker, Head of Teaching and Learning. It ensures that the benefits of continuous provision — independence, active learning, and rich dialogue — are maintained, while gradually incorporating the level of guidance and expectation appropriate to each stage of development.
This constant dialogue is not incidental but a product of carefully planned, open-ended learning environments and highly intentional adult interaction. It is conversation that fuels cognition, deepens understanding, nurtures curiosity, and promotes social and emotional development.
The spine of the curriculum
Lucy Fox, Assistant Headteacher and Head of Foundations, shared that continuous provision isn’t an early years add-on, it’s the spine of the school’s curriculum from age two to year two.
“By protecting play, language, curiosity, and independence all the way from our Meadow toddlers to our seven-year-olds, we’ve built a seamless progression where children don’t ‘grow out’ of what works; they grow deeper into it.
The environment changes, the challenge grows, but the principles stay the same: rich interactions, meaningful learning, and children who know how to think, not just what to remember.”
From ages two to seven — and increasingly beyond — Stoke Primary is showing what is possible when schools trust children, invest in teachers, and commit to a pedagogy that sees capability, curiosity, and potential in every learner.
Use of Screen Time in the Early Years
"Why we teach without screens in Reception"
When one early years class was relocated to a room without screens or wi-fi, it created the conditions to test the benefits of going screen-free, writes Lucy Fox
3rd December 2025, 12:51pm
Following the movement of the wooden round house to the Reception outside area, data analysis identified that rates of progress and security of retention had improved in the cohort of reception children who were based in the round house. Key to this was the environment had no links with wifi or tech leading to the development of a range of non screen based teaching methods.
When I first arrived at Stoke Primary School as early years lead, I faced a practical challenge that became a powerful learning journey. Our two Reception classes were sharing one large open plan space, but it was clear the children needed their own environments - places to build their identities and where they and their teacher could begin and end the day together, as a class.
After many trials and much debate, we found a solution: we commissioned a grounds company to convert our forest school roundhouse into an early years space. With 360-degree windows, twinkling lights, rugs and heaters, it soon became a magical, cosy classroom.
However, there was one problem: the roundhouse had no wi-fi and no screens.
At first, this seemed like an inconvenience. But what felt like a hurdle ended up transforming our entire philosophy on early education, and has had a lasting impact on the school’s pedagogy.
Rethinking how we teach
Our first challenge was practical: how would we deliverphonicsand maths, both of which had relied heavily on screen-led teaching?
Without interactive whiteboards, Microsoft PowerPoint or anything digital, we had to strip everything back to the essence of what we were teaching. For me, this was uncomfortable at first. Like many teachers, I had trained in an era where technology was fast becoming essential.
However, we returned to the foundations of effective early years practice:manipulatives, spoken language, storytelling, movement and song. Planning became more intentional, and teaching more responsive. Instead of clicking through slides, we were modelling, talking, drawing and acting things out.
The impact on children and staff
The difference was immediate. The children were more focused, imaginative and full of ideas.
Communication and language flourished; our windows filled with chalk drawings and emerging words, and their sense of identity grew stronger each week.
By Christmas, the data confirmed what we had already seen. In phonics, 34 per cent of children taught in the roundhouse were “on track”, compared with 18 per cent of those taught through a screen-led approach.
Considering that none of our cohort had entered Reception “on track” for phonics in their baseline assessments, this progress was remarkable.
By the end of the second term, the roundhouse group showed stronger progress across almost every area of learning, especially in literacy, where 76 per cent were meeting expectations, compared with 66 per cent in the classroom group.
This progress gap was so significant that, in the summer term, we swapped the groups. Those who moved into the roundhouse made accelerated progress, particularly in literacy and maths. We felt this proved that the difference lay not in the children or the quality of the teaching, but in the environment and approach.
One teacher, previously a strong advocate for screen use, completely changed her practice after moving into the roundhouse. Wherever she is teaching, she now delivers phonics, literacy and maths entirely off-screen by choice, not out of necessity.
