Tara Shah: Investigating Notions of Quality within Early Years Mathematics

Introduction:
Notions of ‘quality’ in early childhood care and education are subjective. Early Years education has long been under scrutiny regarding what quality should look like (Tickell, 2011) from politicians, philosophers, psychologists and educationalists (Dahlberg, Moss and Pence, 1999; Dahlberg and Moss, 2008; Mayall, 2002; Moss, 2007), bringing to light questions regarding how practitioners teaches young children and how these children should be best educated. As posited in Sylva et al. (2010), quality of care and education is not the stuff of the past but is ongoing and requires constant attention. Bakken, Brown and Downing (2017) suggest that children attending Early Years provision from a younger age gain huge benefits from attending ‘high-quality’ settings (p.3). Therefore, it is vital to look at practice to ascertain what constitutes quality and what the current state of quality within early childhood care and education is (Alderson, 2008). I will examine this by explaining my understanding and perception of ‘quality’ within Early Years practitioner practice and professional development, before detailing my resulting ideas on intervention within the area of mathematics. 
Notions of ‘Quality’ within Early Years Education 
Bonetti (2018) states that ‘for early years provision to deliver its promise, it needs to be of high quality. Yet, what ‘high-quality’ means is still debated. The existing evidence on what is meant by high quality is dense, poorly understood, and inaccessible to practitioners, commissioners and policy-makers’ (p.5). In summary, it is difficult to define exactly what quality is and what quality looks like in early childhood education and care. As suggested in Dahlberg et. al. (1999), ‘It seems to us, however, that the very concept of quality does need questioning because there is a problem with quality’ (p.11). Quality in Early Years provision is an idea that is based on an individual’s perception and moral principles, and an individuals’ experiences, rather than to do with a globally based notion of what quality of care, education actually is, suggesting that the notion of quality based can be subjective. 

Several research studies have tried to ascertain definitions of quality within early childhood care and development and learning (Dahlberg and Moss, 2008). According to the Education Policy Institute (EPI) and the Early Interventions Foundation (EIF) Early Education Report (Bonetti, 2018), the two main notions of quality for children attending the Early Years are ‘structural quality’ (EPI) and ‘process quality’ (EIF). ‘Structural quality’ is where the children are making great progress because there are educational policies relating to practitioner practice in delivering high quality education through play, to intervention, safeguarding, special educational needs and risk assessments. Appropriate staff to child ratios are consistently in place and staff have regular continuous professional development through peer on peer observations (Slot et al., 2015; Sims et al., 2018). ‘Process quality’ (EIF) is where there is evidence of educational play and learning policies, where the children’s learning journeys are completed through recording and observations, where there is planned and child-initiated play happening in a consistent fashion with great staff interaction with children, and where early years practitioners and parents communicate on daily basis to ensure continuity of the children’s routine and care (Slot et al., 2015; Sims et al., 2018). Through these quality measures, an environment is provided where children are challenged and supported well to their next steps of learning. The children are happy, socially, emotionally and confident to engage in variety of activities including physical activities of running, climbing, jumping and engaging with other children and adults (Siraj et al., 2008).

As suggested in the SEED (2017) report by Melhuish and Gardiner, process quality is based on the level of interactions with children and the environment that espouses children’s progress. Thus, process quality provides enriching opportunities that are opened, allowing children full access to different environments to communicate with their friends and to interact with adults caring for them. Sims et al. (2006) suggests that currently they have been able to recognise the instant ‘biological impact of the environment on children: environmental stimuli activate biological stress responses which can be measured using biomarkers such as cortisol. Chronic elevation or depression of cortisol in children is thought to influence long-term behavioural and developmental outcomes’ (Sims et al., 2006, p.453). Higher levels of cortisol, associated with high level of stress, has been linked to children attending some early years provision for long periods of time. This project evidenced that children attending ‘unsatisfactory’ early years provision experienced higher levels of cortisol through the day, suggesting that the poor outcomes in provision posed a risk to children’s health. Therefore, in terms of quality, it is clear that ‘Quality early childhood environments are proposed to be those where participating children demonstrate declines in cortisol levels across the day’ (Sims et al., 2006, p.453).

