Many will be feeling disappointed when they examine the consultation documents, published in response to the much welcomed Tickell Review of the EYFS: The Early Years: Foundations for life, health and learning (March 2011). Why this response when many of Dame Clare’s recommendations have been upheld?
One reason may be that whilst this consultation document itself retains many of the Tickell recommendations it has lost the depth of understanding encapsulated in Dame Clare’s document. For example, she stated that her recommendations ‘build on the strengths of the existing framework, retaining what works and revising what doesn’t’ yet there is only passing reference to the principles of the EYFS which we had understood were to continue as the bedrock of the revised framework.
So, a shaky start – not helped by a lack of clarity about the themes and principles or by changes to the focus of Positive Relationships, or to the name of Enabling Environments, which in the interests of plain English, is now called ‘a positive environment’. It’s certainly plain but it’s hardly distinctive and it underestimates what parents and practitioners are capable of understanding.
Given how little space has been devoted to the learning and development and assessment requirements in the framework draft, the accompanying Consultation Response Form seems to be disproportionately focused on these aspects. The cynical might be forgiven for thinking that the main thrust of the changes to the EYFS were in relation to early years practice with a back-to-basics approach that seems to make little mention of values, beliefs and principles.
Without the fire and enthusiasm of the Tickell review, this document offers only a brief paragraph about children’s life chances omitting reference to Frank Field’s report: The Foundation Years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults (2010) and Graham Allen’s Independent Report: Early Intervention: Next steps (2011).
In its defence it might be argued that the findings and recommendations of these reviews are now accepted as aims which the current Government aspires to. However, what has been presented appears reductionist when we are informed that ‘Teaching in the early years should be focused on improving children’s school readiness.’ Whilst many would not disagree that school readiness is important, most in early years would argue that teaching should be about inspiring, motivating and encouraging a love of learning that lasts long after schooling is finished.
Another concern with reference to the areas of learning and development is the statement that these ‘must shape activities (educational programmes) for children in pre-school settings’ – is this mischief or misunderstanding because the EYFS is not restricted to children in pre-school settings, as indicated clearly in Appendix 1 of the document.
In itself this confusion is understandable enough but the text which follows in the Learning and Development requirements shows that there are some deeper misconceptions which need to be reviewed. One of these is the suggestion that ‘Early years providers must guide the development of children’s capabilities with a view to ensuring the children in their care complete the EYFS ready to benefit fully from school.’ Again we might be generous and argue that we know what they mean.
POSITIVE CHANGES
So what is there to be celebrated in this short document? Several things can be seen as positive from the perspective of the child in early education. Thankfully, the recommendation requiring there to be a key person for every child is retained and we appear to have held on to the characteristics of effective learning, although they are not given the significance they deserve.
Another plus is the renewed emphasis on the importance in the earliest years of children’s physical, emotional, social and communicative development – surely the basis of all learning and development. At the same time there has been an effort to recognise that the period from 48–60 months+ is one in which the range of development is wide and therefore the emerging, expected and exceeding levels of development at the end of the EYFS are much more helpful. However, to be really fair if there were ‘weightings’ in terms of age we might find many four-year-olds were shown to be at ‘expected’ levels compared with their older peers if we took into account the massive differences in their ages in months.
Since paperwork will be significantly reduced, for practitioners this document may feel like an improvement of sorts, freeing them from some of the unnecessary, time-consuming tasks which have led them away from working with children. However, it would be naïve to assume that even the smallest of changes will be easy, particularly in a sector that has for the last two years worked so hard to get to grips with the current EYFS.
Nevertheless, if assessment at the end of the EYFS is based on 17 early learning goals as opposed to four times that number, the likelihood is practitioners will have more time to spend interacting with children and supporting their learning. Another plus is that EYFS profile assessments are still to be moderated – this is excellent news if the status of early years is to be maintained.
