As people return to work from holidays they will probably be curious to discover what changes the Government proposes for early years, what these will mean in practice and what role the Early Years Foundation Stage will play in future early years policy.
In the past six months we have seen a raft of published documents ranging across issues such as
- well-being
- physical activity
- child protection
- reducing poverty
- early intervention.
All of them either make reference to, or focus specifically on, early years issues. These come from a range of Government offices and departments, including the
- Office for National Statistics
- Department for Work and Pensions
- Department for Education
- Department of Health
- Cabinet Office, in addition to other sources including Dame Clare Tickell's Independent Review of the EYFS.
WHAT IS PLANNED AND WHEN?
What is planned is a massive change in practice across services for children and families. These include:
- recognising the influence of pre-birth factors on young children's life chances
- a focus on improving support for parents from pregnancy until their children reach the age of five
- the continuing education funding for all threeand four-year-olds
- free nursery places for the most disadvantaged two-year-olds.
This is in addition to a very welcome focus on early intervention for some of the most excluded families whose need for support is most acute. Beyond this, the Government has set itself the enormous task of achieving a coherent framework for professional development and progression and ensuring that through deploying resources locally, maximum impact is gained.
A further clue to this new agenda is that among the summer's clutch of policy documents is a vision document, Supporting Families in the Foundation Years (2011), reflecting the views of both the DfE and the DoH. This is a tremendous step forward. The document sets out the direction of travel, helpfully contains detailed responses to the Field, Allen and Tickell reviews, and reminds us that the Government has responded to the Munro Report on child protection.
With a call for 'every service that families and young children come into contact with (to be) clear how they can best support child development' at the same time as 'putting parents and children at the heart of services', we are in what might be described as the planning stage of a fast-moving early years agenda.
These are, undoubtedly, ambitious and worthwhile plans. If implemented, they will improve young children's foundation years, enabling them to live life fully, free from anxiety, violence, abuse and harm, enabling them to thrive, be successful in their learning and ready, in the fullness of time, to make an economic contribution to society. However, whether there is sufficient impetus to move from the rhetoric to the reality will be the test, when what is required is systemic change.
Effecting change across services for families and young children is a major commitment that will take considerable time and effort from all involved, be they parents, practitioners or policy-makers.
Central to this process is the Government's desire to realise the full benefits of financial investment in early years, and it is hard to disagree that in the current climate, fiscal policy must be focused effectively if we are to continue to see positive returns on the high levels of funding expended on young children (and families) in their foundation years. Some ways to address this are set out in Graham Allen's Early Intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings (July 2011), building on his first report (January 2011).
Given the Government's vision, it is important to consider how the EYFS fits into the proposed suite of 'fixes'. The vision of a new joint approach across foundation years services recognises the importance of early education, while also proposing more clarity about the objectives of foundation years policy. To this end, the opening section of the vision document focuses on the importance of 'improving school readiness' and guiding children's development so that they 'can take full advantage of the learning opportunities presented to them in school'.
There is little to disagree with here at one level, since this approach is essentially influenced by sound research. However, the concern is less about what has been said as about what has been omitted, which is that early childhood should be valued in its own right.
Put more succinctly by Professor Tina Bruce (1987), the real point is that 'childhood is valid in itself, as a part of life and not simply as preparation for adulthood'. This is a principle which must not be lost on the journey towards improving children's life chances.
On a more positive note, however, the current EYFS received massive endorsements throughout the Dame Clare Tickell review. The DfE/DoH vision document affirms that the EYFS 'gives parents confidence that, whichever provider they choose, they can be assured of a consistent quality experience for their child.
'It describes the things a good nursery, pre-school or childminder should be doing; what children should learn; and the levels of development that most children can be expected to reach at certain ages. The framework supports an integrated approach to learning and care, covering the period from birth to age five, with continuity for children as they move from the foundation years and into Key Stage One.'
The framework's role is also made very clear in the Early Years Evidence Pack, which states that the EYFS will be significant in achieving the aims of 'promoting children's physical, emotional, cognitive and social development so that all children have a fair chance to succeed' (July 2011).
So far, so good. However, many questions remain about the extent to which the EYFS will continue in its entirety, even with those resounding endorsements. We are now at a pivotal point in the future of the EYFS because the proposed Statutory Framework for the EYFS consultation will end shortly.
This is critical because, intentionally or otherwise, this document focuses predominantly on the welfare requirements, omits reference to the themes and commitments of the EYFS and says very little about the complex processes involved in children's development and learning in their earliest years. Perhaps the writers believed enough had been said elsewhere about these important issues? However, the document does refer to the overarching EYFS principles, which were derived from the EYFS themes.
A PRINCIPLED APPROACH
The new principles are:
A Unique Child Every child is a unique child, who begins learning at birth and can become resilient, capable and self-assured.
Positive Relationships Children learn to be strong and independent through positive relationships with their parents and carers and with others, including their key person at their early years setting.
