Mathematics and the new EYFS
Within the two weeks leading up to the end of the most stressful and distressing school year we have ever experienced, two key documents relating to mathematics learning and teaching have been released by the Department for Education.
Firstly, the new statutory 2021 EYFS Framework, which this website has been set up to educate parents and educators about, and hopefully, revoke;
and secondly, the non-statutory guidance for mathematics in key stages one and two: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/teaching-mathematics-in-primary-schools
The Early Childhood Mathematics Group’s article in the TES summarises objections from mathematics experts to the 2021 EYFS Framework: https://www.tes.com/news/eyfs-framework-2020-mathematical-dogs-dinner
This makes it clear that, despite being sent research evidence to the contrary for two years, the DfE have decided there is to be a heavy focus on the instrumental learning of number facts. We have also seen the downplaying – nay, the removal - of both the Characteristics of Effective Teaching and Learning, and Shape, space and measures, as statutorily assessed at the end of the Foundation Stage. Consultation is hardly such when firstly, the DfE carefully selects who to consult to agree with their ideology; and secondly, they then ignore what the majority of the sector and those who know about the area are telling them.
Automatic recall
In 2018 the early years’ mathematics community welcomed a review of the ELGs for mathematics, as they were adrift from research evidence, for eg:
Children count reliably with numbers from 1 to 20, place them in order and say which number is one more or one less than a given number. (DfE 2014)
It was not long before we realised that the process was neither to be transparent nor research informed, but an opportunity to press forward with a current educational ideology loosely based on mathematics in Shanghai. And I use “loosely” advisedly; children don’t begin formal school until the age of 6 in Shanghai, but this was not seen worthy of emulation.
The review process began with the setting up of a secret advisory group of 36 members for reforming the ELGs. It required a Freedom of Information request to reveal that, of these 36, whilst around 10 members had primary and, yes, secondary mathematics as their specialism (or interest), there were just two with a specialism in early years’ mathematics. This TES article from December 2019 paints the picture clearly of a distinct lack of knowledge of the area being advised on and collaboration with those that are informed: https://www.tes.com/news/how-advisers-twitter-remark-reignited-early-years-row .
Last week, whilst in a meeting with the members of the two largest mathematical subject associations, we were informed that to reach decisions on what to include in the non-statutory guidance for mathematics in key stages one and two mentioned above, the authors looked at what was required in Y6 and asked themselves, so, what do we need to do in Y5, Y4…? and so on, to Y1.
And the DfE didn’t see anything awry with that. Or their advisers. And that is the issue. The word “automatic” appears on 34 pages of the KS1/2 guidance, “discussion” appears on two pages and “mathematical thinking” appears not at all. The phrase “pupils must” appears over 200 times. The model for teaching mathematics in England in the last two years has moved [NA1] ever closer to a top-down, mechanistic view of learning. And we end up with an ELG for all 4- and 5-year olds that reads:
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. (DfE 2020)
Despite the almost universal opposition to this goal from the piloted goals in 2018, this goal has been not only retained, but made more difficult to attain. Here is the pilot version:
Automatically recall number bonds for numbers 0-5 and for 10, including corresponding partitioning facts. (DfE 2018)
One of the major problems with the new EYFS is its complete lack of attention to child development and its complete lack of regard for the research evidence. Opposition to this particular goal is based in solid research evidence and has been almost universal. Those supporting the new ELGs have been unable or unwilling to defend its inclusion based on any evidence. This is summarised neatly in a tweet from Camilla Gilmore, Professor of Mathematical Cognition, Loughborough University, 8 July 2020:
“There’s no research evidence that supports automatic recall for 4-5 year olds and an inappropriate focus on this could be very damaging. On the other hand lots of evidence for the importance of shape/space. Such a shame government ignored evidence on this.”
