Transcript ES 3219: Early Years Education, Week 6:

ES 3219: Early Years Education, Week 5:
The Early Years Foundation Stage Curriculum &
Tickell Review
Introduction
 In the legislative programme for the period
2005-8 we saw an emphasis on measures aimed
at increasing the percentage of British adults in
employment to an all time high of 85%
 In September of 2008 a new Early Years
Foundation Stage framework came into full
effect, replacing the Foundation Stage Guidance,
Birth to Three Matters and National Standards
for Under-8’s Daycare and Childminding.
 For the first time a single fully fledged
‘curriculum’ regulates childcare and educational
setting for all infants from birth to five.
The Foundation Stage Profile (2003)
“The early learning goals in the curriculum
guidance were not devised as assessment
criteria. The Foundation Stage Profile captures
the early learning goals as a set of 13
assessment scales, each of which has nine
points.” (DfES, 2003, p.1)
•
•
•
•
Statutory requirement from September 2003
Introduced to replace LEA baseline assessments
Cumulative record of 117 criteria per child
Conceived as partially hierarchical & partially
non-hierarchical
The Foundation Stage Profile (2003)
• FSP scores may be interrogated by teachers,
managers and the LEA in relation to gender,
ethnicity, month of birth and comparison with
similar schools.
• Several LEAs reported that they believed scores
had been ‘inflated’ (Ofsted, 2007, p.26)
• Initial training suggested that teachers work to
the target of children achieving 8 on the profile
scales: this caused problems and
inconsistencies. 2006 Guidance suggested that 6
points was the new ‘good’.
Implementation and moderation of the
Foundation Stage Profile (2006)
• In November 2006 the National Assessment Agency,
who administer the FSP, undercut the working
assumption among teachers that the FSP feeds directly
into NC levels and the SATs regime:
• “Any equation of the FSP scales or scale points to NC
levels or invented sub-levels is a spurious and ultimately
inaccurate exercise. There is currently no reliable
numerical correlation between attainment in FSP and NC
key stage 1 assessments.” (NAA, 2006, p.5)
• They also commented on the confusion over tracking
and the calculation of ‘value added’ through FS2 (Year
R). (Ibid.)
• They followed this with a new set of guidance in 2007
which again recognised that “inappropriate approaches
to assessment… continue to be an issue” (NAA, 2007, p.
p1) and sought to address this.
The Childcare Act 2006
 The early Years Foundation Stage curriculum,
regulation and inspection arrangements are
already enshrined in law in the 2006 Childcare
Act.
 The 2006 Act places a responsibility on local
authorities to ensure that they secure sufficient
childcare for the needs of all working parents in
the area “enabling parents on the lowest
incomes, and perhaps with the most difficult
circumstances… to lift themselves out of poverty
and give their children the best start in life.”
(Hughes, cited in McAuliffe, Linsey & Fowler,
2006, p. 26).
The Childcare Act 2006
Two factors are intended to ensure that the care
children receive will be of sufficiently high quality:
 the requirement to follow the Early Years Foundation
Stage curriculum,
 the inspection of all childcare providers by Ofsted. The
Childcare Act 2006 brings together in statute Ofsted’s
daycare, childcare, and nursery education inspection and
registration functions.
 In order for a childcare setting to be registered it must
implement the EYFS, & comply with learning and
devlopment requirements (DfES, 2007a, p8)
 In general a person or setting cannot provide any early
years childminding service unless registered with Ofsted
– exemptions include babysitters or nannies in the child’s
own home, Sunday schools and after school clubs which
take place as part of extended school provision.
The Childcare Act 2006
 Working parents will be expected to pay for
childcare secured for them by the local authority
 When the child reaches three years of age they
will continue to be entitled to 12.5 hours per
week of free childcare for 38 weeks of the year,
extended to 15 hours in 2010.
 However, the 2006 Act “allows regulations to be
made to enable parents to be charged for the
time their children spend in school in excess of
the ‘free entitlement’ if the children are below
statutory school age” (McAuliffe, Linsey &
Fowler, 2006, p. 42).
