Sir, Over the past few weeks the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS), for children from to birth age 5, has been much in the news. The Open Eye campaign has led to debate not only in the early years sector but also among parents and all those who want the best for young children. While we recognise the good intentions of those calling for the EYFS not to be statutory, we believe that this would be a backward step. The campaigners argue for deregulation, but we have tried not regulating — it did not work and instead left many of our youngest children in unsatisfactory provision with poorly qualified staff.
In the debates that have gone on there appears to have been some confusion about the statutory and non-statutory elements of the framework. The only goals or targets for young children are for the end of the year in which they turn 5, the first year of primary school. The learning grids in the practice guidance are just that — guidance for practitioners to use if and how they think fit, based on professional judgment.
We are fortunate enough to meet a wide range of practitioners across the country and most of them feel able to support the EYFS because it provides a framework and a statutory commitment to the four principles that are at its heart. The EYFS is about responding to the individuality of each child, in the context of loving and secure relationships, and creating a stimulating and enabling environment that will promote age-appropriate experiences for learning and development.
Advertisement
As most two-year-olds will tell you, deconstructing things is much easier that constructing them and this applies whether it is a stack of building blocks or a curriculum framework. While there are some elements of the EYFS that need to be revisited, the vast majority of the framework is based on good early years practice.
Let us not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Advertisement
Bernadette Duffy
Head of Thomas Coram Children’s Centre
Professor Iram Siraj Blatchford
University of London, Institute of Education
Sir, Your report (“30,000 pupils leave school at 16 and have nothing to show for it”, Feb 8) raises some valid points about why so many young people are dropping out of education but it comes to no conclusion, except that raising the participation age to 18 is not the answer.
Advertisement
The issue is not with raising the participation age but with a curriculum that fails to engage young people. More practical and vocational learning must be brought into the curriculum at an earlier age if this is to change. Ensuring that students are combining learning by doing and integrating this with theory is the only way to challenge and stimulate those young people at risk of dropping out so that they will actively wish to learn and then continue in education beyond 16.
Only by encouraging young people to engage with learning in this way can we take steps to stem the current truancy and dropout rates and ensure more young people get the qualifications they need to succeed.
Advertisement
Andy Powell
Chief Executive, Edge