She felt the so-called 80:20 rule gave early years practitioners an opportunity to argue for play and child-led learning.
Lots of primary school headteachers and others who did not see much of a role for play suddenly found themselves in an unexpected position. Their schools' EYFS outcomes would be judged, for the most part, on those very aspects of the early years curriculum. It is not an exaggeration to say that in some cases, this led to a complete turnaround in school policy. Suddenly, headteachers were hot on play and going round asking whether there was enough of it.
So surely this was a good thing? I would argue not, for two reasons.
First, I think that the 80:20 rule distorted our understanding of good early years practice. The Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency produced some excellent video footage of child-initiated learning (which is well worth digging out, before its website is shut down). But none of these videos featured adults teaching, or starting off play which children continued, or demonstrating a skill. All of these are important parts of good practice, but they were neglected. As a result, practitioners who attended training based around the QCDA's materials were given a distorted impression of what they should be doing in the EYFS.
But even more regrettable is that schools changed practice in reception classes because they felt they had to. Some of them were never really convinced - they just did what they thought would please Ofsted or the local authority early years team. It was good to bring more play-based learning into reception, but this should not have been done through commands from Whitehall and town halls.
When practice evolves in classrooms and settings, through trialing and professional dialogue, confidence grows and quality develops. Otherwise, professional practice becomes nothing more than a piece of string blowing about in the winds of the latest whims and fashions.
