Formalisation by Stealth? A brief analysis of the proposed changes to the Early Learning Goals in the English early years curriculum
In this blog post we offer a critical reading of the proposed Early Learning Goals (ELGs) for five-year old children in England, which have recently been released by the Department for Education (DfE). We express concern that the proposed ELGs and the associated Educational Programmes will reify early childhood education as a site in which standardised and narrow conceptualisations of knowledge are the dominant influences upon curriculum content and pedagogical practices. In particular, we argue that such influences will have significant implications for the experiences of four- and five-year olds in reception classes, which constitute the point of transition from non-statutory, preschool provision to compulsory schooling in the English education system. The transitory characteristics of the reception class have long been the subject of debate regarding pedagogy and curriculum for young children, to which our research has highlighted concerns regarding the formalisation of learning associated with school readiness (Kay, 2018) and a reduced capacity for children to engage in complex play (Chesworth, 2016).
We suggest that the proposed ELGs and Educational Programmes will intensify these issues through an increased focus upon ‘normativity and performativity’ (Moss, 2013, p. 5), an accelerated move towards ‘schoolification’ (Roberts-Holmes, 2015) and a renewed emphasis upon Mathematics and Literacy outcomes. The release of the proposed changes follows the recent publication of the Bold Beginnings (OfSTED, 2017) report that was dominated by a narrative of ‘school readiness’ and the role of the Reception curriculum in preparing children ‘for the rest of their education and beyond’ (p.2). The report highlighted the curricular gap between the Early Learning Goals (ELGs) as an expected attainment at the end of Reception, and the challenges and demands of Year One. Shortly before this report was published the Government responded to the 2017 primary assessment consultation stating ‘We will ensure that the ELGs are appropriately aligned with the year 1 curriculum, particularly the ELGs for Literacy and Mathematics’ (DfE, 2017a, p.6). Whilst OfSTED are a regulatory body and are not enshrined with policy-making powers, it is interesting to note the ways in which the discourse of Bold Beginning resonates with the revised ELGs. At first glance it is difficult to compare the revised ELGs as like for like with the current outcomes. However, a new aspect of the revised Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), the ‘Educational Programmes’, has the specified aim of shaping ‘activities and experiences’ for each area of learning. Briefly mentioned in the current EYFS framework (DfE, 2017b), within the revised version these are expanded upon in much more detail and provide an in-depth expectation of how the ELGs should be achieved.
When we shift the focus of interrogation to the Educational Programmes for Communication and Language and Literacy, a clear alignment with the Year One English Programme of Study emerges. Here we begin to see the language of Key Stage One seep into the EYFS, as displayed in Table 1.
Table 1 — Mapping the outcomes
We argue, therefore, that the way the Educational Programmes have been constructed in the revised EYFS, and the mirroring of this discourse in the Year One Programme of Study for English, further pushes an agenda of ‘schoolification’ into Reception. That this has been done in a way that is ‘hidden within plain sight’ through the language of the Educational Programmes, suggests a strategy of formalisation through ‘stealth’. This serves to reinforce our concerns regarding the ’top down approach’ that continues to impact upon the educational experiences of young children in England.
The proposed changes will be piloted by a small sample of schools from September 2018, with a consultation period to follow. However, since the revisions are clearly driven by an all-encompassing neoliberal ideology for education, we fear that the consultation period will be nothing more than a formality.
References
Chesworth, L. (2016) A funds of knowledge approach to examining play interests: listening to children’s and parents’ perspectives, International Journal of Early Years Education, 24(3), 294–308.
Department for Education (DfE) (2017a) Primary assessment in England Government consultation response London, UK: Crown copyright.
Department for Education (DfE) (2017b) Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage London, UK: Crown copyright.
Kay, L. (2018) School Readiness: A culture of compliance? Unpublished EdD thesis: University of Sheffield.
OfSTED (2017) Bold Beginnings: The Reception curriculum in a sample of good and outstanding primary schools Manchester, UK: Crown copyright.
Moss, P. (2013) The relationship between early childhood and compulsory education: a properly political question. In P. Moss (ed.), Early childhood and compulsory education: reconceptualising the relationship (pp 2–50), Abingdon: Routledge.
Roberts-Holmes, G. (2015) High stakes assessment, teachers and children In: W. Wyse, R. Davis, P. Jones & S. Rogers (Eds.) Exploring Education and Childhood: From Current Certainties to New Visions Abingdon, UK: Routledge
Dr Liz Chesworth and Louise Kay.