The Childcare Act 2006
 “The term ‘childcare’ is made inclusive of
education, at least for children under
compulsory school age. This reflects the new
Early Years Foundation Stage… [This] definition
emphasises the integrated nature of early years
provision and corrects the misconception that
education and childcare are two distinct
activities for young children.” (McAuliffe, Linsey
& Fowler, 2006, p. 27). See DfES, 2007a, p.7
 Do you agree with this conflation of the
functions of provision?
The Childcare Act 2006
Sections 39-46 of the Childcare Act lay out
the requirements for the EYFS. Section 39
requires that the EYFS consists of two
parts:
 Learning and development requirements
 Welfare requirements
 The third statutory element is the
assessment arrangements (DfES, 2007a,
p.11)
The Childcare Act 2006






Section 41(3) stipulates the six areas of learning
which form the basis of the learning and
development requirements:
Personal, social and emotional development
Communication, language and literacy
Problem solving, reasoning and numeracy
Knowledge and understanding of the world
Physical development
Creative development
The Childcare Act 2006
 For each area of learning and development, early
learning goals, educational programmes and assessment
arrangements may be specified.
 Under s.41(3) learning and development orders cannot
require the allocation of specified blocks of time to the
teaching of any aspect of the programme or the
timetabling of ‘periods’ for subject areas.
 Early learning goals are defined in s.41(2)(a) as “the
knowledge, skills and understanding which young
children of different abilities and maturities are expected
to have before the 1st September next following the day
on which they attain the age of five.” There are 69 ELGs
in the current EYFS Statutory Framework (DfES, 2007a,
pp.12-16)
The Childcare Act 2006
 Educational programmes are defined in
s.41(2)(b) as “the matters, skills and processes
which are required to be taught to young
children of different abilities and maturities.”
 McAuliffe, Linsey & Fowler (2006) refer to the
debate in parliament on this matter which
focussed on the appropriateness of the word
‘taught’ (Hansard, House of Commons, 2005), its
interpretation and meaning.
 Is it possible, for instance, to ensure that early
emotional attachments or responsiveness to the
environment be ‘taught’?
The Childcare Act 2006
 New assessment arrangements include a profile,
renamed the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile
which will “serve the same function [as the FSP] and
be subject to minor changes reflecting the
development of the EYFS” (McAuliffe, Linsey &
Fowler, 2006, p. 78). In fact “The EYFSP is identical
to the Foundation Stage Profile” (DfES, 2007c, p.3)
 The Secretary of State may issue an order specifying
details of how, when and by whom young children
are to be assessed under the EYFS.
 This gives the State an unprecedented role in
directly assessing the educational development of 05 year olds and, via Ofsted and other accountability
systems, in ensuring that the provision guarantees
children’s progress in line with expectations.
The Early Years Foundation Stage
 “Providers have a duty to ensure that their early
years provision complies with the learning and
development requirements” (emphases added)
(DfES, 2007a, p.8). Requirements of whom? For
instance, is it reasonable to make requirements of
small babies? If not, then the requirement must be
placed on staff to ensure that the infant’s learning
and development goals are met. This recalls the
‘taught’ debate.
 Is this instrumentalist approach to early education
appropriate?
The Early Years Foundation Stage
 The ‘Development Matters’ heading within each Area
of Learning and Development represent a
hierarchical model of attitudes, skills, etc. required
in order for children to reach early learning goals.
 The ‘Look, listen and note’ section is centred on
assessment and systematic observation.
 Reference is frequently made to not using the
curriculum requirements as a checklist (e.g., DfES,
2007b, p.11, DfES, 2007c, p.20). How can this be
avoided given that they either ‘must’ or ‘should’ be
carried out?
 Practitioners must plan for individual children using
observational assessment – there must be no ‘tests’
anywhere in the EYFS (DfES, 2006, p.13).
