This year’s changes to the Early Years Foundation Stage are causing serious concerns among some in the sector. There have been numerous criticisms around several aspects, including one group calling them a mathematical dog’s dinner.
But it’s important we put this debate in context.
Before going on, I need to declare my hand. I’m the practitioner appointed by the Department for Education to lead the process of revising the non-statutory guidance for the EYFS, Development Matters. The DFE will publish the guidance in September.
Changes to EYFS
The current criticisms will feel familiar to anyone who has worked in the sector for some time. Previous changes to the EYFS Statutory Framework and to Development Matters prompted similar responses.
There were criticisms that the revised EYFS framework was “based upon a quite erroneous view of child development, with no research evidence to support it”.
Opponents also said that the revised EYFS showed “an appalling lack of respect for young children’s developmental pathways” and that “the demands have become increasingly prescriptive and more demanding for both practitioners and children”.
Heavy criticisms
A team of internationally-renowned practitioners and researchers in England also raised significant concerns about many of the messages in the DfE’s consultation and interim documents.
While they accepted the DfE’s argument that there was a need to reduce practitioner workload, they argued that “the answer is not to scale back the document in such a reductionist manner as to leave weak practitioners with an excuse not to strive for a greater understanding of child development and learning”.
They also complained that the educational programmes signified “a didactic approach to teaching and learning which is alien to effective early years practice which follows the interests, curiosities and dispositions of each individual child”.
Finally, opponents weren’t convinced by the attempt to simplify the Early Learning Goals to reduce workload: “Simply reducing the number of goals is not nearly sufficient, and there is still likely to be too much emphasis on measuring children against a narrow set of targets”.
New approaches?
All those serious criticisms from the past seem to be forgotten. Instead, some early years campaigners argue that the current “world-renowned” documents do “not need extensive reform”. The current version of Development Matters is now described as a “well-loved document”.
You could argue, on the basis of this brief and selective overview, that the EYFS is getting worse with each revision. Maybe the sector is suffering from “change fatigue”?
On the other hand, the last version of Development Matters was published back in 2012. It’s supported my practice and leadership for the best part of a decade, but it’s important for educational frameworks to evolve.
That’s why I think we need to ask ourselves a serious question: do campaigning groups in the early years keep taking up the same oppositional positions to change? Is this spreading needless anxiety through the workforce?
As we prepare to return to school and early years settings, with so many other worries facing us, this question is an important one to answer.
