The letter, co-ordinated by Early Education, is supported by members of the Early Years Coalition - which produced Birth to 5 Matters – and other leading early years figures.
Signatories include - Professor Cathy Nutbrown, Nancy Stewart - vice president of Early Education, independent consultant Helen Moylett, consultant and educationalist Laura Henry-Allain, Professor Jan White and Di Chilvers - advisory consultant in early childhood education.
The letter expresses concern that the review, published last week (14 November), relies solely on a ‘small and incomplete review’ of the literature, not reflecting the ‘rich and extensive peer-reviewed research evidence available, nor the wealth of excellent practice in the sector’.
It states that the review, ‘fails to show an understanding of practice in the early years, with limited and poorly explained examples further diminishing its credibility’, and says, ‘It would be worrying if the principles in the report were to be applied by either practitioners or inspectors in a narrow or simplistic way.’
The letter highlights nine concerns signatories have with the review; they are:
- Coverage of all EYFS provision – the review covers from birth to age four, with Reception year included in the school research reviews despite the principles covering up to age five.
- Underpinning principles - The principles underpinning the review need to reflect the underpinning principles of the EYFS itself.
- Limited engagement with research evidence
- Definition of curriculum - Trying to stretch a single definition across all phases of education simply puts it under too much strain, and when applied to children under five.
- Definition of teaching - We are concerned by the removal of the first sentence of Ofsted’s long-established and well-constructed definition of teaching in the early years in the review and in the latest version of the inspection handbook – “Teaching in the early years should not be taken to imply a “top down” or formal way of working.”
- How children learn and cognitive science - This section and the one on Executive Function makes no mention of the Characteristics of Effective Teaching and Learning, which are core to the EYFS Statutory Framework and underpin practitioners' understanding of early years pedagogy.
- Following children’s interests - The review’s suggestion that practitioners would limit children to their existing interests and not give opportunities to develop new ones is bizarre.
- Play - this section is also a poor reflection of the complex and nuanced literature on the topic.
- Reflecting the realities of early years practice - It is unfortunate that the review’s examples of practice are not well chosen or explained.
The letter concludes by urging Ofsted to trial the seven areas of learning with ‘knowledgable and experienced practitioners and researchers’ before publishing its subsequent reviews, as well as engage with sector representative bodies.
It states, ‘We would be delighted to help ensure that future documents make a more effective contribution to the debate about quality than the current review manages to do.’
Early Education’s chief executive, Beatrice Merrick said, ‘This curriculum review has the potential to be an important and influential piece of work, guiding inspectors, practitioners and leaders in their understanding of what constitutes quality in the early years. Unfortunately, it falls short on many counts. With a further seven instalments to come to cover each of the areas of learning in the EYFS, it is vital that any principles or guidelines Ofsted produced are based in the evidence and on a sound understanding of the EYFS. There is a wealth of expertise in the sector which would be willingly shared. We invite Amanda Spielman and her colleagues to engage in dialogue with the sector to co-produce coherent and credible documents that set the principles for high quality early childhood education across the sector.’
- The open letter can be found here