More than 300 responses were received to the first draft of the document which is being produced by the Early Years Coalition. It aims to support the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework as an alternative to the recently revised Development Matters guidance that received criticism from some areas of the sector.
Throughout consultations there has been strong sector support for bands which present a progression in the Areas of Learning and Development. There is, however, uncertainty about the best way to link the bands to ages.
Nancy Stewart, who is project lead on Birth to Five Matters, said that this has been the ‘thorniest issue’ because it is a complex balance between wanting to support inexperienced practitioners who may not have a grounding in child development with the critical awareness that every child is an individual and should not be judged by rigid age expectations.
‘There is an overall progression in development and learning, but learning does not run in a straight and predictable line and children develop at different rates, so individual children should not be expected to match the outlines in the bands at particular ages,’ she said. ‘On the other hand, age links can be useful for supporting knowledge of child development, and to identify when children may be in need of additional support.’
The latest consultation asked respondents to rank their preference of having:
- three broad descriptors
- overlapping ovals
- overlapping blocks
- retaining the current age and stage bands model from Development Matters 2012.
Responses were strongly split on the option of three broad descriptors, with a third listing it as first preference, and a third listing it as least preferred.
The two options for overlapping bands were chosen by a total of 45 per cent as first choice. Overall overlapping bands shown with ovals showed the most consensus, with only 10 per cent placing it as least preferred. There was least support for the option of retaining the current age/stage bands, with 37 per cent listing it as least preferred. Ms Stewart said that they are currently working on a ‘good way through’
Other feedback included the focus on play being valued. One respondent commented, ‘[I] felt this was well covered and incredibly in depth and the focus on play and the importance of play throughout the sections and provision was excellent to see.’
Play-based pedagogy beyond early years was emphasised by a respondent, ‘My only criticism of the document is that it stops at five! The Early Childhood Forum’s Charter for Early Childhood requests a statutory framework to age seven.
‘By calling this document “Birth to Five” you’re consolidating the cultural assumption that children should start formal schooling at age five. Ofsted will continue to issue top-down directives which privilege instruction in literacy/numeracy over developmentally appropriate play-based pedagogy.’
Another comment suggested there should be more emphasis on play in Year 1.
Working groups are due to provide feedback by 1 February, with the second draft of the document due out on 12 February. ‘Birth to Five Matters’ is due to be launched in March this year.