The Early Years Foundation Stage
 Learning must be active and strike a balance between childled and adult-led activity (DfES, 2007c, p.9)
 Practitioners must plan activities towards the achievement of
the early learning goals.
 In the final year of the EYFS, this includes a statutory duty to
fill in the EYFS Profile in its entirety, and to report this to
parents.
 Again, everything is premised upon the child’s development
leading towards and necessary for the achievement of the
early learning goals at the end of the key stage.:
“This means that practitioners must implement clear,
principled approaches and a seamless continuum of
assessment from the child’s first days in a setting to the end
of the EYFS.” (DfES, 2007c p.3) “The Development matters
column identifies the developing knowledge, skills,
understanding and attitudes that children will need if they are
to achieve the early learning goals by the end of the EYFS.”
(DfES, 2007b, p.11)
The Early Years Foundation Stage
 Section 3 of the Statutory Framework (DfES,
2007a pp. 19-40) emphasizes the need for a
range of policies to be drawn up by all childcare
providers – some of these, such as the
safeguarding children policy, the policy for
supporting disabled children, the policy for
managing the administration of medicines, etc.
will be new to many.
 Questions might be raised about how this
growth in bureaucracy might serve to remove
certain types of setting and EY-worker from the
childcare market.
Why are the ideals rarely realised in the Reception
classroom?
• Parental pressure to see outcomes either in terms of
adults’ or their children’s recording
• Restrictions of time and space imposed by whole school
requirements
• Downward pressure on ‘standards’ from KS1
• Lack of understanding on the part of staff
• Intervention by or lack of understanding from
management
• Overspill from KS1 legislated curricular requirements
• School timetables
• Adult-child ratios
• Children’s ability to profit consistently from free-play
based activities
The Tickell Review: meeting the criticisms?
• “There is clear and unambiguous evidence that
outcomes for young children are improving” (Tickell,
2011, p.3)
• “It has been apparent from the start of the review that
the EYFS has had a positive overall impact on children in
early years settings” (Tickell, 2011, p.4)
• “However… there are important ways in which the
framework can be strengthened and simplified.” (Tickell,
2011, p.4)
The Tickell Review: bureaucracy
• “There are clear instances of repetition which contribute
to the frustrations expressed by many that the EYFS can
be both burdensome and cumbersome” (Tickell, 2011,
p.4)
• Clear that the quantity of paperwork and bureaucracy in
the current EYFS has left practitioners feeling
“overwhelmed”. Most time should be spent “interacting
directly with children to guide their learning rather than
writing things down.” (Tickell, 2011, p.30)
• “I recommend that the EYFS explicitly states that
paperwork should be kept to the absolute minimum
required to promote children’s successful learning and
development.” (Tickell, 2011, p.30)
The Tickell Review: bureaucracy
• The so called “80/20 rule” was never enforced or
enforceable, but is a good example of the way in which
bureaucratic mindsets can rather quickly take hold, and
a good reason for Tickell to recommend its removal.
(Tickell, 2011, p.35)
• Ofsted sometimes request unnecessary amounts of
information. Ofsted and LAs are to produce clear
guidance on requirements. Again, in an attempt to
reduce bureaucracy, Tickell recommends “as with
Ofsted, local authorities avoid creating burdens for
practitioners arising from requests to collect unnecessary
data and information, and to keep paperwork that is not
required by the EYFS” (Tickell, 2011, p.48)
The Tickell Review: assessment
• “Many practitioners told me that they would like to see
the early learning goals … reduced and simplified…To
address this, I recommend that the early learning goals
are reduced in number from 69 to 17” (Tickell, 2011,
p.6)
• “Many people spoke to me about tensions with the
current formal assessment of children’s level of
development at age 5 – the EYFS Profile. In
consequence, I am recommending this is radically
simplified, and reduced in size from 117 pieces of
information to 20 pieces of information that capture a
child’s level of development in a much less burdensome
way.” (Tickell, 2011, p.6)
The Tickell Review: assessment
• Assessment lies at the heart of the difficulties with the
EYFS. (Tickell, 2011, p.30).
