We have launched the 'Open Early Years Education' (Open Eye) campaign to highlight the damaging effects that the EYFS is likely to have on early learning in England, and have already received tremendous support for the concerns and aims articulated in our founding Open Letter (Nursery World, 6 December).
We believe the EYFS is based upon contestable assumptions and misunderstandings about early development, together with key internal contradictions, which render it philosophically incoherent and practically unworkable.
The 'Unique Child' principle, for example, is fundamentally undermined by the expectation that children 'should have acquired (the early learning goals) by the end of the academic year in which they reach five' (p11, para2.3 of the EYFS Statutory Framework).
Age-related 'grids' also rewrite child development in ways unrecognisable to many child development specialists. Though intended merely as 'guidance', the grids will impact negatively on work with babies and toddlers just because they are there, interfering with the quality of awareness that practitioners bring to their work.
Such carers need to possess immeasurable qualities, such as attunement and responsiveness; they do not need to be worried about whether a child responds to 'a bear with a rumbling tummy' for ICT! The grids also give a false view of the development of three- and four-year-olds. Only in England would the words 'literacy' and 'numeracy' feature in an overview of child development for children aged 30 to 50 months.
Unfortunately, England still has a substantial proportion of poorly trained early years practitioners, many with little deep understanding of child development. Through no fault of their own, they will often be ill-equipped to view the EYFS materials in a critical way. Consequently, a young and under-trained workforce will very likely interpret the new framework with a less than flexible, even mechanistic approach. The more practitioners struggle to 'deliver' outcomes, the less they will be fully available to relate to the children in their care.
Moreover, the most effective practitioners are likely to become dispirited and leave the field, only to be replaced by more 'audit-minded' practitioners.
Ominously, we know that some are already using the grids as an assessment tool, with one practitioner reporting that she had been sent outside with a clipboard to tick off whether children could 'mount stairs, steps or climbing equipment using alternate feet' (Practice Guidance, p94).
Literacy goals
The literacy goals are also problematic. Foundation Stage Profile data indicate that most children are unable to achieve these goals by the end of reception year; and in other countries, they wouldn't be expected to. There is a wealth of evidence that children taught to read and write at six or seven commonly achieve literacy competency quickly and easily - and with greater enjoyment.
The recent Progress in International Reading Study shows that children in England have dropped to 15th place. England's forced early literacy may even be a central causal factor in this reading malaise. In the light of this evidence, the Government should be removing, or substantially diluting, the literacy goals.
Evidence is also mounting that the emphasis on literacy is distorting practice, and we fear that the 'audit culture' is now infiltrating early years settings. For example, some teachers are being given targets by local authority advisers and head teachers for their children to meet. We know about the stress caused by the testing culture (cf. the recent Primary Review's findings). So why risk damaging our youngest children's self-esteem and motivation in this way?
The Government says the EYFS is simply pulling together documents already in use. But the EYFS is much more prescriptive. On page 11 of the Statutory Guidance, for example, it makes it clear that all providers, 'regardless of type, size or funding', 'must by law deliver' the learning and development requirements. This is particularly sinister for settings such as Steiner Kindergartens, that have developed a different and effective approach to early learning. Such central compulsion is incompatible with any notion of diversity in educational provision, and must be robustly challenged.
We are calling on the Government to change the compulsory aspect of EYFS to voluntary guidelines, and to commission an independent review of the EYFS and the early years sector. To find out more, contact annagarrett@btinternet.com or visit www.savechildhood.org
- Margaret Edgington is an early years consultant and trainer. Dr Richard House is senior lecturer in therapeutic education at Roehampton University, and a trained kndergarten teacher. Lynne Oldfield is director of the London Steiner Waldorf Early Childhood Teacher Training, and author of Free to Learn.
