Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS)

Abstract

The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) is a reference to the stage of child development that occurs before a child reaches five years of age. EYFS is the focus of significant attention in the Childcare Act of 2006 that went into effect in Great Britain in 2008. This legislation sets out requirements for what children in the EYFS attending day care facilities should know and be able to do in terms of academics. The legislation requires providers of child care to follow standards for welfare, learning, and development. The EYFS requirements have come under sharp criticism for being at odds with many child development theorists' views of age appropriate learning.

Overview

The Early Years Foundation Stage system was implemented with a laudable goal, namely to provide families with assurance and accountability regarding the care their children receive outside the home. The lack of standards and norms for child care workers had long been raised as an issue needing public attention and some degree of formal regulation by the government. Perhaps not surprisingly, the EYFS implementation has not pleased everyone, particularly among those who most urgently lobbied the government to create some kind of system. If, as is often said, the nature of a good compromise is that no one is completely happy with the result, then the EYFS would qualify as a resounding success.

The EYFS targets are part of a broader movement taking place all over the world, and characterized by increasing levels of concern that children need to be prepared to succeed academically from a very young age. The rationale for this is usually that the global market for jobs has become intensely competitive, and in the future this trend is expected to continue unabated. As a result, parents, schools, and governments have pushed for children to begin their education earlier and earlier, and for the concentration to be on learning rather than on play and socialization (Johnson, 2014). This trend flies in the face of the findings of education researchers, who for decades have recommended more play and less work for very young children, arguing that beginning academics too early in life is a recipe for disaster. This is because many children will experience stress, frustration, anxiety, and even depression when asked to do too much, too soon. The fact that EYFS appears to ignore this advice has been responsible for part of the negative response to the legislation (Palaiologou, 2017).

Also of great concern is the fact that EYFS effectively imposes legal requirements related to the development of children who are below the age at which schooling is mandatory. In other words, even though the children EYFS is concerned with are so young that they are not required to go to school, if they are in a child care facility then EYFS mandates what they should know and understand. This is a confusing proposition for many people, because the logical conclusion is that if children of this age are going to be required to know certain types of skills, then they should be in school so they can learn them (Thomas, 2014).

Lastly, the EYFS campaign is remarkable in the scope of facilities it covers. Most government programs that impose requirements do so only upon those who receive government funding or nonmonetary support. The receipt of a benefit is made contingent upon compliance with certain benchmarks. EYFS, in contrast, applies to all facilities providing child care, regardless of whether they receive government funds. The British government does permit exemptions to the requirements in some situations, but most exemptions are temporary, and granted only to allow a facility additional time to come into compliance with the requirements of EYFS.

Further Insights

EYFS standards are in two major categories. Welfare is the first, and learning and development is the second. The welfare category requirements are fairly straightforward and have not been the subject of much controversy. Their purpose is to ensure that the environment of a care facility is safe and that the people working at the center have undergone a security review. The learning and development standards, on the other hand, are much more extensive, and some have noted that they appear to be based, at least in part, not on child development theory or research into cognitive development, but on parents' concerns about their children keeping up with those in other countries.

The learning and development section includes seven distinct areas of concern. First, and most fundamental, is the physical development of the child. The focus of this area is that children are able to grow physically and to develop mastery of their bodies in tasks involving fine motor skills and gross motor skills. Another area of focus is on providing opportunities for children to develop their creative faculties; this generally involves art projects such as drawing, painting, and sculpture, but can also include imaginative play, dress up and role playing, and so forth.

The EYFS framework also emphasizes the area of understanding of the world and knowledge. Although this can seem esoteric, it basically involves an awareness of the importance of education and learning, with the hope that this awareness will begin to foster an ongoing motivation in children to pursue their studies with all of the energy they can muster. As might be expected in any kind of care center, since it is often a reason parents give for placing their children in care, EYFS sets expectations regarding children's socialization, including their ability to regulate their emotions, read the emotions of others, and interact on an interpersonal level with peers and adults.

Communication includes both written and verbal modes, despite the fact that many children in this age group are still learning the alphabet and how to write letters. Children's ability to solve math problems and use reasoning skills is also addressed by EYFS, as is the child's literacy. Many of these areas sound innocuous in the abstract, but the manner in which EYFS creates standards to measure them has raised eyebrows.