PRIME AND SPECIFIC AREAS
So, is this a good document to lead practitioners and parents to a clear understanding of the educational aspects of the EYFS? Sadly, the answer is no, not yet! There is, however, a better focus on early development from birth to two or three years through the expectation that practitioners will focus strongly on the introduction of the three Prime Areas:
- Personal, Social and Emotional development (PSED);
- Physical development (PD) and
- Communication and Language (C&L).
This is particularly welcome since these are the areas which may flag up potential health issues as well as any concerns about learning. The introduction of a written summary of development for parents in relation to these areas when a child is two to three years of age is intended to be a marker to raise concerns (and engage targeted support) if ‘a child’s progress was less than expected’ in these areas. However, without any guidance in relation to early development and apparently no plans to revamp the Development Matters statements from birth to two, practitioners will be challenged to make judgements about whether and to what extent children’s development is progressing in line with expectations. At the same time the strong messages about parental responsibility and partnership championed by Dame Clare seem to have all but disappeared.
Beyond the Prime Areas are the Specific Areas of:
- Literacy (L),
- Mathematics (M),
- Understanding the World (UW) and
- Expressive Arts and Design (EAD).
However, rather unexpectedly little more is said about these other than that for the older age range (which is unspecified) the documents suggests the ‘balance should shift towards a more equal focus on all areas of learning’: further clarity will be needed here if this division between areas of learning is not to be counter-productive. Importantly what seems to have been omitted is reference to the interplay between the prime and the specific areas and the interdependence of each.
More positively, in relation to the learning and development requirements, we are told that these areas ‘must be delivered through planned, purposeful play and through both adult-led and child-initiated activity’ – and, although this isn’t up there in lights at least it is there which is something that must be held on to firmly! Although, worryingly we are then informed: ‘This (activity) will move increasingly towards adult-led learning as children start to prepare for reception class.’ Again this indicates some confusion about early years provision and the reality of what learning should be like in nurseries, pre-schools and reception classes. It also raises the concern that constant preparation for another stage denies the validity, value and importance of the early childhood stage itself.
FINAL VERDICT
So, what verdict should be reached in thinking about and responding to this slimmed down volume which sets the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five?
It would be a mistake to think that saying less about the EYFS will mean there are fewer queries – unfortunately the opposite effect will be achieved because there will now be far more questions than before. Why? Because young children are complex and early years provision and early years practice are complex just as Dame Clare Tickell acknowledged.
Simplifying the EYFS to ensure that children’s emotional well-being is secure and their unique development is understood and catered for by freeing up practitioners to work with children is a wonderful idea, however as it stands the framework draft does not do that since it says little about involving and working with the most important people in children’s lives: their parents.
Neither does it do anything to reaffirm the important commitments underpinning the EYFS principles – these are the basis on which the EYFS was founded – and without them we may be like the character Jack in ‘Jack and the Beanstalk’, who in his haste to swap what he had for something he thought was better unwisely gave up his trusty cow for a handful of beans.
Have your say go to: http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1747&external=no&menu=1
REFERENCES
- Department for Education Website: Consultation on a Revised Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) Consultation Response Form (July 2011)
- Department for Education Website: Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage: Draft for consultation, 6 July 2011
- Frank Field (2010) The Foundation Years: preventing poor children becoming poor adults: The report of the independent review on Poverty and Life Chances, Cabinet Office, Whitehall, London.
- Graham Allen, MP (2011) Early Intervention: The Next Steps, Cabinet Office, London.
- Tickell, Dame Clare (2001) The Early Years: Foundations for life, health and learning
Ann Langston is a keynote speaker, writer and training provider. She supported the Tickell Review of the EYFS, led on the development of EYFS CD-ROM and worked on developing the Birth to Three Matters framework To find out more about the work of Ann’s company: Early Years Matters go to: http://earlyyearsmatters.co.uk/
To contact Early Years Matters email: info@earlyyearsmatters.co.uk