It is generally understood that high quality settings are important within the Early Years to ensure that children are safe and secure within a caring environment that brings out the best in children, creating an impact on progress that results in positive outcomes (Sylva et al., 2011). One item that exhibits ‘high’ quality interaction is home learning, with children ‘being taught… numbers’ by parents and learning in pre-school Early Years settings (Siraj, 2010, p.464). Further to that, Sylva et al. (2004) posit that care, curriculum, teaching, and interaction together are thought to have high quality developmental outcomes, which is also highlighted in Bonetti (2018). In a recent blog by Bonetti and Teager (2018), it is suggested that quality in Early Years childcare and education is like a ‘iron triangle’, whereby a structural quality is in place that is more than meeting all the EYFS (2017) guidelines. Quality of teaching is present in giving clear, concise and effective instructions, thus enabling young children to make sense of spontaneous learning through play and teacher-led activities, as well as using strategies to keep children engaged whilst observing what they are able and not able to do so that the next steps for learning can be factored in (Haylock and Cockburn, 2017; Rees, 2016).  

Quality Provision within Mathematics
Since 1997, improving the quality of Early Years provision is one way in which the government has focused on addressing equality in education and bridging the gap of disadvantage, with the ultimate aim being that ‘Providing children with good‐quality education and care in their earliest years can help them succeed at school and later in life. All of this clearly contributes to the creation of a society where opportunities are equal regardless of background’ (DfE, 2013, p.1). However, within the last decade there is still an identifiable deficit in children’s achievement in education, especially the learning of mathematics (OECD PISA, 2010). In the OECD PISA (2018) survey report, it is suggested that inequality still remains high for disadvantaged children in terms of accessing ‘good’ Early Years settings, despite a huge expenditure by the local authorities, with the UK still falling behind in mathematics. Therefore, a continual striving for improvement of quality is vital, considering how crucial early childhood care and education is and how it is increasing politically driven (Moss, 2007). Continual reform in government policies supports the idea that improvements can work towards eradicating poverty by building up a good future education system that can increase opportunities for all (Dahlberg and Moss 2005, p. 5).

Mathematics has long been recognised as one of the key factors for raising the quality of childhood educational frameworks and enhancing future academic success (Aubrey and Döndü, 2012). Past attempts to pursue this have included the identification of an insufficient framework, with previous versions of the Early Years curriculum described as a ‘structural problem’ that needed remedy as it was ‘inefficient’ (OECD, 2010). The quality of this aspect of the educational curriculum was clearly seen as an issue. As a result, the Labour government and The National Childcare Strategy, a ten-year plan (DfE, 1998-2011), were key drivers for change, followed by the ‘Every Child Matters’ initiative (DfE, 2003) and the birth of the Curriculum guidance for the Foundation Stage (DfES, 2000), which covered the education of children between three to four years and justified nursery funding. This was then superseded by the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS, 2008). The ultimate intention was to raise the skilled work force to compete globally, and to kick-start reform in the Early Years education system. This led to numerous references in terms of what the quality of care, education and practitioner’s training should look like in the Early Years sector. In turn, this gave the Labour government the impetus to drive the National Numeracy Strategy (NNS, 1999) as one of the key content drivers in the current EYFS (2014b), creating a difference in the way children are cared for and educated in early childhood provisions in England. 
