It was interesting to hear @juliangrenier talk about the re-write of Development Matters which he is leading (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rZ9mJ339Ek ).
It made me ponder a couple of things. Julian obviously makes some very valid points, as is usual with a response, I focus on my lingering questions!
Firstly, as Ofsted are keen on saying, this is “an evolution not a revolution”. I am curious, if it is an evolution, why the original authors haven’t been invited to engage in its review and evolution. Especially given how popular the publication is with early years practitioners.
Secondly, and this is critical I think, the issue Julian raises of assessment being confused with curriculum. A spokesperson for the DfE insists the goals “are not the curriculum and form a simple measure of what a child should be able to demonstrate by the end of reception”. (Schools week 3/11/2019) and those of us that work in early years that I have contact with are very well aware that the ELGs do not constitute the curriculum; that these are a measure that ends the Foundation Stage and should not dictate it (Julian refers to ELGs as “an assessment tool sitting at the end of the EYFS”). However, the reality is different. There is a lot hanging on the achievement of a ‘good level of development’ for Reception teachers. The results are published and used to measure the success of a school. Whilst accountability remains tangled up in (or masked as) assessment, naturally achievement of the ELGs will dominate learning in Reception, and possibly earlier. This is why the removal of Shape, Space and Measures as a goal, rather than being unimportant, is a dangerous step to take. This, in conjunction with goals that are far too ambitious for the age of child, will narrow the curriculum for our youngest children. A fact found by the independent EEF pilot of the ELGs
A swathe of research demonstrates that shape and space is directly linked to later mathematical achievement and is the bedrock for future numerical learning. Measures are an important application of, and context for, the learning of number.
Moreover, because something is difficult to assess, does it mean we do not assess it? Maybe this is the reason problem solving is also completely omitted, despite the fact that it is crucial to mathematical development. On the contrary, there is good reason to assess children’s progress in these areas.
Finally, the ELGs are only an assessment tool if they are a developmentally appropriate and useful measure of what a child of this age should be able to do. Elements of the draft ELGs for mathematics that Julian refers to (and that are not yet finalised, as we await the publication of the result of the DfE consultation that ended in January) are completely developmentally inappropriate. Whist some of the changes are supported by research, for example the focus on numbers to 10, I have yet to see any evidence that supports “automatically recall number bonds” or “count confidently beyond 20” as either achievable or predictors of later mathematical success at age five. In fact, in his interview Julian specifically refers to the misplaced ‘next step’ of counting to 20, once counting to 10 is mastered. including these elements as goals makes the argument for “putting assessment back in its box” disingenuous as R teachers are still being asked to jump through ill-chosen ELG hoops.
Thus, I remain sceptical that any re-write of Development Matters will change or improve much in early years practice whilst the ELGs remain 1/ so far adrift from what is appropriate and, 2/ exist as a school accountability measure. These are major issues that the Department for Education really needs to listen to and to change. If we look at the rest of the world, where is the evidence for asking English children to be attaining these goals? It is simply not possible to have a research informed Development Matters that leads to the current draft goals.
Dr Sue Gifford’s critique of the mathematics ELGs can be read here: https://bsrlm.org.uk/consultation-on-the-early-learning-goals/
Early Education’s response to the wider ELGs is here: https://www.early-education.org.uk/sites/default/files/Early%20Education%20commentary%20on%20the%20draft%20revised%20ELGs%2023.7.18.pdf
Dr Sue Gifford’s blog for BSRLM on ‘The case for Space in the early years’: https://bsrlm.org.uk/new-blog-august-2019/
