The coalition Government has said that it proposes to reduce the demands of the Early Years Foundation Stage. They want to see the EYFS made 'less bureaucratic' and more focused on young children's learning and development.
The Government also wants the focus of the EYFS shifted to getting children ready for school and to increasing the attainment of children from deprived backgrounds. They intend that standards to support young children's learning will be based on the best and latest research on children's development.
When announcing a review of the EYFS in July, Sarah Teather, minister for children and families, paid tribute to the dedication of early years staff, acknowledging the vital role they play in helping children from all backgrounds to have a good start and to reach their full potential.
She asserted the need for good-quality early learning for all children within a framework that raises standards as well as keeping children safe, and said that the Government wants to hear about what is and isn't working well in the EYFS. In her view, professionals deserve to have the freedom to do their jobs and not have to deal with unnecessary bureaucracy.
CONSULTATION PROCESS
On 2 August, Dame Clare Tickell, chief executive of Action for Children, announced the start of the consultation on the review that she has been invited to lead. The consultation will end on 30 September. It covers four main areas:
- scope of regulation
- learning and development
- assessment
- welfare.
Her recommendations are expected in the spring of 2011, and the Government will then consult on any proposed changes before they take effect from September 2012.
Dame Clare has said that she particularly wants to hear from those who are delivering the EYFS on a regular basis and can advise on where improvements could be made. These views will help shape the future of the EYFS and will be invaluable in helping to identify the best parts, as well as the parts that may have to change.
There has been a general welcome for the review, in the context of widespread support in the field for the EYFS and its underpinning principles. It is generally seen as providing a welcome opportunity for refining, not necessarily scrapping, aspects of the requirements. However, the timing of this consultation is far from ideal.
TIMING
The start date in August coincided with the holiday period, so that many practitioners as well as parents will only now be hearing about the invitation to comment. September is a very busy month in all sectors, with a necessary focus on settling in new children, so it will be hard for settings to make time to work with staff and parents in order to submit a considered response.
All Department for Education public consultations are required to conform to seven explicit criteria within the Government Code of Practice on Consultation. It is unclear why the Government has allowed such a brief opportunity to comment, given its own guidelines, which state: 'Consultations should normally last for at least 12 weeks, with consideration given to longer timescales where feasible and sensible', and 'Keeping the burden of consultation to a minimum is essential if consultations are to be effective and if consultees' buy in to the process is to be obtained'.
The education department claims that it complies with the Government Code, which allows for shorter consultation periods in exceptional circumstances, such as where departments need to respond quickly in the best interest of the public. But it is arguably in the best interests of children and families that this review should be granted time to address issues with such far-reaching consequences in depth, rather than rushing the process.
RESPONSES
A further concern is that each response, whether from an individual or a group, is counted as a single reply, with no recognition of the range of numbers of people involved in putting together responses.
A look at earlier consultations reveals that this has been the case for many years, and suggests that there may be some distortion of the statistics, as there is no means of weighting replies.
The requirement in the Code of Practice that 'consultation responses should be analysed carefully and clear feedback should be provided to participants following the consultation' is apparently covered by the practice of identifying what are known as key stakeholders, whose submissions are read in more detail. It is unclear how these stakeholders are identified, or who evaluates the significance of their comments.
A wide variation in views can be seen in even a brief look at the summaries of results from previous consultation documents, which can be found on www.education.gov.uk/consultations/ index.cfm?menu=3&title=Archiveandresults.
CLOSED QUESTIONS
This, no doubt, is why consultations tend to employ closed questions (to be answered yes or no, or tick-boxed) and limited options for comment. These are easier to tally, but they do lead to oversimplification of the issues and understandable frustration for the people responding, as the way the consultation questions are framed makes it difficult to express views on significant and complex issues.
For example, it is invidious to be asked to identify the three most important areas of learning (Question 27), when the underpinning principle that all are equally important is underlined by findings from the recent Early Years Learning and Development Literature Review.
That report was commissioned by the previous Government in order to update the sources of evidence on which the Foundation Stage was based. It analyses research into cognitive, social, emotional and brain development for children from birth to five carried out since 2000, and considers how this links with the areas of learning and development in the EYFS.
A second part of the study looks at how family, setting, neighbourhood and culture can support a child's development. The findings emphasise the importance of staff being confident in applying principled professional judgement for effective practice, and question the logic of maintaining any early learning goals which fewer than 50 per cent of children actually reach.
The goals can no longer be described as 'aspirational' or 'formative' when they are increasingly used to judge outcomes. The research report (DCSF RR 176), which has significant implications for the EYFS review, can be found at http://publications.education.gov.uk/default.aspx?PageFunction=productde tails&PageMode=publications&ProductId=DCSF-RR176&.
ANALYSIS
In view of the way the consultation is analysed, it makes sense for as many individuals as possible to submit a response, even if they are simply reinforcing the views reached within groups of parents, working teams, or professional organisations.
Concerns not directly addressed in the questionnaire - for example, the impact of the Local Authority Outcomes Duty, the distortion of the assessment process, the continuing need for staff training, or the meaning of school readiness, - can be added in the final comments box.
GIVING FEEDBACK
To respond to the consultation, go to www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails& consultationId=1727&external=no&menu=1.
If you wish to provide feedback on a particular consultation or the process in general, you are invited to contact the department's consultation co-ordinator, Donna Harrison, by telephone on 01928 794304 or e-mail: donna.harrison@education.gsi.gov.uk.
It is worth knowing that the education department says that responses will always be accepted and considered after the deadline has passed, though they cannot guarantee that such responses will be included within the results of a consultation. And remember that there will be a further opportunity to comment once Dame Clare's recommendations have been published.
