There are just days left to respond to DfE’s consultation on the revisions to the EYFS, closing on 31 January. If you have time to spare, I’d encourage you to read Early Education’s response and related documents including the findings of the recent literature review commissioned by the coalition of early years sector organisations which set out the current evidence base, and the findings of our survey of practitioners. Both the research and practitioners tell us that changes to the EYFS are neither needed nor wanted to achieve the Government’s goals of improving language and communication skills and reducing workload.
If you don’t have time to read lengthy documents, here’s a quick guide to our concerns:
The revised Educational Programmes are not reflective of the whole birth to five age range and don’t do what they are intended to do, which should be to set out the kind of activities children should receive in the seven areas of learning. They are in many cases a backward step from the current version.
Key issues with the Early Learning Goals (ELGs) can be summarised as follows:
- The Physical Development (PD) ELGs are too vague, and have been narrowed to only gross and fine motor skills, missing out key aspects of PD such as proprioception and the vestibular system and the crucial links between physical and cognitive development. Self-care belongs in PD, not in Personal, Social and Emotional Development (PSED) as proposed – and the change may stop some children with disabilities from achieving the ELG in PSED.
- PSED is now quite muddled, not least because of the new ELG on self-regulation, which is confused and confusing. Self-regulation and executive function are important, but this ELG will generate misunderstanding of the concepts, and will not help children’s development.
- The removal of the Understanding from the ELG in Communication and Language reflects a fundamental lack of understanding of the vital foundational role of understanding in C&L. Reducing C&L from three to two ELGs and increasing the Literacy ELGs from two to three does not support Government’s stated aim to increase the focus on children’s C&L in order to close the gap – quite the reverse.
- Literacy – the proposed new requirements are likely to impact on the number of children able to achieve this goal. Rather than increasing the number of children leaving Reception with good literacy skills they will increase the number deemed to be ‘failing’. The priority should be to focus on promoting a love of reading, not on the mechanics of reading and writing in a decontextualised way.
- The omission of Shape, Space and Measure from Mathematics goes against all the research on the importance of spatial thinking for maths and other STEM subjects. The focus should be on problem solving and concrete experiences of maths to promote mathematical thinking and talking.
- Understanding the World has been reframed in a way that is more fitted to the Y1 curriculum than to EY, and is far too abstract to be meaningful for children of this age. The current ELGs are far clearer and more appropriate. The removal of the Technology ELG is a missed opportunity to refresh vital STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering and Maths) aspects of the EYFS.
- Expressive Arts and Design has lost its key focus on exploration and creativity. The proposed focus makes children passive consumers and reproducers of the arts, and narrows the focus, cutting down children’s opportunities for creative engagement through multiple media and activities.
Overall, the revised sections of the EYFS included in the consultation do not read as though they were developed by those who live and breathe the EYFS in their daily lives.
The current version is not perfect, and can certainly be improved, but it was very carefully constructed and almost every word carefully considered and debated.
Most importantly, those debates included extensive dialogue with practitioners. The reasons why the current EYFS is constructed as it is, seem to have been ignored in many of the revisions, despite many attempts by early years colleagues including Early Education to explain them.
The language and expectations are trying to import aspects of the National Curriculum which simply don’t belong in the EYFS.
So, let the voice of early years be heard: tell Government what you think of the proposed changes. Let’s not have change for change’s sake, but only if it’s a change for the better.
Beatrice Merrick is chief executive of Early Education, a national membership charity supporting early years practitioners and campaigning for every child’s right to the best start in life.