• “For each early learning goal a simple scale is
established. This should define what emerging,
expecting and exceeding means for each early learning
goal. I also recommend that the level of exceeding the
early learning goals is set to be consistent with
expectations in the current National Curriculum, and
evolves in a way that is consistent with expectations to
be set out in the new National Curriculum Programmes
of Study for Key Stage” (Tickell, 2011, p.31)
The Tickell Review: assessment
• A move possibly at odds with the less linear and
bureaucratic approach is the proposed introduction of a
pathway of ‘key milestones’ of development for children
under 24 months.
• Tickell says there are strong arguments for retaining
summative assessments at the end of the EYFS, and
these relate largely to the collection of local and national
data, though results at a school level will not be
published. The new slimmed down EYFSP will consist of
20 pieces of information per child rather than 117. 17 of
these are numerical, 3 are descriptive reporting.
• The transition to Year 1 should be ‘seamless’ with no
significant difference in experience. This is going to need
some work on the part of many schools.
The Tickell Review: health and education
• “I am recommending the introduction of a requirement for
practitioners to provide to parents and carers, a short summary of
their child’s communication and language, personal, social and
emotional, and physical development between the age of 24-36
months.” (Tickell, 2011, p.5)
• “There is a clear opportunity for professionals to come together
around the time of the Healthy Child Programme health and
development reviews carried out by health visitors – both the review
when a child is one-year-old and in particular around the time of the
2 year health and development review” (Tickell, 2011, p.22)
• In practice does this become bureaucratic or burdensome?
• Move from ‘educare’ back towards health and education: “I
recommend strongly that the Government works with experts and
services to test the feasibility of a single integrated review at age 2
to 2½” (Tickell, 2011, p.25) to become part of the Red Book.
The Tickell Review: health and education
• The proposed emphasis on personal, social, emotional
development, communication development and physical
development as the ‘prime areas of learning’, the
‘bedrock’ for the EYFS is also intended to retrieve the
lost emphasis on health in the EY:
• “Focusing on these prime areas has the potential to
bring together health and early years practitioners
around a shared model of a child’s development”
(Tickell, 2011, p.93).
The Tickell Review: areas of learning
• “Personal, social and emotional development,
communication and language and physical development
are essential foundations for children’s life, learning and
success. Therefore, I am recommending these are
identified as prime areas of learning in the EYFS. Sitting
alongside these, I am proposing that literacy,
mathematics, understanding of the world, and
expressive arts and design are identified as the specific
areas of learning in which these prime skills are applied”
(Tickell, 2011, p.6)
The Tickell Review: areas of learning
• The ‘prime areas of learning’ are those which “arise
universally from the interaction of innate developmental
patterns with experiences” (Tickell, 2011, p.95)
• The prime are time-sensitive, grounded in brain-development
and universal
• The ‘specific areas of learning’ are less time-sensitive and
related to the needs of a particular society – or economy. For
example, literacy, numeracy, ICT.
• This is much more carefully theorised than previous versions
of the EYFS. The distinction between prime and specific is
well expressed in the difference between “experience
expectant” learning, which is grounded in genetics and
epigenetics, and “experience dependent” learning which is
‘superstructural’, depending upon culture. (Tickell, 2011,
p.97)
• The importance of social and emotional aspects of learning is
said to flow from both “socio-constructivist” theories, and
neuroscientific research regarding emotional states.
