Yesterday saw the publication of the revised EYFS framework, including the new ELGs.
This post focusses on the mathematics area of learning. For a more rounded rejoinder see here: https://www.early-education.org.uk/press-release/government-eyfs-reforms-are-backward-step
The consultation response (the Response) is found here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/896872/EYFS_reforms_consultation_-_government_response.pdf
The revised framework for ‘early adopters’ (the Framework) is here: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/896810/EYFS_Early_Adopter_Framework.pdf
Sadly, despite the almost unanimous opposition of both the early years sector and the mathematics community, the Department for Education have persisted in retaining this as an ELG for 4- and 5-year-olds as they end the EYFS and before their statutory schooling begins:
· Automatically recall (without reference to rhymes, counting or other aids) number bonds up to 5 (including subtraction facts) and some number bonds to 10, including double facts. (the Framework p14)
The title for this post is taken from a tweet I saw from someone involved in education and who was also a member of the advisory panel for this revision of the EYFS. It is worrying when an experienced educator pushes the inevitable consequence of an erroneous goal on the teachers who are forced to work with it - As @mmmurmuration replied:
So teaching to the goal/test is just poor teaching by individual teachers rather than an inevitable result of a structural problem created by policy and driven by expectations from above.
“There seems to be uproar about this. What do you think?”
This was another tweet from around yesterday. I’d like to explain why I am so annoyed about this particular goal. And the maths in general.
Broadly, because the revision emphasises the un-proven and the un-achievable and ignores what is evidenced as important. Why would anyone support the inclusion of a goal for learning which 1/is not supported by any research whatsoever as either achievable by this age of learner, and 2/is not indicative of future maths attainment?
On the other hand, spatial awareness is indicative of future mathematical attainment but no longer exists as an ELG. (See my @FamlyHQ piece on this: https://famly.co/blog/the-child/helen-williams-spatial-reasoning/ and this excellent article by Dr Sue Gifford https://bsrlm.org.uk/the-case-for-space-in-the-early-years/ ). Surely it would be essential to assess our children’s developing understanding of this area?
As for measures – the very point where number is experienced and understood in context – these do not appear at all. Anywhere. This is despite these statements in the Department’s Response document:
· Another central theme (of the responses) was the need for a greater focus on shape, space and measures within the educational programme. (The Response p9)
· Mathematics will include a greater detail on the importance of shapes, spatial reasoning and measure as part of early maths learning, and how children can foster a love of maths. (The Response p10)
This to me smells strongly of an attempt to skew what is taught and focussed on in Reception to suit one particular ideology. One of memorisation and ‘readiness’ for the number aspects of the National Curriculum to the expense of all else. Although the Department for Education’s aims in this reform of the EYFS was to:
· focus on strengthening language and vocabulary development to particularly support disadvantaged children;
· strengthen literacy and numeracy outcomes to ensure all children have a good grasp of these areas of learning in preparation for year 1;
· ensure the ELGs are based on the latest evidence in childhood development; and
· ensure they reflect the strongest predictors of future attainment.
A Goal that is adrift from our knowledge of child development and international research will not support a disadvantaged child. This Goal will require a lot of time for the child to ‘achieve’. A lot of teaching. And what will suffer?
There is a lot more to say about this document. But I am leaving it at that in this blog.
Here are two dice games that do strengthen our younger learners’ numerical competence and confidence. They might well lead to some degree of “automatic recall”, eventually, but there is a lot more involved in these games than that. Both involve mathematical reasoning and hopefully loads of enjoyment!
Shut the Box
If you don’t know about this in your family or school, you need to!
We made our own by folding and cutting a card flap. You need 2 dice.
To play: Roll the two dice. You can either choose to turn down the 2 and the 5 OR the 7. The object is to turn down all the flaps. Your turn ends if you can’t go anymore. Traditionally, one person plays at a time, but we have had fun playing in turn with the last person to turn down a flap, winning.
Play more than once. What do you notice? What happens? Was there a poor decision? Can you think why? Discuss your decisions each move.
Empty the Line.
You need: A line numbered from 2 to 12 and 2. dice. You also need 10 buttons or counters that fit onto your number-line. This game is best played collaboratively, maybe with pairs competing with other pairs.
To play: Decide on which numbers to place your 10 counters. You can place them how you like; spread them out on every number, or put them all on one number!. Once they are place, you cannot move them.
The 2 dice are rolled and their total is called out, eg if I roll a 3 and a 2 I call out “5”. One counter can be removed from the 5 on the line. The object is to place the 10 counters so that you empty the line as quickly as possible.
Play more than once. What do you notice? What happens? Can you think why? Can you improve on the original placing of the counters? Discuss your decisions.
Keep buggering on. And look up principled non-compliance.
Stay strong. Stay in touch.
and there's always a game of Beetle ...
