When I was interviewed for the post of National Director for the Foundation Stage some three years ago, I was asked to identify key issues in the early years. One of those issues was the tension felt by reception class teachers who, despite their inclusion in the Foundation Stage since September 2000, still often felt as if they were being pulled in different directions. This tension had several causes but a significant factor was that, unlike the rest of the Foundation Stage, the reception year was included in the literacy and numeracy frameworks.
It is worth remembering the debate around the establishment of the Foundation Stage and the age range it should cover. The debate arose from a concern that the needs of young children were being ignored within a culture of 'the earlier the better', a culture based on a false and simplistic assumption that by doing things sooner with young children we give them a better start and a sound basis for later success.
There was overwhelming support for the inclusion of the reception year within a stage that recognised their particular needs. We've come a long way over the past six years. However, we are still struggling to ensure that reception classes are truly a part of that stage, and that children who spend the final year of their Foundation Stage in a reception class receive the broad, rich, play-based curriculum to which they are entitled.
Interdependent learning
When we began talking last summer to a wide range of practitioners about what has become the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), one of the clear messages they gave us was that we must not make the same mistake again.
A coherent stage needed to mean just that. Those practitioners will have been heartened to see that the first paragraph of the draft EYFS promises just that: 'The EYFS will be a single framework for care, learning and development for children in all early years settings from birth to the August after their fifth birthday.'
I suspect those same practitioners will, therefore, be disappointed to see that the proposed revised literacy and mathematics frameworks continue to include a part of the EYFS. We are back to three instead of one.
Does it matter? I believe it does, and for several reasons. A single framework is immediately weakened if some EYFS practitioners feel that they are required to go elsewhere for national documentation and linked training that include only part of both the curriculum content and age range of the EYFS.
The strength of the EYFS, like Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage, is that all six areas of learning are seen as equally important, inter-related and interdependent.
And it is not simply that every activity has the potential for helping children make progress in a number of areas of learning. As the most effective practitioners know, it needs to be taken into account as they set up and resource the environment and plan for and work with children in both adult-led and child-initiated learning.
For example, it is not enough to know how well a child can count and what the next step is in their mathematical learning when planning a counting game. Effective practitioners will take into account what they have observed about the children's preferred learning styles and interests.
Shall we play the game outside with the tyres, use the game Lauren brought in from home, use a programmed toy or use the small-world toys?
They will take into account children's physical needs and preferences.
Shall we jump around outside or sit at a table? Do I need a game that is more tactile or has bigger pieces, or do I need lots of small interesting objects? They will take into account what they know about children's social skills. How big should the group be and who should be in it?
They will take into account children's communication skills. Would Bahar benefit from a story-based game? Would Lauren be able to participate more effectively in a game where the spoken language needed was much less extensive?
Not to understand and plan around that holistic knowledge about the child undermines that personalised approach to learning that is at the heart of effective early learning for the whole age range of the EYFS, including children in reception classes.
There are, of course, genuine concerns about detaching the EYFS from Key Stage 1 and beyond, just as there have been about transition from the Foundation Stage to Key Stage 1. And, of course, Year 1 teachers need to know what has gone before, not least because most children leave the EYFS still working towards some of the early learning goals, particularly literacy and mathematics.
But they need to know about the whole thing, not just part of it. A really good understanding of the EYFS needs to be required not just of Year 1 teachers, but of all leaders and managers in schools where there are EYFS children. Anything that encourages them to look at only part of the picture is unhelpful.
And, of course, all early years practitioners need a good understanding of how to help children make good progress in communication, language and literacy and problem solving, reasoning and numeracy.
But, again, they need to develop this subject knowledge and pedagogical strategies within the broader context of all six interdependent, inter-related and equally important areas of learning and development.
Now that Foundation Stage, literacy and mathematics advisers are working so closely together within the Primary National Strategy, I have great confidence that the EYFS and its accompanying training will do just that.
But other guidance and training that encourages practitioners to look at only part of the picture is unhelpful.
When the ten-year strategy Choice for parents, the best start for children was published, with its promise of a single coherent development and learning framework for all young children from birth to five, I was full of optimism. We were in a good place to build on what had gone before, to develop practice that met children's individual and differing needs, so that they were given that sure start so much at the heart of the Government agenda.
Staffing and training
I have always tried to be a realistic optimist (or an optimistic realist, depending on how bad the day has been!), and I think EYFS does offer that promise, with the right investment in staffing and training. However, for that to happen it needs to be the non-negotiable only option.
Its place as a statutory requirement needs to be given a high profile with practitioners, leaders, managers, local authorities, regional and national advisers and inspectors. It needs to be the basis of a substantial training programme for practitioners, leaders, managers, local authorities, regional and national advisers and inspectors.
There must not be the option of guidance and training that focus only on literacy and mathematics. It must all be there, or none of it.
Leaving my post earlier this year gave me more time to do various things, including spending time with the young children within my family. I relived the joys of the first encounter of a city-born two-year-old with waves on a cold Dorset beach. And I survived the tantrums of a three-year-old when I cut up her pizza the wrong way - a three-year-old who loves stories, is beginning to write her own name, counts confidently if not always accurately but who also loves to dance and sing, is engrossed by the tiniest insects she spots and who needs a cuddle when she gets tired and frustrated.
Like many other four-year-olds with all those needs, she is off to her reception class in September. Her practitioners need to see, understand and deliver the whole picture, set out in EYFS, so she will get that sure start we want for her and all those other children. A partial picture just will not do.
Further information
* The Early Years Foundation Stage - Consultation on a single quality framework for services to children from birth to five can be downloaded at www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations. The consultation runs until 28 July.
