The EYFS consultation, published last week, appears to present the sector with a disappointing irony: a proposed curriculum which purports to set children on the path to ‘school readiness’ and effective learning yet appears to have no real focus on how children learn.
By the crudest of indicators, seven pages are devoted to ‘Learning and Development’ and 18 to ‘Safeguarding and Welfare’. More telling is the fact that ‘Dispositions and Attitudes’ have been stripped from PSED; ‘exploration and investigation’ is no longer a subdivision of K&UW; Dame Tickell’s recommendations on the key characteristics of how children learn have been sidelined; ‘Enabling Environments has been renamed ‘Positive Environments’; and working with parents is not given enough prominence (and covered only generally in the second last question).
This is a scant document with little apparent awareness of play and the complexities (or subtleties) of how children learn. Simplifying the categories within the areas of learning has succeeded only in diminishing some of the goals and removing areas of huge importance to how children learn. Much must now rest on the quality of any guidance accompanying the new framework (the DfE has still to confirm what guidance will be available).
Sector members have until 30 September to make up their minds about how they feel about the document and respond at www.education.gov.uk/consultations/index.cfm?action=consultationDetails&consultationId=1747&external=no&menu=1
Here is a quick guide to the questions and some of the main points:
SECTIONS
The consultation is in four sections:
• Introduction, covering aims and principle
• Learning and development
• Assessment
• Safeguarding and welfare.
INTRODUCTION
Q1 Comment on the aims and principles of the proposed EYFS.
The aim of the EYFS, says the consultation document, is to ‘ensure that children learn and develop well and are kept healthy and safe’. Teaching, it notes, ‘should be focused on improving children’s "school readiness", guiding the development of children’s (cognitive, behavioural, physical and emotional) capabilities.’ The Government agrees with Dame Clare’s recommendations that current aims and principles remain, however, ‘enabling’ environments is referred to as ‘positive’ environments.
LEARNING & DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS
Qs 2-3 Comment on the prime and specific areas.
As recommended by Tickell, the Government is proposing:
• three prime areas of learning, and
• four specific areas of learning.
Q4 Comment on whether paragraph 1.6 is a ‘clear explanation’ of how to support children’s learning.
No?! It notes that practitioners ‘must consider the individual needs, interests and stage of development of each child’ to plan ‘a challenging and enjoyable experience’. There is no mention of play, dispositions and attitudes nor the holistic nature of children’s learning.
Qs 5 Comment on the goals within the prime and specific areas of learning.
As recommended by Tickell, the Government is proposing 17 rather than 69 goals.
Prime areas
The prime areas of learning, and headings for the goals, are:
Personal Social and Emotional Development ‘self-confidence and self-awareness’ (formerly ‘self-esteem’); ‘managing feelings and behaviour’ (formerly ‘behaviour and self-control’); and ‘making relationships’. Removed are ‘dispositions and attitudes’; ‘self-care’ and ‘a sense of community’ (presumably absorbed in to Understanding the World).
There are no goals on ‘dispositions and attitudes’, so eliminating any real focus and vital information on how children learn. ‘Managing feelings and behaviour’ seems preferable to ‘Behaviour and self-control’ but moving ‘self-care’ to within Physical Development seems unhelpful.
Physical Development ‘moving and handling’ (replacing ‘movement and space’ and ‘using equipment and materials’) and ‘health and self-care’ (formerly ‘health and bodily awareness’).
Communication and Language ‘listening and attention’, ‘understanding’ and ‘speaking’ (formerly ‘language for communication’ and ‘language for thinking’).
The focus appears to be on ‘instruction’ and ‘accuracy’, with no regard to the enjoyment that children learn to derive from story, etc.
Specific areas of learning and development
The specific areas of learning, and their subdivisions, are:
Literacy ‘reading’ and ‘writing’ (omitted are ‘linking letters and sounds’ and ‘handwriting’).
There is a predictable emphasis on phonic knowledge.
Mathematics ‘numbers’ and ‘shape, space and measures (formerly called ‘numbers as labels and for counting’; ‘calculating’ is removed).
Understanding the World ‘people and communities’, ‘the world’, ‘technology’ (formerly ‘exploration and investigation’, ‘designing and making’, ‘ICT’, ‘time’, ‘place’ and ‘communities’).
This area is greatly diminished by the removal of ‘exploration and investigation’, as reflected in the goals.
Expressive Arts and Design ‘exploring and using media and materials’ and ‘being imaginative’ (formerly included ‘being creative – responding to experiences, expressing and communicating ideas’; ‘creating music and dance’; ‘developing imagination and imaginative play’.)