However, ensuring quality mathematics provision can be complex. In the Developmental Matters document and the EYFS (2017), although there is mention of numbers, the government has not explicitly detailed how practitioners should teach specific aspects of mathematics (p.11), which is a barrier for practitioners who do not have previous explicit knowledge of delivering the mathematics curriculum. Additionally, the All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) for Maths and Numeracy says that many Early Years practitioners are ‘mathematically under-qualified and unconfident’ (APPG, 2015). Therefore, teacher knowledge in promoting mathematics in a strategic way can be problematic (Curtis, 1998) as observation and forward planning need to be instrumental in planning relevant activities to bring attention to the different concept of numbers: practitioners should be able to recognise children’s skills in being able count, recognise numbers and shapes, in order to identify their weakness, or the set activity being ‘too difficult’ but instead they ‘tend to completely overlook tasks that provide no challenge’ to children to extend their learning (Sarama and Clements, 2009, p.16). Further to that, it is argued in Gifford (2005) that children do not automatically use numbers in their play and that adults should involve children as an ‘active participant’ in their play, and not to use approaches that ‘create failure’ (p.4): ultimately, children should have a say in determining the curriculum. 
Quality mathematics provision is therefore recognisable through the children’s proficiency in a number of areas: confidence in counting and their ability to recollect numbers that are randomly placed; recognising shape and size; understanding concepts of light and heavy, big and small; building structures, knowing what works and does not work and being able to do so simple adding and taking away; as well as being able to apply and use mathematical language (Haylock and Cockburn, 2017).
Improving Quality Practice within Mathematics
Mathematics is an important concept for children to learn within the Early Years prior to entering reception school, so that they do not fall behind their peers; it forms a vital link to their school transition. They should have an understanding of the basic rules that are applied such as adding, subtracting, and maybe learning of basic symbols like + and =, etc. As expressed in Haylock and Cockburn (2017), practitioners’ commitment to teaching mathematics will require the understanding of and creation of ‘significant ways’ to support children’s ‘cognitive’ adoption and classification of mathematical concepts (p.6). Further to that, children learning mathematics early on also supports their literacy and their ability to think critically and problem solve later in life. Williams’ (2008) review also points to mathematics as one of the significant factors in producing a well-qualified nation and future generation of children that are competent in mathematics, because the future growth of the UK economy and industries from engineering, banking to teaching and accountancy to medicine are all going to require some mathematics skills and being able to globally compete in these areas.
There is a good indicator that children exposed to early maths would have a good achievement in reading and have better outcomes in school (Clements and Sarama, 2014). This is enhanced by an early diagnosis of weakness in attitude in learning (Sadler, 2005) and supporting parents to back up at home to what the child does in the setting.  It is expected that Early Years practitioners have a good level of education at least to a level 3 diploma in Childcare and Education, with all round subject knowledge, as well as a good level of interaction with the children; this needs to be in conjunction with a good level of staff retention because the continuity of care in the Early Years sector is essential (Tickell, 2011; House of Commons-All-Party Groups, 2015; DfE, 2017). Further to that, the ‘Quality Matters’ document (OECD, 2012/2015) identifies mathematics as an area for improvement. With a highly motivated Early Years teachers, mathematics would be engaging and innovative; children would identify numbers, simple adding and subtracting would come to them easily, they would be able to identify shapes and understand simple measures. It is posited by Karoly et al. (2005) that effective programmes of interventions have seen improvement in the way children behave, with regular higher ‘attainment’ resulting in ‘educational progression’, which is due to more attentive Early Years practitioners and their higher level of qualification (p.3).

For the provision of high quality of care and education, I will focus on the area of improving practice within the teaching of mathematics. An intervention to improve practice is to triangulate learning through collaboration, seeking parental involvement to ‘build relationships’ with parents (Whalley, 2001; Goodall et al., 2011, p.34) so that the parents/carers has an overall view of their child’s learning and can have an input into the settings curriculum for their child. More specifically, this triangulation will involve the parents/carers through imparting the knowledge to them of how to plan play, deliver and engage with their child’s learning within their home environment. This would be facilitated by having regular parenting workshops on the topic of numeracy, as explained in the ‘Review of best practice in parental engagement’ by Goodall et al. (2011, p.34). However, the Early Years care and education settings may need to encourage parents to participate in this working in partnership, as suggested in the 2000 report by The Department for Education and Skills (DfES, 2000). 