Positive Environments A positive environment - in which children's experiences are planned to reflect their needs, and help build their confidence, and in which there is a strong partnership between early years practitioners, parents and other professionals - is crucial if children are to fulfil their potential and learn and develop well.
Learning and Development Children develop and learn in different ways and at different rates. All areas of learning and development are important and are inter-connected.
WHAT IS OMITTED?
The EYFS principles remain largely unaltered, apart from small differences such as substituting the word 'enabling' for 'positive' to describe the environment. Being generous, it would seem that the commitments of the EYFS are implicit within the overarching principles set out in the consultation document, though the associated Principles into Practice cards presumably may no longer figure in the new EYFS. If this happened it would be unfortunate, since the cards helpfully describe ways of putting the EYFS principles into practice and are so simple that any average person could conclude from reading them what the EYFS is all about.
When the EYFS was created it drew upon a rich philosophy of early years education embracing the principles of pioneers such as Froebel and Montessori, principles implicit in the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage and in Birth to Three Matters. These rooted it in a tradition that recognised the value of early childhood in its own right, regardless of its importance for future learning and development. To present the case as otherwise would be unhelpful because early childhood education is much more complex than this. As Graham Allen has described so effectively, it is essentially embedded in relationships: 'Children develop in an environment of relationships that usually begin with their family. From early infancy they reach out to create bonds, and they develop best when caring adults respond in warm, stimulating and consistent ways' (Allen 2011).
A further area for concern is the lack of guidance in the proposed EYFS regarding children's development from birth to two years, since the proposed summary of development begins at 24 months. This is particularly unfortunate since the Tickell review revealed that Development Matters was a popular part of the EYFS. Given the overwhelming evidence from research of the importance of the period from pre-birth to two, it is worrying that this information has been omitted.
Examples of why this period is so important can be found extensively in educational and social research, and in a recent DfE report discussing the role of early language in educational outcomes: 'Language development at the age of two years predicts children's performance on entry to school' (Roulstone et al, 2011). Since child development is being acknowledged as highly significant and appears to be a cornerstone of Government policy, it seems this omission should be re-evaluated.
WHAT DO YOU HOLD ON TO?
So, how can we prevent poor children becoming poor adults, embrace the new EYFS and shape the future in a way that is in keeping with the principles of early childhood?
First, we would do well to look to the many positives in the recent reports and findings:
- the requirement for a key person for every child
- an improved focus on the physical, emotional, social and linguistic development of the youngest children
- the need for a joined-up approach across services for families with young children
- the recognition that effective teaching and learning occurs when children are playing and exploring and when they are engaged in active learning and in creating and thinking critically
- the reduction in unnecessary paperwork
- the focus on practitioners spending more time with children.
Second, we should engage in professional discussions to reflect on our practice and evaluate how it matches our values and principles. In this way, we can identify which activities best support our work with families and young children, and we may conclude, as many indicated in the Tickell Review, that we need to find ways to cut paperwork in favour of spending more time working directly with children.
Finally, we should ensure that our voices are heard in the current debates that will shape children's lives into and beyond the next generation of parents. Today's children are tomorrow's parents. What do we want them to be like? 'Child-ready - understanding what it is like to build and sustain a relationship, to have a family and to look after a small child; understand how babies grow and develop and how parents can best promote this development' (Allen 2011). Most people would endorse this ambition. However, this will not be achieved in the short term. It will require structural solutions that will change the way that many people currently work.
We must embrace change if we are to get the best from it. Changing the EYFS is part of a much bigger process. Early education is an essential ingredient to support young children and their families - the key is to hold on to our principles and the EYFS commitments such as respecting each other, supporting every child, recognising parents as partners, and child development and inclusive practice.
If by changing the EYFS we can make early education better for young children, so be it! However, the EYFS consultation period is just that - it is not yet set in stone, there is still an opportunity to respond - and we owe it to ourselves and to future generations to contribute to this debate.
Part 2 Observation and planning under the new Prime and Specific areas of learning
BIBLIOGRAPHY
- Allen, G (2011) Early Intervention: Smart Investment, Massive Savings. The Second Independent Report to HM Government.
- Allen, G (2011) Early Intervention: The Next Steps (HM Government)
- Bruce, T (1984) Early Childhood Education (Hodder & Stoughton, London)
- DfE/DoH (2011) Supporting Families in the Foundation Years (DfE)
- DfE (2011) Statutory Framework for the EYFS Draft for Consultation (DfE)
- Field, F (2010) The Foundation Years: Preventing Poor Children Becoming Poor Adults. Independent Review Report on Poverty and Life Chances (HM Government)
- Munro, E (2011) A Child-centred System: The Government's Response to the Munro review of Child Protection (DfE)
- Roulstone, S, Law, J, Rush, R, Clegg, J & Peters, T (2011) Investigating the Role of Language in Children's Educational Outcomes: Research Report DFE 134 (University of the West of England, Bristol)
- Tickell, C (2011) The Early Years: Foundations for life, health and learning. Independent Report to HM Government