Dr Pam Jarvis, Reader and Honorary Research fellow, Trinity, Leeds makes a powerful , wider rebuttal of the EYFS 2021 Framework here: http://histpsych.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-narrative-of-curriculum.html
Shape, space and measures
I have written about the ever-accruing mass of research into the importance of developing children’s spatial awareness in early years’ mathematics here: https://famly.co/blog/the-child/helen-williams-spatial-reasoning/
This body of research is recognised in just one sentence in the new EYFS Educational Programme for mathematics:
“Developing a strong grounding in number is essential so that all children develop the necessary building blocks to excel mathematically. Children should be able to count confidently, develop a deep understanding of the numbers to 10, the relationships between them and the patterns within those numbers. By providing frequent and varied opportunities to build and apply this understanding - such as using manipulatives, including small pebbles and tens frames for organising counting - children will develop a secure base of knowledge and vocabulary from which mastery of mathematics is built. In addition, it is important that the curriculum includes rich opportunities for children to develop their spatial reasoning skills across all areas of mathematics including shape, space and measures. It is important that children develop positive attitudes and interests in mathematics, look for patterns and relationships, spot connections, ‘have a go’, talk to adults and peers about what they notice and not be afraid to make mistakes”. (DfE 2020, p10)
This, plus the fact that shape and space has been removed as an ELG, reads as an afterthought, and yet the sector is urged to provide a broad mathematics curriculum. The fact that both LAs, schools and individual Reception staff are judged on the number of children achieving a Good Level of Development at the end of the FS makes a mockery of the argument that “the Goals are not the curriculum”. Teachers will invariably spend more time on the goals than other areas and the fact that at least one of these is developmentally inappropriate will mean more time is spent on this in order for achievement to be even possible. A fact that was born out in the independent EEF review of the pilot undertaken in 28 schools in just one year:
“Teachers took account of the revised ELGs in their plans. Teachers reported using the revised ELGs to build a long term plan to try to ensure that children could reach ‘expected’ by the end of the year and changed their lesson plans to ensure that areas introduced in the revised ELGs were properly covered.” (EEF 2019, p25)
And:
“While no school had stopped teaching (Shape, space and measure), schools had reduced the emphasis on shape, space and measures in their teaching practice. One reason for this was because they believed that its removal from the ELGs meant that it was no longer part of the reception curriculum.” (EEF 2019, p22)
Pattern
And so, to the only other Goal for mathematics, Numerical Patterns. This ELG is nothing short of a mess. Some of the items included have little to do with pattern, eg, “how quantities can be distributed equally” and:
“Compare quantities up to 10 in different contexts, recognising when one quantity is greater than, less than or the same as the other quantity.” (DfE 2020)
Whilst it is correct that pattern recognition in the early years is being established by recent research as a predictor of later mathematical attainment, these are not ‘numerical patterns’ as described in this EYFS, but patterning with manipulatives, in particular, spotting the unit of repeat in repeating patterns made in a variety of ways with a wide range of apparatus. It is certainly nothing to do with even and odd numbers and learning double facts, which are included in this Goal.
Looking forward
This quotation is from the report on the consultation on the EYFS (DfE 2020) https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/896872/EYFS_reforms_consultation_-_government_response.pdf
“This consultation follows extensive engagement with early years experts and the sector in developing a set of proposals following the Government response to the primary assessment consultation (published September 2017) with the objective to:
(…)
· ensure the ELGs are based on the latest evidence in childhood development; and
· ensure they reflect the strongest predictors of future attainment.” (DfE 2020 p5)
This is clearly untrue.
Both the 2021 EYFS Framework and the Non-Statutory Guidance for Ks1&2 cited, paint an impoverished view of mathematics, with scant attention paid to the development of children’s reasoning, their mathematical thinking and their abilities to engage in solving problems. In this, both documents are pedagogically unsound. The Characteristics of Effective Teaching and Learning are a critical approach to developing our children as mathematicians. Reasoning and problem solving are not word problems, as they are depicted in the KS1/2 Non-Statutory Guidance; see for example these two Y1 assessment questions:
· I cycled 4km to get to my friend’s house, and then cycled another 3km with my friend. How far have I cycled?
· I have 1 metre of red ribbon. I have 5 metres of blue ribbon. How many metres of ribbon do I have altogether? (DfE 2020, p25)
These are mock SATs questions, based on a spurious conception of context, which has no meaning at all for 5 and 6 year olds, and neither will they adequately assess any 5- and 6- year old’s ability to fluently add and subtract within 10, which is the named objective.
None of this is trivial, for instance, despite overall trends showing an increase in mathematical achievement globally at age 8-9 over 16 years of TIMMS (Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study 1995-2011) internationally evidence points to a persistent, consistent decline in pupils’ attitudes and confidence. We need to care about this enough not to include the above in the suggested curriculum for 5/6 year olds. Replacing the word “pupil” in these documents with “child” often brings the disconnect into stark relief.
We must now all work to develop our children as not simply competent, but as confident mathematicians, who are curious and enthusiastic about mathematics. To achieve this, we must develop a richer, broader, developmentally appropriate, learner-centred mathematics curriculum, that embraces children’s interests as well as their, and our, playfulness.
To achieve this, in the words of the well-respected mathematics educator, Malcolm Swan, BCME, April 2014, I see the teacher’s role as ...
engager of curiosity, provocateur, curator of students’ ideas, chair of whole class discussions, summariser and celebrator of new knowledge.
Here is the link to the #rightfromthestart website and petition. Please sign this and pass it on.
Thank you.
Comments