As identified in Siraj‐Blatchford (2010), ‘more effective policy responses’ (p.464) are needed to impact upon disadvantaged families. Therefore, working with parents of children who require additional learning support is essential in building a trusting relationship to enable a successful continuity of activities, in mathematics as not all parents may have the knowledge or the resources to enable home learning to continue. We therefore share nursery resources, such as what the child has made at the nursery by cutting wood with the practitioner (square pieces, round circles, plus signs, = signs and bags of different shapes of woods as building blocks) with the parents to take home or offer for them to bring in their child’s special resources to the nursery. We seek parental advice and meet with parents/carers on a twelve-weekly basis in order to discuss their child’s development and to gain progress feedback from home to build their child’s curriculum; this gives parents more options to decide and help design ways of engaging with their child/children (Athey, 2007; DfE, 2013). Currently we offer an in-depth consultation and assessment through play to all children and their families on enrolment and explain all our procedures and practice. Upon parents/carers’ agreement, if there is a need to involve other agencies such as speech and language, or if stay-at-home parents would like to have specialist training from the local authority, we direct them to the relevant department. We offer workshops, one-to-one and sometimes as a group, where we demonstrate the activities they can do with children at home, such as cutting wood with a hacksaw and making small animals to make a story sack. Operating on the basis that is supported by research that parents’ and children’s behaviour can change the way they learn (EYFS, 2017; Melhuish and Gardiner, 2017; Goodall et al., 2011), it is essential that there is the continuity of engagement with parents. 
To triangulate the learning with a focus on the child’s perspective, the practitioner needs to look at where the children is in within the EYFS (2017) and Developmental Matters framework, taking into account the child’s age stage of development along with other external factors associated with the child, such as parental care, who the child is living with, any health issues, etc. Following that, it is important to hold regular twelve-weekly meetings with the parent/carer, key person and the child to gain idea of what their curriculum interests are. This will demonstrate care, building a trusting relationship through bonding with individual children (Howes and Ritchie, 2002), as well as their significant adults. It is suggested that best practice is research based, with practitioners listening without controlling the situation or discussion as to what the children and their families have to say about their developmental aspects, in order to plan for their next steps for learning (Bonnetti, 2018). Practitioners need to be attentive, asking ‘open ended questions’ that are reflective of ‘possible solutions’, making sure to ‘avoid offering only one solution to an issue’ and who do not assume any aspect of children’s development (DFCSF, 2010, p.6). Additionally, they need to ensure that practice is based on informed parental discussions and observations in the setting, within all areas of the EYFS (2017) and Developmental Matters. 
Not just involving parents, but other agencies as well, would improve the quality of provision and have impact on parents and children from less privileged areas. It Is important to gain an insight into how they are getting on and how much more the Early Years providers can do to give extra support by mentoring, role modelling and sampling activities. Parents add value as they know their children’s emotional needs and how they learn, but parents can also learn from the Early Years provision’s ideas on playing, interacting, setting the scene for learning through structuring play and the provision of a rich environment.