The aptitudes of EYFS that have caused the most concern are those related to communication and to problem solving. This is because the framework interprets "communication" as referring primarily to literacy skills, and "problem solving" as an ability that is best measured by referring to a child's mathematical prowess. In theory, drawing these equivalencies makes a certain kind of sense, because reading and writing are indeed forms of communication, and mathematics requires a heavy dose of problem solving, as well as the ability to think abstractly. The concern with how EYFS has addressed these areas is that it is too simplistic and too focused on traits that are easy to assess.

Teachers and child development specialists argue that communication in young children is something that can be taught and assessed through activities such as group singing, storytelling, and even games, rather than graded exams. Similarly, they affirm that mathematical ability can be explored using an abacus (which also provides practice with fine motor skills), counting toys, and drawing pictures to show "greater than" and "less than"—there is no need for learning multiplication and division before the age of five. Some have gone so far to suggest that trying to get children to learn too much in the way of academics during the first five years can actually be counterproductive for their education later on. This can happen when a child consistently experiences failure at learning various skills, and becomes frustrated or even despondent. This, in turn, can contribute to a negative attitude toward school and education in general (Aubrey & Dahl, 2014).

Issues

EYFS requires that providers of care to children register with the government and receive an identification number so that parents can review information about their performance. Providers must, in addition to following the standards laid out by EYFS, keep certain records about the children in their care, so that the progress of each child can be monitored. Parents are able to review these records upon request. Child care centers are subject to inspection and rating by the government's Office for Standards in Education, abbreviated to Ofsted.

The actual assessments of the children in care are not written tests, but are observations of the child. The observer then writes a summary that is kept on file. In some cases, parents may be able to receive an exemption from having their child work on an area of learning if the parent feels that it is an area that contradicts the family's religious views. An exemption is good for twelve months, after which another exemption would need to be requested (Baker, 2013).

The seven areas of learning discussed above are often better understood when sorted into two categories. The first category, known as prime areas, includes physical development, communication, and socialization. The second category, known as "specific areas," includes literacy, mathematics, creativity, and understanding/knowledge. Each area in the two categories is further broken down into specific skills. For literacy there are the two skills of reading and writing, while for communication there are three: listening, speaking, and understanding. Each skill is then used to establish highly specific goals for children to work toward during their time in care (Golding, Boes & Nordin-Bates, 2016).

For example, one of the skills in the mathematics area is numbers, and a goal for this skill could be having the child be able to count to twenty. The end result of defining the areas, skills, and goals is a large and complex grid of competencies that can be used as a rubric to assess how well children are doing in all of the different areas, and by extension, how well the care providers are doing at helping the children to meet their goals. Viewing this array of tasks and abilities is instructive, for it is an excellent visual representation of how complex and uniquely personal the learning process is, even in (or perhaps especially in) the early years.

A child's network of talents and interests can be as intricate and as singular as a fingerprint, and it is constantly changing and evolving as the various skills influence one another, sparking interest in one area while it wanes in another, and culminating in the development not only of skills but of experience and even personality. Without detracting from the understandable controversy about the appropriateness of some of the EYFS expectations, the program remains impressive for its courageous attempt at codifying a learning pathway that is broad enough to include flexibility and room for variation, but specific enough to be useful as a means of holding providers accountable not only for children's safety, but also for their development.

In a sense, the EYFS system exists as a concrete recognition of the fact that children are constantly learning and developing, whether or not the adults in their lives are aware of it or participating in that process. EYFS draws the conclusion that, since children are always learning, their carers should do everything in their power to make that learning as effective as possible (Nicholson & Palaiologou, 2016).

The early years of the EYFS have run a somewhat bumpy course. After the framework was implemented over the previously mentioned objections of child development scholars and concerned parents, it met with a mixed reception. Early feedback about EYFS was that it represented a whole new layer of bureaucracy for families and caregivers to contend with, and that many of its monitoring requirements are duplicative, inasmuch as the same information is already being collected and analyzed by other programs as well as by the internal assessments of many child care programs (Britain, 2014).