What this means for our school
This experience has sparked a wider cultural shift. This year, neither Reception class has used their classroom screens once for teaching: a deliberate commitment to talk, exploration and real-world interaction.
We are not anti-technology, but we are now intentional about its use. We believe that in early years, in particular, screen use should be purposeful, rather than habitual. When planning new opportunities, we ask whether a tool deepens learning or replaces it; screens are no longer the default answer.
The change has also influenced our professional learning, which now focuses on communication and language, imaginative play and sustained shared thinking. It reminds us that high-quality early education relies on connection and creativity, not content delivery.
For early years departments considering going screen-free, I would make the following suggestions:
Start small and model Phonics is a great place to start, as it lends itself to physical resources like magnetic letters, sound cards or sand trays.
Support your staff Removing screens can feel daunting, so offer teachers alternatives and celebrate creativity.
Communicate clearly This isn’t about rejecting technology, but rebalancing children’s experiences to better supportlanguage development, imagination and independence.
Use evidence Gather data, observations and pupil voice to check that the shift is having the effect you intended.
Keep purpose central
If a digital tool adds depth, use it. If it replaces thinking or conversation, rethink it.
What began as a logistical challenge to give two Reception classes their own space ended up transforming how we think about teaching and learning.
For our youngest children - especially those whose early years were shaped by lockdowns - switching off the screens at our school has switched on something far more powerful.
Lucy Fox is assistant headteacher and head of foundations at Stoke Primary School
How screen time affects toddlers: ‘We’re losing a big part of being human’
It isn’t uncommon for children to make phones or tablets in art classes. Composite: Guardian Design
In the UK, 98% of two-year-olds watch screens on a typical day, on average for more than two hours – and almost 40% of three- to five-year-olds use social media.
Could this lead to alarming outcomes?
At Stoke primary school in Coventry, there are many four-year-olds among those starting in reception class who can’t sit still, hold a pencil or speak more than a four-word sentence. Lucy Fox, the assistant headteacher and head of foundations, is in no doubt what is causing this: their early exposure to screens, and a lot of it. When the children experiment with materials and creativity, and make things in the classroom, she says, “We notice a lot of children will cut pieces of cardboard out and make a mobile phone or tablet, or an Xbox controller. That’s what they know.”
At another school in Hampshire, a longtime reception teacher says in the last few years she has noticed children getting frustrated if activities aren’t instant and seamless – something she thinks comes from playing games on a phone or tablet. There is a lack of creativity and problem-solving skills, noticeable when the children are playing with Lego or doing jigsaw puzzles and turning the pieces to fit. “I find their hand-eye coordination isn’t very good, and they find puzzles difficult. Doing a puzzle on an iPad, you just need to hold and move it on the screen. They get really frustrated and I feel like there are certain connections the brain is not making any more.”
There is also something of an attitude shift, she says – a kind of individualism that she’s convinced comes from playing alone on a device. “We are having to model to children how to be with others, how you work as a team, how you share things, because they’re so used to having their own time, doing their own thing. We’re losing a big part of being human, and if these young children don’t get all those skills, they’re not going to pick them up later on.”
Earlier this month, the government announced it would beissuing new guidanceon screen use for under-fives in April, after a report it commissioned found 98% of two-year-olds were watching screens on a typical day, with the average duration more than two hours. Those who spent the most time – around five hours – had limited vocabulary compared with those who spent the least, and were twice as likely to show signs of emotional and behavioural difficulties.
“It’s a trend that we’ve been seeing for quite a long time,” says Pasco Fearon, a professor of developmental psychopathology at University College London and the director of theChildren of the 2020sstudy. “Look at studies getting all the way back to the turn of the century – you can see that screen time, on the whole, has been increasing.” That’s true for all of us, not just for children. Of the impact on children, Fearon says: “I’m sure it’s a factor that a lot of parents, like the rest of us, are on their phones. It’s becoming very dominant in everyone’s lives.” The data in this study, he says, “can be quite a useful focal point to start thinking: Wait, is this what we want? A little bit of a reset might be useful for everyone.”
