The Early Years Foundation Stage EYFS was introduced in to provide a framework for consistent and high quality environments for all children in pre-school settings. A review was promised at the time, and Dame Clare Tickell Chief Executive of Action for Children was invited last summer by the government to conduct an independent review that was evidence-led, built on what works well and improved those areas where there are problems.
There is, however, significant concern about the potential impact of spending cuts on the early years sector — an issue acknowledged by the review.
Your email address will not be published. This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed. The Dame Tickell review revealed gaps and difficulties in practice and these findings led to the revised EYFS in enduring many changes to improve this The Dame Tickell review also suggested that the 69 early learning goals for children to achieve by the end of the foundation stage should be reduced to 17 goals due to a certain amount of overlap Gaunt, Share 2.
One might wonder whether this strengthened commitment to physical development sits well with the lack of requirement for all settings, or even all new settings, to have an outdoor area. The Report also calls for research into the question of how children learning English as an additional language should be helped to develop English in the EYFS. I have not been able to locate any existing research on this question; the main findings from international research focus on the importance of children developing fluency and vocabulary in their first language, and point to the longer term benefits of bilingualism which are acknowledged in the Report.
On observation and assessment, the Report includes a great deal of good sense, bluntly stated. Although the EYFS does not require shelf-loads of paperwork to be kept, all too often this is exactly what happens.
The volumes of detailed observations and assessments, which some practitioners are keeping, might be useful if we were writing biographies of the children in our care; but we are not. The only useful assessments are those that lead to actions — that put something in place for a child, or help to pinpoint a problem. I think we need to take this discussion further. Have we developed an unbalanced approach to planning and curriculum design which is excessively led by observations of individual children and their interests?
If so, this risks undermining a more holistic approach to thinking about what sort of experiences and equipment groups of children will benefit from encountering. It makes it difficult to plan for progress in the early years. When we have seen a child playing with cars, and plan more experiences for him with wheeled toys, then the risk is that we fail to widen his horizons. We notice his interests, but fail to think about offering a broad early education. I do not find the Report consistently helpful in this respect.
Thus, phonics instruction may be appropriate in the Foundation Stage for some, but not all, children. Research does not support a general blurring of teaching and playing. I think the Report gives little emphasis to this sort of play, which is chosen and led by children.
Finally, it is worth considering that in September this year, many Reception classes will include very young four year olds because of the new single point of entry. The Report makes a sensible recommendation that we need to look again at ratios in Reception, to ensure that children have enough support.
Indeed, there are some indications that the long-term negative effects of premature academic instruction are more noticeable for boys than for girls. I think that the Tickell Report is to be welcomed. It is a careful piece of work which should stimulate a great deal of further thought and professional dialogue.
0コメント