EYFS consultation: an expert's view on the revised framework

Many will be feeling disappointed when they examine the consultation documents, published in response to the much welcomed Tickell Review of the EYFS: The Early Years: Foundations for life, health and learning (March 2011). Why this response when many of Dame Clare’s recommendations have been upheld?

One reason may be that whilst this consultation document itself retains many of the Tickell recommendations it has lost the depth of understanding encapsulated in Dame Clare’s document. For example, she stated that her recommendations ‘build on the strengths of the existing framework, retaining what works and revising what doesn’t’ yet there is only passing reference to the principles of the EYFS which we had understood were to continue as the bedrock of the revised framework.

So, a shaky start – not helped by a lack of clarity about the themes and principles or by changes to the focus of Positive Relationships, or to the name of Enabling Environments, which in the interests of plain English, is now called ‘a positive environment’. It’s certainly plain but it’s hardly distinctive and it underestimates what parents and practitioners are capable of understanding.

Given how little space has been devoted to the learning and development and assessment requirements in the framework draft, the accompanying Consultation Response Form seems to be disproportionately focused on these aspects. The cynical might be forgiven for thinking that the main thrust of the changes to the EYFS were in relation to early years practice with a back-to-basics approach that seems to make little mention of values, beliefs and principles.

Without the fire and enthusiasm of the Tickell review, this document offers only a brief paragraph about children’s life chances omitting reference to Frank Field’s report: The Foundation Years: Preventing poor children becoming poor adults (2010) and Graham Allen’s Independent Report: Early Intervention: Next steps (2011).

In its defence it might be argued that the findings and recommendations of these reviews are now accepted as aims which the current Government aspires to. However, what has been presented appears reductionist when we are informed that ‘Teaching in the early years should be focused on improving children’s school readiness.’ Whilst many would not disagree that school readiness is important, most in early years would argue that teaching should be about inspiring, motivating and encouraging a love of learning that lasts long after schooling is finished.

Another concern with reference to the areas of learning and development is the statement that these ‘must shape activities (educational programmes) for children in pre-school settings’ – is this mischief or misunderstanding because the EYFS is not restricted to children in pre-school settings, as indicated clearly in Appendix 1 of the document.

In itself this confusion is understandable enough but the text which follows in the Learning and Development requirements shows that there are some deeper misconceptions which need to be reviewed. One of these is the suggestion that ‘Early years providers must guide the development of children’s capabilities with a view to ensuring the children in their care complete the EYFS ready to benefit fully from school.’ Again we might be generous and argue that we know what they mean.