Download the PDF of this article
Development Matters has passed the test of time well. It was a ground-breaking document back in 2012 because of its emphasis on how children learn alongside what they learn, through the Characteristics of Effective Learning. It is a valuable guide to practitioners working in every type of early years setting – childminders, PVI nurseries, nursery and Reception classes, and maintained nursery schools.
So, why would anyone want to change it? Here, I am going to explore some of the reasoning behind the decision to update Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage, and discuss how I am leading this task on behalf of the Department for Education.
The review is about evolution, not revolution. Inevitably, as the years have passed, our understanding of children's learning has changed. We need to reconsider some aspects of Development Matters. Some of the findings in the original research which underpinned the 2012 Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage need revisiting, too. I hope this brief overview will encourage you to engage with this process of change, as well as offering reassurance.
The work has only just started: there will be a great deal of discussion and dialogue over the months ahead. Already, a range of experts from different sectors and professional backgrounds have shaped some of the very early thinking. The Department for Education is planning to launch the revised document as part of the final EYFS reforms in September 2021.
The revised document will take into account recent research, and tackle problems such as the guidance being used as a ‘tracker’
WORKLOAD
Workload is one of the most pressing things to address. The Early Years Alliance (2018) found that 25 per cent of respondents to its Minds Matter survey were considering leaving the early years sector due to stress or mental health issues. Two-thirds (66 per cent) of respondents said that their personal relationships were negatively affected by work-related stress.
We need to take these findings seriously: we owe a duty of care to all the passionate and hardworking people who work in the early years. We also need to consider how this level of workload and stress might have negative effects on children. Time spent on paperwork is time taken away from playing with children, having conversations with them, or teaching them something new.
Much of this burden is around assessment. Observation-based assessment is a crucial part of early years education. We need to be good at observing children carefully, so we can get to know them, and get to know what they can do. This helps us to decide how we can help each child to make progress.
Unfortunately, observation and assessment have ballooned into an enormous industry. Practitioners feel required to complete large numbers of observations, which are often assessed against the bands of Development Matters to produce lots of ‘data’ as evidence that children are learning and progressing in all areas.
This amount of ‘evidence’ is not required by the EYFS Statutory Framework, or by Ofsted's Education Inspection Framework. Indeed, the whole approach runs against the stated intentions of the authors of Development Matters. Nevertheless, this is what is happening, and it is having a negative effect on the mental health and well-being of practitioners.
The revised document will be clear that it exists to guide practitioners and settings, not replace their professional judgement. Simplifying all the different age-related bands is one possible way forward. These bands, and the workload associated with them, were already causing concern among practitioners before the 2012 revision of Development Matters.
For example, research commissioned by the Department for Education reported that ‘the “age bands” in Development Matters were seen as a contradiction to the ethos of the Unique Child’ (Brooker 2010). With respect to the inclusion of children with special educational needs, ‘the strongest views expressed were the voices raised against the age-banding of … Development Matters’ (Brooker 2010).
“It is not helpful if planning and practice are driven by a desire to move children from one development band to the next”
On track
The misuse of Development Matters as a ‘tracker’ is widespread. It is common for practitioners to use tracking tools to search out ‘gaps’ to cover in their planning. This is not a sensible approach to take. It results in an excessive focus on getting children across to the next age band, and covering everything in each band.
Instead, we need to make sure that children's understanding and knowledge are secure. As the original research that underpins the EYFS wisely notes, ‘It is more important to aim at depth and not breadth. Deep understanding is more important than superficial coverage’ (Evangelou 2009).
Finally, having two wide and overlapping bands for four- and five-year-olds (30-50 months and 40-60 months) can make life difficult for Reception teachers. Ofsted has reported on how the Early Learning Goals came to dominate the Reception year, ‘These tasks – and ticking them off – became the Reception curriculum, with a significant loss of focus on learning, step by step’ (Ofsted 2017).
For this reason, the new guidance will make it clear that the Reception year remains part of the EYFS, and that we need a balanced approach across the whole phase which combines socio-emotional and intellectual development. But it will also support practitioners in developing a more intellectually challenging curriculum for four- and five-year-olds as they come to the end of the EYFS.
THE CURRICULUM
What happened to the curriculum in the early years? All too often, instead of thinking about an appropriate curriculum that is consistent with what we know about child development, we have targets for what children should be doing by the end of the EYFS and then we work backwards. That serves the purpose of filling empty boxes in trackers, but it does a disservice to children's learning.
For example, while the current version of Development Matters generally does a good job of guiding practitioners about children's development, it is surprising to see that children in provision for two-year-olds are expected be learning to use a tripod grip for holding pens and pencils. Many young children will not be ready for this type of provision, which can result in months of frustration, and the development of habits that then need to be unlearnt later on in school.
It would be preferable if settings considered both the overall shape of child development, and all of the step-by-step learning that a child needs to accomplish before encouraging them to use a tripod grip. Only then can a child benefit from being taught how to hold a pencil with the right grip, and follow instructions about directionality and shape, in order to write letters correctly. We should think more about getting the curriculum right for children, and less about breaking learning down into bands which can be tracked to show progress.
Similarly, early years maths experts such as Dr Sue Gifford emphasise how important it is for children to gain a deep understanding of small numbers up to five, through repeated practical and meaningful activities such as sharing out fruit, tidying up, or finger rhymes.
All too often, practitioners focus on ‘moving children on’ to show progress: going from five to ten to 20 in quick succession. As a result, some children do not fully understand how counting works, or the relationship between the whole and its parts (for example, five consists of two and three, or four and one).
Child development, pedagogy and curriculum design
This is why an understanding of child development, pedagogy and curriculum design are all important. It is not helpful if planning and practice are driven by a desire to move children from one development band to the next. It is worth recalling that the first major early years guidance for practitioners in England was Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage in the year 2000. This had a strong emphasis on curriculum, and on teaching.
The current version of Development Matters does not mention the word curriculum at all, and the term ‘teaching’ is mentioned much more rarely than it was in the 2000 document. The intention is that the new guidance will be more balanced, and leave space for flexibility to enable individual settings to use the approaches and practices which work best for them.
To be effective, the new guidance will need to help practitioners to sequence experiences, activities and teaching so that all children, especially children in disadvantage, develop a deep and secure understanding of key skills and knowledge, and experience joy and delight in their learning.
The guidance needs to emphasise the critical importance of social and emotional development throughout the early years. But we need to cut back on paperwork and the collection of ‘data’ that has dubious value.
The work is just beginning, so there will be opportunities for readers to shape the new guidance through membership associations such as the Early Years Alliance, the National Day Nurseries Association, Early Education and PACEY. There will also be other opportunities to help shape the draft guidance.
No single person or group has all the answers: I hope you will support this work to make sure that we get this right for our children and our sector.