A perspective from England

Abstract

This chapter is written by two experienced early years practitioners and offers a review of the English framework with an overview of the principles, themes and areas of learning and development. The English Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) (DfE, 2012, 2014) draws on multiple theories and contemporary research and at the heart of the framework, practitioners working with babies and young children from birth to five are regularly reminded of the uniqueness and individuality of each child. The research underpinning the original EYFS (DfES, 2007) was revisited in 2009 with ‘Early Years Learning and Development: Literature Review’ by Evangelou et al. and it was no surprise that the findings focused on the Vygotskian social constructivist account of learning, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological domains and more recent research from neuropsychology where findings around brain development have influenced early years policy and practice. A notable observation by Brock et al. (2013:54) claims that whilst the child is seen to be placed at the centre of the EYFS (DfE, 2012, 2014), the Bronfenbrenner model situates the child as a passive recipient of cultural processes with ‘little power or agency’ that is dominated by the cultural context. It is worth considering Bandura’s (1977) social learning theory where he stated that children are not simply passive recipients and practitioners need to consider the idea of reciprocal determinism (where cognition, environment and behaviour interact). Rogoff critiques the ecological model and ‘argues that the model is still a hierarchical one, with the larger, outer contexts constraining the smaller, inner ones’ (2003, cited in Brock et al., 2013:55). Practitioners draw on various pedagogical theories to inform and support their practice and ‘many draw on a range of theories of learning and development, some based on the work of researchers and thinkers and others based on their own experience of children and childhood’ (Pugh & Duffy, 2013:117). However, this sense of agency also translates to early years practice where practitioners need to consider a ‘critical pedagogy’ where they question and challenge ideologies and practices that exist in early years education and care (MacNaughton, 2005; Brock, 2014). For example, the earlier versions of the English EYFS (DfES, 2007; DCSF, 2008) were considered by many to be a playful pedagogy where the strapline, ‘learning through play’ was a familiar refrain in early years settings; however, this idea of ‘play’ has been challenging for early years practitioners who ‘link their beliefs about the importance of play with the reality of meeting curriculum demands’ (Keating et al., 2002, cited in Brock et al., 2013:89). This is even more pertinent with the revised EYFS (DfE, 2012, 2014) and the Statutory Framework which foregrounds the adult role as promoting teaching and learning ‘to ensure children’s “school readiness” and give children the broad range of knowledge and skills that provide the right foundations forgood future progress through school and life’ (DfE, 2014:5). Many within the early years sector have baulked at the repetition of the term ‘school readiness’ and it is sometimes linked to an indication of a top down perspective with pressure on practitioners to develop a more academically grounded programme of activities rather than a play-based pedagogy. ‘Providers must guide the development of children’s capacities with a view to ensuring that children in their care complete the EYFS ready to benefit fully from the opportunities ahead of them’ (DfE, 2014:7). The semantic connotations associated with the ideas of ‘completion’ and ‘readiness’ imply that practitioners must rush children through their learning, advocating the image suggested by Dadds of ‘a hurry along curriculum’ (2002, cited in Ang, 2014:27).