Another common complaint has been that EYFS processes and staff are at best indifferent to parents and occasionally downright hostile, although some of this feedback may be the natural result of any new system being implemented, with the staff learning their new roles and families reluctantly adjusting to unfamiliar practices. Many parents also have reported that they worry about EYFS assessments and other data being later used as a basis for labeling their children as having one or more learning disabilities or otherwise in need of special education. Their fear is that once a child is given a label like this, there is the temptation on the part of schools to expect less of that student, and to steer the student toward less challenging classes; this practice is sometimes known as tracking.

Tracking can severely limit the opportunities available to a student, because in some areas students are tracked into vocational career pathways instead of having higher education as a goal, which may not ultimately serve the best interests of the student. Career tracking, if it is made the only option available based solely on assessments that do not tell a pupil's whole story, naturally results in parents being dissatisfied (Macdonald & Waters, 2016). Much of the criticism of EYFS can be traced to this issue, as parents feel that the system expects the same level of performance from all children in care, regardless of their individual circumstances. In other words, a child being raised by a single parent who works multiple jobs and has very little time for enrichment activities must meet the same expectations for a child from a two-parent home where both parents can afford to spend time with the child in reading, listening to music, visiting museums, and so forth.

Terms & Concepts

Adult-directed activity: An activity that an adult conceives of and directs a child to participate in or perform.

Differentiation: The practice by educators of making adjustments in the curriculum to accommodate the needs of individual students.

Ofsted: The Office of Standards in Education, the agency of the British government tasked with evaluating child care centers to determine their level of compliance with the EYFS.

Prime Areas: The areas of physical development, socialization, and communication.

Self-initiated activity: An activity that a child conceives of and undertakes.

Specific Areas: The areas of literacy, mathematics, understanding of the world, and creativity.

Bibliography

Aubrey, C., & Dahl, S. (2014). The confidence and competence in information and communication technologies of practitioners, parents and young children in the early years foundation stage. Early Years: An International Journal of Research and Development, 34(1), 94–108. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=94420211&site=ehost-live

Baker, F. S. (2013). Responding to the challenges of active citizenship through the revised UK early years foundation stage curriculum. Early Child Development and Care, 183(8), 1115–1132. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=89600836&site=ehost-live

Department for Education. (2014). Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. London, UK: National Archives.

Golding, A., Boes, C., & Nordin-Bates, S. M. (2016). Investigating learning through developmental dance movement as a kinaesthetic tool in the early years foundation stage. Research in Dance Education, 17(3), 235–267. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=119149762&site=ehost-live

Johnson, J. (2014). Curious engagement: Creating learning opportunities within the Early Years Foundation Stage. In Johnson, Jessica (Ed.) Becoming an early years teacher. pp. 50–71. Maidenhead, UK: Open University Press.

Macdonald, N., & Waters, J. (2016). The early years foundation stage: Theory and practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

Nicholson, N., & Palaiologou, I. (2016). Early years foundation stage progress check at the age of two for early intervention in relation to speech and language difficulties in England: The voices of the team around the child. Early Child Development and Care, 186(12), 2009–2021. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=119334468&site=ehost-live

Palaiologou, I. (2017). Assessing children's play: Reality or illusion? The case of early years foundation stage in England. Early Child Development and Care, 187(8), 1259–1272. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=123567918&site=ehost-live

Thomas, C. (2014). Health and safety in early years and childcare: Contextualising health and safety legislation within the early years foundation stage. Safety & Health Practitioner, 32(7), 48.

Suggested Reading

Atkinson, C., Bond, C., Goodhall, N., & Woods, F. (2017). Children's access to their right to play: Findings from two exploratory studies. Educational & Child Psychology, 34(3), 20–36. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=124571673&site=ehost-live

Brown, C., & Rogers, S. (2014). Measuring the effectiveness of knowledge creation as a means of facilitating evidence-informed practice in early years settings in one London borough. London Review of Education, 12(3), 245–260. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=115006738&site=ehost-live

Norbury, C. F., Gooch, D., Baird, G., Charman, T., Simonoff, E., & Pickles, A. (2016). Younger children experience lower levels of language competence and academic progress in the first year of school: Evidence from a population study. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, 57(1), 65–73. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=111554276&site=ehost-live

Seager, E., & Abbot-Smith, K. (2017). Can early years professionals determine which preschoolers have comprehension delays? A comparison of two screening tools. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 33(1), 67–79. Retrieved January 1, 2018 from EBSCO Online Database Education Source. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eue&AN=121240588&site=ehost-live