Following the launch of a petition against the planned changes to the revised EYFS last week by Right from the Start, the DfE published a blog in response strongly refuting the group’s claims.
‘We are aware of a petition on Change.org that makes significant misleading claims about our reforms to the early years foundation stage (EYFS),’ the DfE said.
‘The petition suggests that children will be deemed as failing if they do not reach particular milestones at ages four and five. This is untrue.’
The petition launched last Thursday (16 July) called for the revised EYFS to be abandoned and has so far been signed by more than 4,100 people. Today, Right from the Start has hit back at the DfE’s claims and set out its responses.
Schools have been asked to take part as 'early adopters' of the EYFS in September. The revised early years curriculum is due to become statutory in September 2021.
Broadly, critics of the Government's EYFS reforms claim that the revised curriculum is too narrow and formal for young children and focuses on maths and literacy above all other areas of learning. They say children will be deemed as 'failing' if they do not meet the expected levels of development in the Early Learning Goals at the end of the Reception year.
The goals for maths and literacy for young children are not appropriate and ‘will make them feel like failures before they are six’, and will also not help to close the attainment gap, Right from the Start says.
Under the heading 'Misleading petition about reforms to the early years foundation stage', the DfE says in its blog, ‘We have transformed early years learning and development, focusing on equipping children with the early language, literacy, numeracy and other skills they will need as they start their school journey.
'The point of these reforms is to make sure early years professionals fully support children’s holistic learning and development throughout reception year. These reforms achieve that by removing unnecessary paper work to free up more time for teachers to spend interacting with children. This builds on pilot findings published last year, where teachers found changes largely positive, with feedback that it helped focus on stories, group work and discussion, inspiring pupils to be more imaginative and improving their language skills.
‘Our reforms have been developed following extensive consultation with the sector.’
Right from The Start disputes this. It says ‘the Government consultation was 'flawed, both during the process of drafting a document for consultation and in responding to the subsequent consultation. Very little has changed from their original inadequate and unasked for draft, despite the whole sector trying to give them advice.’
The Government consultation received 2,452 responses.
Right from the Start does agree that the Government did consult ‘some experts’ but says it had to put in a Freedom of Information request to find out who they were, which it says is ‘not the mark of an open democratic process. The majority of people they consulted were not early years experts. None of them represented the private, voluntary and independent sector.’
The groups says there was ‘so much concern across the sector about what was being done to the EYFS behind closed DfE doors’, that a group of representative organisations formed an Early Years Coalition to try and work with the DfE and influence the process.
‘The Coalition commissioned a review of the research literature and carried out a survey of practitioners to which over 3,000 people responded. Both reports were shared with the sector and with government. Practitioners surveyed were clear that the EYFS did not need extensive reform. The review Getting it Right in the EYFS confirmed the interrelated nature of the seven areas of learning and found no evidence that literacy and numeracy should be prioritised over other areas.’
Referring to the Early Learning Goals (ELGs), the DfE says, ‘These milestones are not tests; they are an end-point measure of children’s attainment at age 5 and readiness for year 1. No child will be deemed as failing if they are not meeting these developmental goals.’
But Right from the Start says, ‘If the ELGs were actually, as the DfE claims, a simple endpoint measure based on typical child development at the age of five, then it would be expected, and acceptable, that younger children and those pursuing untypical development pathways would not achieve them. Reception teachers would not have to teach to them. As it is, there is huge pressure on Reception teachers to get all children achieving the ELGs.
'This pressure is already there as the current Literacy and Maths ELGs do not reflect typical child development but are evidence of the Government’s obsession with getting children involved in formal literacy and maths activities earlier and earlier. This is contrary to all research evidence and unlike practice in nearly all other European countries. The reformed goals are even harder and will make achieving them even more unlikely for most young children.’
Right from the Start adds that the DfE has ‘been unable to quote the support of a single early years representative organisation or any practising primary head teachers, reception teachers or practitioners from the private, voluntary and independent sector’.
In contrast, the group has posted comments from practitioners stating their concerns about the EYFS reforms.
Nursery director Sylvia Tiffney said, ‘I am deeply concerned, not only about changes to the Early Learning Goals, but to the educational programmes for children from birth to five. We are witnessing a potential rewrite of this whole phase of the curriculum by the back door. A wealth of research evidence and thousands of educator voices have been ignored. The proposed changes narrow curricular focus, misunderstand developmental norms in children and are driven by a limited and limiting number of goals. It is time to listen to professionals on this crucial issue.’
Kelleigh Campbell, Reception teacher and assistant Head, said, ‘I find these reforms hugely worrying, particularly in relation to the large number of EAL and SEND children we have in our school who will in many cases be excluded from achieving these Early Learning Goals because of what they require children to be able to do.
'To say that “No child will be deemed as failing if they are not meeting these developmental goals” is untrue. Of course no EYFS practitioner would actually use that language about a child, but by default, if a child does not achieve these set goals in the EYFS profile, they have ‘failed to meet them’ and the discussions with Y1 colleagues, SLT, Governors etc will always include focus on those who have not achieved a Good Level of Development and are deemed to be falling behind.’