This idea is integral to improving practice because, as suggested in Goodall et al. (2011), not all practitioners have the knowledge of making parents feel at ease or welcome and the parents may not know how to approach the practitioners or provision to seek more help and support for their child. There are many reasons for this, as explained by Goodall et al. (2011); ‘staff require training and coaching’ (p.5) and ‘parents receive clear, specific and targeted information’ (p.5). From my own personal experience of managing an Early Years setting, a considerable amount of time is spent coaching, mentoring and role modelling to new Early Years practitioners/teachers: more specifically, as stated in the research report by Goodall et al. (2011), the Early Years teacher can lack professionalism in building trusting relationships with parents/carers. This is often due to a lack of training or ‘know how’, so practitioners generally feel less ‘confident in working with parents’ (Goodall et al., 2011, p.35). Therefore, improving practitioner ‘knowledge and skills’ within this particular aspect of practice will enhance their level of engagement within the Early Years, resulting in improved outcomes for the children in their care (DfCSF, 2010, p.7). Early Years practitioners and teachers gain confidence through working with other agencies to help support parents, developing skill sets that become second nature to them. Additionally, teaching across subjects in the Early Years is multifaceted; therefore, the Early Years teacher requires continuous professional development (CPD) to develop their skills in depth. This can involve developing the knowledge of what constitutes the teaching of mathematics, not only how to teach the subject but to also understand the structure and the concepts of different fields of mathematics, as identified by Clements (2004): the constructions of ‘problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, connections and representation; specific mathematical processes of organising information’ (Sarama and Clements, 2009, p.3).

The Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (Revised) (ITERS-R) for children from birth to two and half years may be used as a quality indicator in the Early Years (Mathers et al., 2007) and will therefore be useful in determining the success of the intervention. This rating scale helps to look at the structures of the environment, to take account of all aspects of care provision and activities such feeding, practitioner interaction with children, developing language, communication, physical, so that future improvements may be made. These scales have a comprehensive list and the rating of 1-7 can be applied 1 being of lower quality and 7 being of higher quality the Early Years setting to check against for maintaining, sustaining and to make improvements. The Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Revised) (ECERS-R), for children three to five years of age, can also be used to monitor interventions in the quality of teaching, such as the practitioner involvement with parent and children in mathematics, to evaluate the intervention’s progress and to help identify that the programme of support is working to support the Early Years settings. These rating scales evaluate the kind of environment, care programmes, language development, letters, numbers and how to develop and extend (Mathers et al., 2007). These rating scales are good in checking the quality of teaching to involve parents with evidence if their child or children will need to have intervention in specific areas: they examine the kind of opportunities of experiences to learn that are offered to stimulate children and how these structures are in-built within the delivery of the programme to show high interaction with child or a group of children, which can also include parents (Mathers et al., 2007). They are also useful in looking at staff development as the scales measures children’s health and the safety offered by the practitioner in the Early Years provision, as well as looking at how practitioners build trusting relationships. Therefore, in the Early Years these scales can help measure process quality to identify the rigour, or lack of, good practice and the structure of programmes to help identify further improvements.
Conclusion
My idea for an intervention to improve practice within mathematics is to mentor parents in actively listening and learning the skills of negotiating and questioning surrounding the subject of mathematics in order to support their children with early mathematics, whilst the practitioner does the same in the Early Years provision. The parents will be able to train their children to develop perception skills and to think critically so that the children sustain their interest in the activity that is provided or child-initiated. This is in accordance with pedagogy’s use of motivational powers and positive bonding as a crucial part of educational skills provides a good background for learning (Hughes, 2008). Additionally, as suggested by Gardner (1983), the importance of fostering rational mathematics and reasoning of intelligence and creativity is not just in the mind but is something to be harnessed.
A continual process of discussion and supervisions are essential in the delivery of the Early Childhood Years Foundation Stage (DfE, 2017) so that quality is maintained, and children are not receiving less than they bargained for. There should be a good link between early childhood research on learning and development to inform practitioner practice. There should also be a government focus on training Early Years teachers on the specifics of teaching mathematics and how to integrate this into the children’s daily play and activities.

References:
Alderson, P (2008) Young Children’s Rights: Exploring Beliefs, Principles and Practice. 2nd edn. London: Jessica Kingsley Publisher. 
All-Party Parliamentary Group (2015) Maths and Numeracy. [Online]. Available at: URL. https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmallparty/register/maths-and-numeracy.htm (Accessed: 11 December 2018).
Athey, C. (2007) Extending Thought in Young Children: A parent teacher partnership. 2nd edn. London: Paul Chapman Publishing.
