There have been many surveys and studies published since the announcement of the new Early Years Funding Formula and the 30 hours offer. So many headlines and sometimes so contradictory. Looking beyond the headlines is a struggle with the demands of the day job. In my conspiracy theory moments, it all feels a bit ‘loaded’.
I want to question what are we basing our definition of ‘quality’ on? In the LSE study it was on final attainment. The Development Matters aspect of the EYFS is often the basis on which children’s progress and attainment is measured – leading to an assumption that the highest attainment shows the greatest quality.
I can’t help noticing on the bottom of every page of my copy that it clearly states, ‘Children develop at their own rates… The development statements and their order should not be taken as necessary steps for children. They should not be used as checklists…’
At the launch of the EYFS in 2000, the authors were clear – this should not be used as an assessment pro forma. Against our better principles is that is what it has become – a tool for measuring children and holding us accountable in the face of increasingly data-based outcomes inspections.
Research is only as good as the statistics you put in. I worry that if we base our early years policy on such simple measures, we will lose the child. Having worked with the Effective Early Learning Project, the Early Excellence Centre Evaluation Programme, and EPPE, all of the methodologies were detailed and not simply based on one type of evidence.
We need to ensure that the multitude of research findings don’t simply give media headlines. As one education expert said, ‘… assessment is simply a net, the size of the holes determines the fish that you catch.’
The EYFS is basically a principled document that has suffered from a fair amount of interference over the years, but let’s stop pretending that any study, curriculum or single method of practice can be the final word in quality early years practice.