Pen Green rejects revised EYFS
The renowned early years research base Pen Green has responded negatively to the Government’s consultation over the revised Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). They are critical of the Government’s interpretation of the Tickell Review and suggest that there is too much emphasis on regulation and box ticking which could undermine the learning and development of young children.
One of the key changes outlined by the government is a dramatic reduction in the early learning goals. Pen Green’s response to the consultation did not highlight this as a problem however they did say that the overall slimming down of the EYFS and lack of considered detail could have a negative impact as it might not encourage and support weaker practitioners to work more effectively. They are particularly concerned about the omission of the characteristics of effective teaching and learning. More specifically, they believe the focus on play has been weakened and there is less of an understanding of how children learn.
They also expressed disappointment that the changes do not encourage practitioners to work with the ‘whole-child’ in the context of their family. They believe that this is necessary in order to help narrow the substantial gap between many disadvantaged children and their peers.
Pen Green’s comments are potentially very damaging for the government. Their views carry even more significance following their appointment to head a 2 year project (funded by the Department for Education) to establish a national network of Early Years Teaching Centres with the aim of raising standards in early years settings and improving children’s outcomes.
Comments
Leave a Reply
Popular Teaching Resources
Stay Up To Date
Sign up for our newsletter and we’ll let you know when we create new early years resources.
I too have felt the revised EYFS is not inspirational at all. I agree with many of the Penn Green objections such as the emphasis on school readiness, the lack of reference to play, enabling environments being replaced with positive (I do not understand what is a positive environment but I know that a child centred environment enables children to build positive dispositions to learn) and using experiences not ‘activities’.
Two of the objections I feel are important is the reduction of ‘documentation’, yes this will lead to poorer practice.
We need to be properly trained in documenting children’s learning and not be subject to ‘expectations’ just to show evidence of the dreaded and often misused word ‘paperwork’ which should only be used in reference to administration not for evidence of children’s learning.
There is no point in observing children unless we know what we are observing and how to put it in writing…so I would welcome any emphasis on this type of training…in fact I feel it should be compulsory!!!
What has made me incredibly happy is the suggestion that reception teachers should be ‘ready’ for 4 year olds and and support their learning…reception classes are not suitable for these young children, especially boys, who are taught under a blanket curriculum, with lenghty and inappropriate ‘carpet time’ and pushed too far….what a difficult experience this must be.
Reception is the end of the EYFS and not KS1 and teachers should comply with the requirements of information sharing with previous settings and use the children’s starting point to ease transitions for the children, parents and previous practitioners. As a registered childminder I would welcome more professional interaction with reception teachers rather than being kept at arms’ length and blocked by the old ideological barrier: early years setting versus school.
My fear is that the revised EYFS (if not properly challenged)will reflects this attitude and will make it more difficult to include reception within the framework.