Aubrey, C. and Döndü, D. (2012) ‘Policy-to-Practice Contexts for Early Childhood Mathematics in England’. International Journal of Early Years Education, 20 (1), pp. 59-77. [online]. Available at:  URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09669760.2012.664475 (Accessed: 5 January 2019).
Bakken, L., Brown, N., and Downing, B. (2017). ‘Early childhood education: The long-term benefits.’ Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 31(2), pp. 255–269. [Online]. Available at: doi:10.1080/02568543.2016.1273285 (Accessed: 9 January 2019).
Bonetti, S. (2018) Early Years Development: Early years education: what does high-quality provision look like? Education Policy Institute (EPI): Available at: URL https://epi.org.uk/publications-and-research/early-years-high-quality-provision/ (Accessed: 1 January 2019).
Bonetti, S. and Teager, W. (2018) ‘Early Intervention Foundation. Early years education: what does high-quality provision look like?’, Bonetti and Teager’s newslog, 8th August. Available at. URL https://www.eif.org.uk/blog/early-years-education-what-does-high-quality-provision-look-like (Accessed: 19 January 2019).
Clements, D. H. and Sarama, J.  (2014) Learning and teaching early math: The learning trajectories approach. New York, NY: Routledge.
Clements, D. H., and Conference Working Group. (2004). ‘Major themes and recommendations’, In D. H. Clements, J. Sarama, and A.-M. DiBiase (ed.), Engaging young children in Mathematics: Standards for early childhood mathematics education.  Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 7–76.
Curtis, A. (1998). A curriculum for the pre-school child: learning to learn. London: Routledge.
Dahlberg, G. and Moss, P. (2005) Ethics and Politics in Early Childhood Education.  Oxfordshire: Routledge. 
Dahlberg, G. and Moss, P. (2008) ‘Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care-Language Evaluation’.  New Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work. 5(1), pp. 03-12. [Online]. Available at: URL http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.551.1316&rep=rep1&type=pdf (Accessed: 7 January 2019).
Dahlberg, G., Moss, P. and Pence, A. (1999) Beyond Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care. Postmodern Perspectives. London: Falmer Press.
Department for Children, Schools and Families (2008) Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for children from birth to five. [Online]. Available at: https://www.foundationyears.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/EYFS_Practice_Guide1.pdf (Accessed: 4 January 2019).
Department for Children, Schools and Families (DfCSF, 2010) The National Strategies Early Years: Challenging practice to further improve learning, playing and interacting in the Early Years Foundation Stage. [Online]. Available at: https://www.foundationyears.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Challening_Practice_to_Further_Improve_Learning_Playing_and_Interacting_in_the_EYFS.pdf (Accessed: 3 January 2019).
Department for Education (1998-2011) The National Strategies. [Online]. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/175408/DFE-00032-2011.pdf (Accessed: 6 January 2019).
Department for Education and Skills (2000) Curriculum guidance for the foundation stage. Investing in our future. [Online]. Available at: https://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20040117003924/http://www.dfes.gov.uk/foundationstage/ (Accessed: 25 November 2018).
Department for Education (2003) Every child matter. [Online]. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272064/5860.pdf (Accessed: 6 January 2019).
Department for Education (2013) More Great Childcare: Raising Quality and Giving Parents More Choice, DFE-00002-2013. [Online]. Available at: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/219660/Mo re_20Great_20Childcare_20v2.pdf (Accessed: 19 November 2018).
Department for Education (2014b) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Setting the Standards for Learning, Development and Care for Children from Birth To Five. London: Department for Education. Available at. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/early-years-foundation-stage-framework--2 (Accessed: 11 December 2018).
Department for Education (2017) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. [Online]. Available at: URL. https://www.foundationyears.org.uk/files/2017/03/eyfs_statutory_framework_2017.pdf (Accessed: 5 December 2018).

Department for Education (EYFS, 2007) The Early Years Foundation Stage: Effective practice: Parents as Partners. [Online]. Available at: http://www.keap.org.uk/documents/eyfs_eff_prac_parent_partner.pdf (Accessed: 20 January 2019).