The Tickell Review: service provision
• “I believe that we have yet to reach a point where the skills
and capacities of the early years workforce have developed
far enough for greater self-regulation to become
viable…Therefore I recommend that there should continue to
be a framework that applies to all providers working with
children in the early years.”(Tickell, 2011, p.13)
• “Professional organisations representing groups of
independent schools to seek exemptions on behalf of the
schools they represent who do not wish to deliver the EYFS
learning and development requirements” (Tickell, 2011, p.14)
i.e., more formal, earlier
• “As local authorities redesign the services that are available to
children and their families, particularly early years services, I
cannot emphasise enough how important it is to understand
the pivotal role of these services and ensure that they are
retained” (Tickell, 2011, pp. 25-6) An argument made in the
face of cuts and closures:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15334635
The Tickell Review: play
• “I support this focus on play as the route through which the
areas of learning should be delivered and firmly believe this
should be retained as one of the foundations of the
EYFS…However, there is confusion about what learning
through play actually means, and what the implications of this
are for the role of adults.” (Tickell, 2011, p.28)
• Tickell attempts to clarify the relationship between “adultguided” and “child initiated” learning, suggesting a
collaborative approach and arguing against those who would
prevent ‘teaching’. Her definition of ‘teaching’ is very broad,
“all of the interactions between a child and parents, carers,
early years practitioners, other adults or other children, could
be described as learning or teaching interactions”. (Tickell,
2011, p.29)
• Unlike with previous EY practice guidance, there is an
identified theoretical basis for Tickell’s proposals in the work
of Broffenbrenner (Tickell, 2011, p.86) and the ‘interactionist
tradition’ which identifies three ‘ecological domains’ within
which the child develops – the family, the setting and the
community – mediated by values and belief-systems.
The Tickell Review: self-regulation
• ‘Self-regulation’ is placed at the centre of Tickell’s
understanding of social and emotional learning for later
academic success. It would be interesting to think about
how self-regulation is instilled in the child as an effect of
disciplinary technologies. Those wanting to write on
Foucault could consider pages 87-91 of Tickell.
• Discussion on pages 88-9 of self regulation, and the
“intrinsic motivation to achieve mastery”. (Tickell, 2011,
p.90) There’s certainly scope to relate this to Marx as
well.
Bibliography
Department for Education and Skills (2006) The Early Years Foundation Stage: Consultation on a single quality framework for
services to children from birth to five, Nottingham: DfES Publications, online at
http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/downloadableDocs/Complete%20for%20WEB.PDF
Department for Education and Skills (2007a) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage, Nottingham: DfES
Publications, online at http://www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/eyfs/resources/downloads/statutory-framework.pdf
Department for Education and Skills (2007b) Practice Guidance for the Early Years Foundation Stage, Nottingham: DfES
Publications, online at http://www.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/eyfs/resources/downloads/practice-guidance.pdf
Department for Education and Skills (2007c) Creating the Picture, online at
http://publications.teachernet.gov.uk/eOrderingDownload/fs_creating_pic_0028307.pdf
Hansard, House of Commons (2005) ‘Childcare Bill’, House of Commons Standing Committee D, 15 December 2005, Clause 41
c251 Deb, online at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmstand/d/st051215/am/51215s02.htm
McAuliffe, A., Linsey, A. & Fowler J. (2006) Childcare Act 2006: the essential guide, London: National Children’s Bureau and
National Foundation for Educational Research
National Assessment Agency (2006) Implementation and moderation of foundation stage profile 2006: Annual monitoring
report, NAA, http://www.naa.org.uk/downloads/QCA-06-2959_fspreport.pdf
National Assessment Agency (2007) Additional Guidance on Completing Foundation Stage Profile Assessments, online at
http://www.naa.org.uk/downloads/FSP_factsheet-_2007_Guidance_LA_Completing_Foundation_v042.pdf
OFSTED (2007) The Foundation Stage: A Survey of 144 Settings,
http://www.ofsted.gov.uk/assets/Internet_Content/Shared_Content/Files/2007/mar/fsin144sttngs.pdf
Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (2003) Foundation Stage Profile Handbook, Sudbury: QCA Publications
Tickell, C. (2011) The Early Years: Foundations for life, health and learning. An Independent Report on the Early Years
Foundation Stage to Her Majesty’s Government, Department of Education,
http://media.education.gov.uk/MediaFiles/B/1/5/%7BB15EFF0D-A4DF-4294-93A1-1E1B88C13F68%7DTickell%20review.pdf