The criticisms of the revised EYFS have continued to rumble on since its release, with sector professionals calling it ‘preposterous’ and ‘damaging’ and saying that they have not been listened to.
‘It’s hard to summarise what is wrong with this version,’ says early years consultant Nancy Stewart. ‘There are problems in every single area of learning and development which have been pointed out in detail to DfE from early in the process, but the issues have been ignored.
'They have also ignored the strong calls to strengthen emphasis on the Characteristics of Effective Teaching and Learning, and have instead downplayed these by removing the statutory requirement for Reception teachers to comment on these. A useful review of the EYFS would have made changes only where it would be an improvement, but the DfE is making wholesale changes for the worse to a highly regarded framework.’
While Chris Pascal, of the Centre for Research in Early Childhood, says that the document is ‘not all bad’, she also questions why it was revised in the first place when evidence reviews and a large consultation of 3,000 Early Education members found that there was no need.'
Early years consultant Helen Moylett adds, 'It’s a while since the Tickell review, which resulted in the 2012 version, and a useful review of the EYFS would have made changes only to improve, but the DfE has made a highly regarded framework worse.'
The Government’s two stated key aims for the proposed changes are ‘to improve outcomes at age five, particularly in early language and literacy, and reduce workload so that teachers can spend more time interacting with children in their care.’ However, Ms Stewart believes that the revised document will not improve outcomes for children, nor support practitioners to better understand or support early learning. Also, contrary to the aims, she feels it will increase workloads as practitioners familiarise themselves with the new materials.
MAIN CRITICISMS
Problems highlighted with the revised EYFS include:
- A failure to strengthen the place of the Characteristics of Effective Teaching and Learning
- Further narrowing of the Early Learning Goals (ELGs)
- Omissions within the goals, in particular space, shape and measure and digital technology, along with aspects of Physical Development being moved to Personal, Social and Emotional Development
- A lack of understanding of child development and early learning, including self-regulation and the idea that very young children will learn through story and other texts
- The failure to trial the educational programmes covering birth to five in any settings, as well as the ELGs being trialled in just 24 school Reception classes.
A repeated response from many who participated in the consultation is that they have not been listened to. ‘Physical Development is a bitter disappointment,’ says physical development trainer and director of Active Matters Lala Manners. ‘Everything that we said please don’t do and gave the reasons why, they have gone ahead and done. The main thing is that they have taken half of our field away which has reduced Physical Development to gross and fine motor skills and moved the rest into PSED where it does not fit.’
She believes the good opportunity to improve children’s health has been lost. ‘Physical Development is a waste of space because there are no goals and nothing to give a framework of what to do, whereas other areas get “meat on the bones”,’ she says. ‘It is meant to be a Prime area but it is given six lines.’
Instead of looking to the EYFS for Physical Development, Dr Manners says practitioners should refer to the Education Inspection Framework which is ‘wonderful for physical development’. She is confident that inspectors will be looking for practice appropriate to individual ages and stages of development.
Ms Moylett says the result of the revisions is a document that is ‘limited and limiting’. She feels it fulfils the DfE’s objective of making the ELGs align with Year 1, rather than building the framework up from development pathways from birth, informed by the EYFS principles and relevant research.
‘Reception children are particularly vulnerable in the revised framework,’ says Prof Pascal. ‘They are in a critical place. If not careful, then Reception will get lost from the Foundation Stage because the language around them is sharper and is pushing a non-EYFS framework. Instead they need more of the EYFS. ‘
MAKING IT WORK
The DfE has said that this is the final version of the EYFS. ‘The statutory framework hasn’t yet been legally changed via Parliament but it will be,’ says Ms Moylett. ‘Early adoption is just that – it’s not a pilot.’
Early years consultant Jan Dubiel says that Government documents will always be a ‘massive compromise of different perspectives’ and, as a result, no-one will ever get exactly what they want. ‘The changes that most people are exercised about are the ELGs and they are the outcomes at the end of Reception, not for two-year-olds,’ he adds.
Mr Dubiel is interested to see how many settings become early adopters. ‘It’s not representative, but the schools I work with want to get on with it and think how to make it work,’ he says. ‘In truth, most people will interpret the new guidance and make it work in the context of their own values and curriculum. Through good practice, they will make the ELGs right.
‘For example, I think the removal of shape, sequence and measure is a disgrace, but if I was a Reception teacher there is no way that I would not do it because it would be a part of my curriculum.’
REVISED EYFS GUIDANCE
Perhaps everything will become clearer once the revised EYFS guidance is released. Then the sector will be able to see how the guidance fits with the EYFS. Mr Dubiel says that it is ‘pertinent’, because not everyone works with Reception children and the guidance will ‘create a context around how the EYFS will be delivered’. However, there is also controversy around the new guidance, with some people feeling that there has been a lack of proper consultation around it too.
‘The revised guidance is a further area of potential difficulty, because yet again it has been constructed without the engagement of the sector, and is being rushed through for release,’ says Ms Stewart. ‘Luckily, it is not statutory, so its use cannot be imposed on settings and schools. The sector will be able to take it or leave it and refer to whatever guidance they choose.’
However, Dr Manners says, ‘I think the new-look Development Matters will be fantastic and will make the ELGs look ridiculous. It needed revising.’
NEXT STEPS?
So where does the sector go from here? Mr Dubiel believes that practitioners should engage with the revised EYFS. He says that the revised guidance will be a very central feature and that it all hinges on how practically they are interpreted and made to work.
‘It is just a document and it comes down to the quality of CPD that goes around it – not just training but conversations and dialogues – to enable it to come alive and internalise and understand how to deliver it to support children, such as how to self-regulate or how to extend vocabulary and use of language,’ he says.
Others in the sector feel that the revised EYFS framework should not be used until it becomes mandatory in September 2021, especially in light of the coronavirus crisis. Ms Moylett points out that the introduction of Reception Baseline Assessment has been delayed for a year in response to the pandemic but that settings are still being asked to be ‘new adopters’ of the new EYFS framework. The DfE, however argues that ‘The EYFS reforms...provide a strong basis to support children who may have missed critical months of early education.’
Ms Stewart says, ‘For now, we should ignore the changes and carry on with a familiar and trusted EYFS as settings deal with the Covid crisis, prioritising supporting children through this difficult time. There is no sense in early adoption this year. In the long run, a professional response is to comply as necessary with the legal framework, but work from a deeper understanding to decide how to interpret it in practice.’
Prof Pascal wishes that the DfE had been ‘braver and reset the clock’. Rather than what she regards as a narrowing of the curriculum, she’d like a broader curriculum that acknowledges bigger global challenges, such as sustainability, climate change, democracy and the challenges of digital technology.
‘Our job is to enable children to fly and thrive and currently the system is not allowing that,’ she says. ‘The evidence is that we need to be giving children more time and rich, broad curriculum based experiences. We need to slow down and think deeper than the superficial thinking.
‘I’m inclined to a recovery curriculum rather than a revised EYFS and also promoting a re-set curriculum, because as a society we are facing profound challenges and children are growing up in that. The revised EYFS is not strong enough on the bigger societal and global issues that these children will be the ones to solve.’
FURTHER READING
https://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/article/eyfs-consultation-solving-the-eyfs-puzzle
https://www.nurseryworld.co.uk/news/article/proposed-eyfs-changes-not-supported-by-evidence