This report comes on the back of other recent research showing very young children’s screen access is increasing. In October, the Americanresearch organisation Pewfound that 38% of parents of under-twos said their child uses or interacts with a smartphone, and 8% of under-fives had their own smartphone. In the UK, Ofcom’s research has found that19% of children aged three to fivehad their own mobile phone in 2024, and that37% of children this age– more than 800,000 kids – were using at least one social media app, up from 29% in 2023 (though the majority use it with their parents’ supervision).
The Conservatives have justpledged to follow Australiaand ban social media for under-16s, and the Labour government has said it will consider doing the same. (Australia’s ban, incidentally, includes YouTube but not YouTube Kids, which is aimed at younger viewers – so it does not necessarily address the problem of excess screen time.)
Unlike for teenagers, little research has been done on the impact of social media on the youngest children. At the extreme end, all children are at risk of sexual abuse online. In November last year, the NSPCC reportedonline grooming crimes had reached record highs, with the youngest victim being just four.
More is becoming known about the impact of young children exposed to excessive screen time, though. In 2025,a New Zealand studyfound that young children who had watched more than 90 minutes a day had below-average vocabulary, communication and numeracy at the ages of four and eight, and that more screen time meant even poorer outcomes.
TodayKindred Squared, an organisation that campaigns for early years education and development, releases its latest report on children’s school readiness. It found that more than half of teachers believed spending too much time on screens – by children and their parents alike – was the single biggest factor contributingto the child not being ready to start school. “We know that screen time is a problem,” says the CEO, Felicity Gillespie. This year, reception teachers reported 28% of children were unable to use a book correctly, for instance tapping or swiping the pages as if it were an electronic device.
“In cases of higher usage,” says Gillespie, “there is a real negative impact on language acquisition. It’s not that surprising when you think about how language is developed in babies, that it is through that serve-and-return interaction with adults – the baby makes a noise, the parent makes a noise back. The baby smiles, the parent smiles. It’s that two-way interaction that fires the baby’s brain. Nought to two is the period when our brains are growing at their fastest rate, so the earlier you put babies in front of screens, the more they are missing out [on] those early interactions, which is where the hard-wiring of the brain is happening.”
The early years, says Gillespie, “are the foundation for everything that follows, for mental and physical health, wellbeing, your happiness, your success in relationships. I think it comes back to this need for better information for parents and clear, simple, unequivocal guidance. Tell them the truth. Tell them what the evidence says.”
The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends children under two should get no screen time at all, and for those aged two to four, a maximum of one hour. Is that realistic in today’s parenting world? Gillespie acknowledges the latest study showing two-year-olds are watching two hours a day. “Then what we then need to do is give parents the information about why the WHO advises that, to inform people about the preciousness of these early years and the importance of brain development.” The government, she hopes, will “give parents the kind of practical, real-world guidance that takes account of the fact that, I think, we’ve probably missed the boat on the WHO guidance”.
The Covid pandemic accelerated screen use (many children in current reception classes and year 1 were born in that first year), but it had been steadily rising before that. “My referrals have been increasing over the past 10 years,” says Sandy Chappell, an early years speech and language therapist. During the lockdowns, she says, it was “not just that children were isolated from other children, but also that parents were relying more on screens to pacify young children. I had many parents in impossible situations, where they were trying to work from home and had babies and toddlers to entertain at the same time, so they had no choice but to rely on screens.”
