Opinion: In my view - Thinking sense on EYFS
Dr Richard House, Grethe Hooper Hansen and Kim Simpson for the 'Open EYE' Campaign.
There are some 8,000 Downing Street petition signatories, and an MSN News website opinion poll (at http://news.uk.msn.com/nappy-curriculum.aspx) currently shows 66 per cent of respondents are 'against EYFS'. We believe this hardly constitutes children's minister Beverley Hughes's alleged 'small number of vocal critics'. Many practitioners dare not speak out against EYFS, fearing adverse career effects. The DCSF has consistently refused to enter any meaningful dialogue about our principled concerns, yet had they truly listened and substantively responded, there would be no need for Open EYE even to exist.
We welcome the principle of a foundation stage, introduced in 2000. Yet we question EYFS's goal-driven mandatory intrusion into the delicate world of early childhood. If the current approach were working, eight years on, Britain's children would now be soaring up the international literacy and numeracy performance tables. But disturbing new OECD data indicate quite the reverse to be happening - confirming our concerns that to intrude into early experience with a goal-driven adult agenda severely and unavoidably disrupts young children's healthy learning. The case for an urgent independent review of England's whole early years strategy could hardly be more compelling or urgent.
And it gets worse, with disadvantaged areas now under great local authority pressure to raise standards, with programmed literacy and numeracy learning already being routinely imposed upon four-year-olds and younger. This will inevitably only harm, rather than help, the most disadvantaged.
Open EYE is redoubling its efforts until some sense prevails in early years policy-making.
The EYFS also misunderstands the difference between free, child-initiated play, and teacher-directed (so-called) "play". A qualified EYPS nursery manager recently said that, "The most important thing is that (EYFS) encourages practitioners to teach children through play ..." (London Paper, 4 September). Such hopeless conceptual confusions are inculcating a quasi-schooling ideology into practitioner training that is fundamentally misplaced; for young children"s authentic play has nothing whatsoever to do with teaching.