Department for Education and Employment (1999) National Numeracy Strategy. London: DfEE.
Department for Education and Skills (2004) Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners: Putting people at the heart of public services. [Online]. Available at: http://www.educationengland.org.uk/documents/pdfs/2004-five-year-strategy.pdf (Accessed: 28 November 2018).
Gardner, H. (1983) Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. Basic Books. New York. 
Gifford, S. (2005) Teaching mathematics 3-5: developing learning in the foundation stage Maidenhead: Open University Press/McGraw-Hill Education. 
Goodall, J. and Vorhaus, J., with Carpentieri, J., Brooks, G., Akerman, A. and Harris, A. (2011). Review of Best Practice in Parental Engagement (Research Report DFE-RR156). London: DfE [online]. URL Available at: https://www.education.gov.uk/publications/RSG/publicationDetail/Page1/DFE-RR156 (Accessed: 11 December 2019). 
Haylock, D. and Cockburn, A. (2017) Understanding Mathematics for Young Children. London: Sage.
House of Commons (2015). Early Intervention. June 26, 2017. [Online]. Available at:  https://researchbriefings.parliament.uk/ResearchBriefing/Summary/CBP-7647 (Accessed: 15 December 2018).
Howes, C. and Ritchie, S. (2002). A matter of trust: Connecting teachers and learners in the early childhood classroom. New York: Teachers College Press.
Hughes, P. (2008) Principles of Primary Education. 3rd edn. Oxon: Routledge.
Karoly, L.A., Kilburn, M.R., and Cannon, J.S. (2005) Proven Benefits of Early Childhood Interventions. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation. [Online]. Available at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_briefs/RB9145.html. (Accessed: 17 December 2018).
Mathers, S., Linskey, F., Seddon, J., and Sylva, K. (2007) ‘Using quality rating scales for professional development: experiences from the UK.’ International Journal of Early Years Education, 15(3), pp.  261-274.  Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/09669760701516959 (Accessed: 1 December 2018).
Mayall, B. (2002) Towards a Sociology for Childhood: Thinking from children's lives. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Melhuish, E., Gardiner, J. and Morris, S.  (2017) Study of Early Education and Development (SEED): Impact Study on Early Education Use and Child Outcomes up to Age. [Online]. Available at: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/627108/SEED_Impact_at_age_3_Research_Brief.pdf (Accessed: 1 December 2018).
Moss, P. (2007) ‘Bringing politics into the nursery: early childhood education as a democratic practice’, European Early Childhood Education Research Journal, (15)1, pp. 5-20. [online]. Available at: DOI: 10.1080/13502930601046620 [Accessed: 5 January 2019].
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD PISA, 2010) For International Student Assessment. Available at: URL. [Online]. https://www.oecd.org/pisa/pisaproducts/46619703.pdf (Accessed: 17 January 2019).
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2012) Quality Matters, In Early Childhood Education and Care: United Kingdom (England). [Online]. Available at: URL. [Online]. http://www.oecd.org/education/school/50165861.pdf (Accessed: 16 February 2019).
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD, 2015) Early Childhood Education and Care Pedagogy Review. Available at: URL. [Online].  https://www.oecd.org/unitedkingdom/early-childhood-education-and-care-pedagogy-review-england.pdf (Accessed: 15 January 2019). 
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD PISA, 2018) Engaging Young Children: Lessons from Research about Quality in Early Childhood Education and Care. Available at: URL. [Online]. https://dx.doi.org/10.1787/9789264085145-en (Accessed: 16 February 2019).

Rees, J (2016) Inspiring Ideas to Support Early Maths and Literacy: Stories, rhymes and everyday materials. London: Routledge.