She has sympathy for parents who rely on screens now. “Absolutely. It’s unbelievably difficult.” Fearon too, talking about the research that is driving the government’s advice, stresses it’s not about blaming parents. The study found children from disadvantaged families were more likely to spend time on screens. “This is about understanding the context in which this is happening, and how people are making the day work when there are challenges families are experiencing, financially, and in terms of work and all the pressures of daily life. If we’re trying to support families, it’s partly about giving them really clear advice, but also about giving more help to families, particularly those who are experiencing economic disadvantage. That’s going to give them a bit more slack to be able to play more, talk to their children more, be more engaged in the way that they’d like to.”
In Chappell’s clinic, she is seeing children with “poor attention and listening skills, poor turn-taking and social skills, as well as poor vocabulary and expressive language”. Many have their own electronic devices, and although Chappell has seen the stats about social media use, it’s not something she’s aware of. “Parents don’t tend to tell me that’s what’s happening, because I think instinctively they know it’s not a good thing.” And while some content is better than others – “things like [the BBC’s] CBeebies, where [many programmes are developed with] educational value by psychologists and educationists” – what matters more is duration. “We really need to cut the time down,” says Chappell.
She can spot the children who have spent a lot of time on screens: she has seen preschoolers, she says, who will spend seven or eight hours a day on a screen. Other children might be shy to begin with, but will soon start talking to her or will go straight to investigate her toy collection. Those who have spent a lot of time on screens, she says, don’t tend to interact with her and “don’t seem to be particularly interested in toys. They can’t follow simple instructions. They’re wandering around the room – and I’m not talking about young toddlers here, but three- and four-year-olds. They start school without even the basic skills that they need in order to be able to learn.”
This is often when the child is referred to her, with parents worrying they’re not ready for school. “Preschool children can catch up to a certain extent if the screens are reduced to a bare minimum and time is spent on building other skills. It becomes more difficult once they get to school, and we are finding that these issues are following children right through school. Their language levels at age four are one of the biggest predictors of their later academic achievement at GCSE level and beyond. So it really is important that we put the work in with children way before they go to school.”
By the time they join reception, many children will already be familiar with a tablet, and in 2025, for the first time, children used a touchscreen device to take the 20-minute test known as thereception baseline assessment. “There were children who couldn’t speak a sentence who did very well in the assessment, because they could scroll,” says Fox, sounding exasperated. “It became not an assessment of what children academically could do, and where they were developmentally, but an assessment of how computer-literate they were – and that’s what horrified me.”
To accommodate 60 reception children, but without space within the school, Stoke Primary turned a wooden “roundhouse” (a simple octagonal wooden structure), which had been in their forest school area, into a new classroom, complete with rugs, fairy lights and, inadvertently, no wifi – and therefore no screens. At first, as Fox wrote in TES (formerly the Times Educational Supplement), this seemed an “inconvenience” and a “hurdle”. It ended up transforming her thinking on screens in schools; her previous job had been in a school which prided itself on giving each child an iPad.
“Very quickly we realised the impact that it was having on the children,” says Fox now. By the end of that first autumn term, 72% of the “roundhouse” children were considered to be “on track” compared with 44% of the children in the traditional classroom. When they switched the classes later in the year, they got similar results.
The roundhouse style, in which children sit in a circle, “forces communication and language to come before anything, which is so important. We have quite a significant amount of English as an additional language compared with other schools – 60% of our children in reception last year – so the language skills that it’s pulling out of them is remarkable.” Instead of the usual schemes, or structured lesson plans that use PowerPoint and other software, “there is none of that in the roundhouse. It forces you to go back to basics. I had to build up the confidence of those teachers to feel they could do that, and could make their own decisions about what they knew was best for their children. We all know that we live in a digital age, and there is no stopping digital growth. But to what extent are we using tech to replace the things that we know are best for our children?” Both reception classes no longer use screens for teaching, though the older classes do.
Fox is turning her attention to the newest generation of teachers coming through. “They’re from a different generation,” she says – people who have grown up with screens themselves. “How can we give them the confidence to know what’s best, and to put the scheme down and just connect with their children?”
