Open letter to Ofsted from early years professionals highlights concerns

An open letter, co-ordinated by Early Education and supported by the Early Years Alliance, has been sent to Ofsted expressing concerns around their early years review: ‘Best start in life part 1: setting the scene’.

The letter highlights nine concerns the hundred plus signatories have with the review; they are:

• Coverage of all EYFS provision – The review states it covers from birth to age four, however Reception year was included in the school research reviews and the principles extend to age 5. This was a missed opportunity for Ofsted to state a unifying approach to early years across all types of provision, for all children in the early years foundation stage. 
• Underpinning principles - The principles underpinning the review need to reflect the underpinning principles of the EYFS itself.
• Limited engagement with research evidence 
• Definition of curriculum - Trying to stretch a single definition across all phases of education simply puts it under too much strain, and when applied to children under five, it is not up to the task.
• Definition of teaching -  the removal of the first sentence of Ofsted’s long-established and well-constructed definition of teaching in the early years in the review and in the latest version of the inspection handbook – “Teaching in the early years should not be taken to imply a “top down” or “formal way of working.”
• How children learn and cognitive science  - This section and the one on Executive Function makes no mention of the Characteristics of Effective Teaching and Learning, which are core to the EYFS Statutory Framework and underpin practitioners' understanding of early years pedagogy.
• Following children’s interests - The review’s suggestion that practitioners would limit children to their existing interests and not give opportunities to develop new ones seems a misinterpretation of what it means to ‘follow a child’s interests’.
• Play - this section is not a reflection of the complex and nuanced literature on the topic. It fails to recognise the importance of play in its own right, as well as its role in children’s learning and development.
• Reflecting the realities of early years practice - the review’s examples of practice are not well chosen or explained.

The letter concludes with a plea for Ofsted to trial the seven areas of learning with a range of experienced practitioners and researchers as well as engaging with sector representative bodies.

Early Education’s chief executive, Beatrice Merrick said, ‘This curriculum review has the potential to be an important and influential piece of work, guiding inspectors, practitioners and leaders in their understanding of what constitutes quality in the early years. Unfortunately, it falls short on many counts. With a further seven instalments to come to cover each of the areas of learning in the EYFS, it is vital that any principles or guidelines Ofsted produced are based in the evidence and on a sound understanding of the EYFS. There is a wealth of expertise in the sector which would be willingly shared. We invite Amanda Spielman and her colleagues to engage in dialogue with the sector to co-produce coherent and credible documents that set the principles for high quality early childhood education across the sector.’