Sadler J. (2005) ‘Knowledge, Attitudes and Beliefs of the Mainstream Teachers of Children with a Pre-school Diagnosis of Speech / Language Impairment.’ Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21, pp. 2-51. [Online]. Available at: http://www.auditcommission.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/AuditCommissionReports/NationalStudies/Youth%20Jus tice_report_web.pdf [Accessed: 30 January 2019].  
Sarama, J. and Clements, D. (2009) Early Childhood Mathematics Education Research. Abingdon: Routledge.
Sarama, J. and Clements, H. D. (2009) Early Childhood Mathematics Education Research. Oxon:  Routledge.
Sims, M., Belanger, J., Hocking, L., Dimova, S., Lakovidou, E., Janta, B., Teager, W. (2018). Teaching, pedagogy and practice in early years childcare: An evidence review. Early Intervention Foundation. [Online]. Available at: URL. https://www.eif.org.uk/report/teaching-pedagogy-and-practice-in-early-years-childcare-an-evidence-review (Accessed 12 December 2018).

Sims. M., Guilfoyle, A. and Parry, S. T. (2006) ‘Children’s Cortisol Levels and Quality of Child Care Provision’. Child: Care, Health and Development. 32(4), pp. 453-466. [Online]. Available at: URL.  DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2214.2006.00632 (Accessed: 21 November 2018).
Siraj‐Blatchford, I. (2010) ‘Learning in the home and at school: how working class children ‘succeed against the odds’.’ British Educational Research Journal, 36(3), pp. 463-482. [Online]. Available at: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/pdf/10.1080/01411920902989201  (Accessed: 13 January 2019).
Siraj-Blatchford, I. (2010) ‘Teaching in Early Childhood Centres Instructional Methods and Child Outcomes.’ In: Baker, E. and McGaw, B. and Peterson, P. (eds.) International Encyclopaedia of Education (3rd Ed.), Oxford: Elsevier, pp. 86-92. [Online]. Available at: DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-08-044894-7.01186-6 (Accessed: 9 January 2019).
Siraj-Blatchford, I., Taggart, B., Sylva, K., Sammons, P., & Melhuish, E. (2008) ‘Towards the transformation of practice in early childhood education: The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project.’ Cambridge Journal of Education, 38(1), pp. 23–36. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/03057640801889956 (Accessed: 9 January 2019).
Slot, L. P., Leseman, P. P. M., Verhagen, J. and L. Mulder, H. (2015) ‘Associations between structural quality aspects and process quality in Ductch early childhood education and care settings.’ Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 33, pp. 64-76. [Online]. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2015.06.001 (Accessed: 15 December 2018).

Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P. Siraj-Blatchford, I., & Taggart, B. (2011). ‘Pre-school quality and educational outcomes at age 11: Low quality has little benefit’. Journal of Early Childhood Research, 9(2), pp. 109–124. [Online]. Available at: URL. http://ecr.sagepub.com/content/9/2/109 (Accessed: 21 November 2018).
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. (2004) The effective provision of pre-school education (EPPE) project: Effective Pre-School Education. DfES/Institute of Education. [Online]. Available at: http://dera.ioe.ac.uk/18189/16/EPPE_TechnicalPaper_12_2004.pdf  (Accessed: 12 January 2018).
Sylva, K., Melhuish, E., Sammons, P., Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggart, B. Sylva et al. (ed.) (2010) Early Childhood Matters. Evidence from the Effective Pre-School and Primary Education Project. Oxon: Routledge.
Tickell, C. (2011) An Independent Report on the Early Years Foundation Stage. Foundations for life, health and learning. Available at: URL. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/180919/DFE-00177-2011.pdf (Accessed: 12 January 2019).
Whalley, M., and the Pen Green Centre Team. (2001). Involving parents in their children's learning. London: Paul Chapman Publishing Ltd.
Williams, P. (2008) Independent Review of Mathematics Teaching in Early Years Settings and Primary Schools. Available at: URL. https://dera.ioe.ac.uk/8365/7/Williams%20Mathematics_Redacted.pdf (Accessed 12 January 2019).