Q6 Comment on children with English as an additional language.
A single paragraph on this subject seems unhelpful to say the least.
Q7 Comment on ‘planned, purposeful play’ and the key characteristics of how children learn.
This question will be one that many within the sector will view with disappointment and want to comment on. The EYFS ‘must be delivered through planned, purposeful play’ notes the document. This surely suggests adult-driven learning, and betrays an ignorance of play, the importance of child-initiated learning and who really adds ‘purpose’ to play. Worryingly, the document notes that children ‘will move increasingly towards adult-led learning as children start to prepare for reception class’. Not for the first time the author seems almost unclear that the EYFS includes reception!
The key characteristics of learning, given prominence and greatly welcomed within the Tickell review document, are now reduced to a single paragraph.
Q8 Comment on wraparound and holiday provision.
The Tickell review proposed extending exemptions for Montessori and Steiner settings and the like but the consultation seems to offer no opportunity to comment on this and even here the word ‘exemption’ is not mentioned. It seems changes to exemptions would require a change to primary legislation (see Appendix 1).
ASSESSMENT
Q9-10 Comment on formative assessment and cutting paperwork.
The initial comment that practitioners favoured a system of observation and formative assessment suggests a lack of knowledge of the planning within the early years provision, though the reduction is paperwork is to be welcomed.
Q11-15 Comment on summative assessment and the revised EYFS Profile.
The Government has accepted Dame Clare’s recommendations that children should be banded by ‘expected’, ‘exceeding’ or ‘emerging’, but there seems to be little explanation of the rationale for this within the consultation document and practitioners might want to refer to the review document, The Early Years: Foundations for life, health and learning (see page 31.)
Q16-17 Comment on the proposed developmental check of children’s progress within the three prime areas between the ages of 24-36 months.
This wide time span will only cause concern among parents if practitioners carrying out the check are not well trained and knowledgeable on the pace of change that can occur in a child during this period.
As with the Tickell review, the consultation document provides developmental grids for children at 24-36 months and 36-48 months (tying in with summative assessment). However, Tickell’s recommendation that ‘the Government develops an additional column setting out clearly the key milestones of development for children aged under 24 months’ seems to have been disregarded.
Q19 Comment on children with special educational needs.
Equality and anti-discriminatory practice are mentioned at the outset but the whole question of inclusion seems to be largely ignored, other than with reference to policies under the welfare requirements.
SAFEGUARDING AND WELFARE REQUIREMENTS
Q20 Comment on the requirements.
There are various points within this section that practitioners will want to comment on either here on in Q26, as there are no questions relating specifically to, for example, staff qualifications, ratios and key persons.
Managers still need at least a level 3 qualification while at least half of all other staff must hold at least a level 2. As for ratios, paragraph 3.27 states, ‘Ratios apply to the total number of staff available to work with children at any time across the whole setting. The provider must decide how to deploy or allocate staff to ensure children’s needs are met. For short lengths of time in very particular circumstances, and where the quality of care is maintained, short-term exceptions to the ratios may be made, for example when children are sleeping.’ Also, the ratio of 1:30 remains in place for reception classes (paragraph 3.34).
Q21 Comment on safeguarding training.
Training will give greater attention to the warning signs of abuse.
Q22 Comment on staff supervision.
The greater emphasis on staff supervision is again in response to improving safeguarding measures.
Q23 Comment on recommendation that only those over the age of 18 should be counted in ratios for both the EYFS and the General Childcare Register.
Q24 Comment on childminder training.
The Government is seeking sector opinion on changing current regulation which allows childminders to complete their training six months after registration.
Q25 Comment on risk.
See paragraphs 3.54-3.64. This includes the Tickell recommendation that the stringency of risk assessments be relaxed and that risk assessments for outings needn’t be in writing.
Q 26 Comment generally on safeguarding and welfare requirements.
Q27 Comment on the removal of ‘the automatic offence’ from any of the welfare requirements.
It is an offence for registered providers to fail to comply with some of the requirements such as failure to inform Ofsted about any serious accidents. The Government is canvassing sector opinion on removing the ‘automatic offence’ in some instances. There seems to be no explanation for this proposal and points after 3.8 appear to be missing in the document – we’ll check with the DfE.
Q27 Comment on whether Ofsted’s powers are sufficient in the area of learning and development or whether the Government should introduce a system similar to Welfare Notices for any breaches.
Again the background information for this seems to be missing, though I’m sure many within the sector will still have plenty to say!
Q29-33 General comments.
Practitioners can comment on the clarity of the draft, any further revisions, working with parents and any other subjects of concern.
