The Education Endowment Foundation latest guidance, Preparing for Literacy, has just been release. Its seven recommendations start with a focus on the development of communication and language with approaches that emphasise spoken language and verbal interaction.
The guidance is well worth reading. But how could we use it to increase substantially the development of pupils from the most disadvantaged backgrounds?
Stopping the Gap Appearing
Most of us have spent our professional lives attempting to close the attainment gap between pupils from more affluent backgrounds and those who are from significantly more disadvantaged backgrounds. Better to stop it appearing in the first place: intervene early and carry on intervening in ways that will significantly enhance children’s literacy.
If we really want to make a bold statement, at the beginning of a child’s education, why not place a statutory limit of fifteen pupils to one teacher in a reception class, rather than the current thirty to one, in schools with the greatest percentage of pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds. Halving class size in this way, in an environment where the pedagogical approach is likely to mean it is effective, would need to be rigorously evaluated given the costs involved.
Some proof that EYFS does NOT need to be extended into year 1
JUNE 19, 2018
When I first came to this role, I was told that our children couldn’t and wouldn’t be able to cope with formal learning and I was advised to extend the early years experience into year 1. This is considered good practice in the early primary teaching community, as evidenced by this recent article – the children coming up to year 1 were very behind academically (low baseline too) and had received less phonics instruction because of decisions to minimise aspects of formal learning in reception year. So, what was envisioned was that they would have more play in the classroom, carousel teaching with the rest of the groups maybe choosing their activity etc – not too much writing because they ‘weren’t ready’. These instructions came from a place of love and what is considered best practice, but I, with my funny-shaped evidence & research hat on, felt uncomfortable. Why? For a start, it’s just not logical to expect children who are behind to catch up by going slower and doing less than their peers in different schools. The thought of letting them spend another year going slower than everyone else in the country made my stomach churn. I couldn’t allow it.
Here is the link to the thread featuring the pilot of 'new early learning goals' for the Early Years Foundation Stage Profile - taking place in 25 schools:
'England: new early learning goals to be trialled in 25 primary schools'
One comment I would add, however, is that in my experience and the experience of others (for example, when I've managed to persuade them to use core resources and guidance rather than 'fun games and activities' for their phonics provision) is that the children themselves often thrive and really love their 'work' (as defined by the adults) because they have some serious content (both knowledge and skills) to get their teeth stuck into and they can feel themselves being learners. Learning becomes truly tangible to them.
Notably, the popular researchED organisation, publishing its very first magazine (available as hard copy and as a free online version) includes an article featuring the 'Bold Beginnings' Ofsted report:
In 2018 Ofsted appointed Professor Daniel Muijs to be its new Head of Research. One of his first publications, Bold Beginnings, proved to be an explosive read. In the report, he made recommendations into how the early years curriculum could be improved. Here, he writes exclusively for researchED magazine, setting out some of the research that informed the piece.
Children get profound, long-lasting benefits from their earliest exposure to teaching, from academic and non-cognitive development to better health and careers later in life. Research also shows that their teachers’ professional development is key, says Alison Peacock
Early years education is perhaps one of the most contentious areas of pedagogical practice. Of late it has been firmly in the spotlight, thanks to the focus on early years in the Education Committee’s Life Chances inquiry as well as the recent publication of the new Early Learning Goals.
My article published in SEN Magazine featuring the Bold Beginnings report:
Literacy in the early years
Ofsted’s Bold Beginnings report on Reception teaching was controversial, but it may ultimately serve to open some eyes and minds, writes Debbie Hepplewhite
Here is an excellent post referencing the Bold Beginnings report and the debate in the Early Years sector about suitable provision for Reception-aged children (four to five year olds in England's context):
“Does it work for all of the students? Perhaps many of the various methods work reasonably well for above-average students (they are going to learn despite our efforts), but the quality of instruction is most paramount for those below average (and whatever method works for these students often also works best for above-average students).”
John A.C. Hattie
There are many areas of debate in Early Years, arguably none more contentious and polarised than the one surrounding ‘Schoolification’ and the application of explicit instruction in Reception Class. What I am outlining here does not seek to undermine the EYFS Framework Principles but rather to complement them. In order to address ELG gaps in attainment, I believe we need to re-examine the role explicit instruction can play in enhancing good practice, in particular with regards to Reading. I will not be attempting to define what learning (the noun or verb) is. That is a rabbit hole and others are better qualified to explore it.
In 2017, the publication of the ‘Bold Beginnings’ Ofsted Report provoked EYFS sector practitioners, academics, early childhood experts and consultants to respond with calls for more consultation. Some believed that the publication would start a ball rolling and open up discussion both within the sector and outside of it, promoting transparency and cooperation. As an EYs teacher and leader, I did not view the publication as a threat but rather as an opportunity to revise my own practice in the light of new research. I was perplexed and taken aback by the sector’s overwhelmingly negative response.
We feel strongly that we must protect the children in this critical foundation stage from the ‘top down’ pressure that is a main theme of the ‘Bold Beginnings’ report. keyu.co.uk
That ‘top down’ pressure referred specifically to what was felt to be a narrowing of the curriculum for Reception Class.
It strikes me as ironic that structured systematic synthetic phonics which explicitly teaches the technicalities of reading, spelling and handwriting is considered by anyone to be a 'narrowing' of the curriculum considering we are enabling our young children to be equipped to do the most sophisticated and challenging of activities of reading, spelling and writing. How that opens up their world and their opportunities is hardly 'narrow'!