ECMG response to the DfE publication ‘Non-statutory guidance for EYFS 2021’ Development Matters
The ECMG welcomes revision of the non-statutory guidance for mathematics in EYFS. The mathematics section in the previous version required improvement as examples did not always relate to the mathematics and lacked clear progression in some aspects. An update is necessary since we now know more about young children’s mathematical learning, such as the importance of subitising, spatial thinking and patterning. We welcome the inclusion of ‘shape, space & measures’ areas in the new document as these are particularly crucial (Farran, 2019), following their removal from the Early Learning Goals (ELGs). Where there is greater attention to these areas in the age phases of the new document, the guidance is most likely to lead to stronger mathematical development for children.
As a group, we do have some concerns about the overall focus of the new document. The implicit pedagogy undervalues child-led learning, when research is clear that a balance of both is required (Siraj-Blatchford et al. 2002): this seems partly due to the lack of the ‘enabling environment’ column as in the previous version (Early Education 2012). In particular, The Characteristics of Effective Teaching and Learning section seems to emphasise what has been taught rather than how children learn. For ‘Creating and thinking critically’ it suggests that children should ‘know more, so feel confident about coming up with their own ideas’. Previously, adults were advised to ‘model being a thinker’, ‘to value questions, talk and many possible responses, without rushing towards answers too quickly’ and to ‘encourage open-ended thinking, by not setting on the first ideas’. This provides children with the feeling that their ideas are valued and that they can take risks with new ideas. It supports deeper conceptual thinking and a focus on ‘how and not just what we are learning’ (Early Education 2012: 7). Switching the focus from child thinking to adult teaching is particularly unfortunate for mathematics, as building positive learning dispositions is essential in order to prevent maths anxiety, as well as to develop children who are confident mathematical thinkers and problem solvers
.In the guidance for mathematics, we welcome the age appropriate examples of practice. However, practitioners working with the youngest children are not helped by conflating several developmental stages into a single birth to 3 section, which underrepresents the earliest stages of mathematical development. It can be difficult to identify which examples are for supporting babies, 2 and 3-year-olds. The lack of strands within mathematics across such wide bands also makes it difficult for practitioners to follow a clear learning trajectory and so build upon prior learning. While we welcome the inclusion of aspects such as subitising and the emphasis on spatial learning in the younger age ranges, the reception section overemphasises number at the expense of shape, space and measures. This is particularly worrying, since a greater emphasis on these was needed to compensate for their removal from the ELGs. Time is omitted completely, as is the key pattern concept, the ‘unit of repeat’ (Rittle-Johnson, Zippert & Boice, 2019). With regard to learning processes, the younger age ranges mention the importance of playing freely and children’s own recording, but there is a disappointing lack of reasoning and problem-solving, particularly in the reception section, despite these being crucial for mathematics learning (Joswick, Clements, Sarama, Banse and Day-Hess 2019). Additionally, we are disappointed that the mathematics section overall fails to convey the enjoyment of mathematical learning for both child and adult.
As an expert group, the ECMG will continue to engage with and support policy makers and practitioners by providing advice for early childhood mathematics education (see our latest guidance Building firm foundations in mathematics, on our website, for Babies to 2 year-olds, 3,4 & 5 year-olds, and 6 & 7 year-olds).
References
Early Education (2012). Development Matters in the Early Years Foundation Stage. https://www.early-education.org.uk/development-matters-early-years-foundation-stage-eyfs-download
Farran, E.K. (2019). Spatial ability as a gateway to STEM success. Impact, 6, https://impact.chartered.college/article/spatial-ability-gateway-stem-success/
Joswick, D.H., Clements, D.H., Sarama, J., Banse, H.W. and Day-Hess, C.A. (2019). Double Impact: Mathematics and executive function. Teaching Children Mathematics 25(7), 416-426 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332182701_Double_Impact_Mathematics_and_Executive_Function
Rittle–Johnson, B., Zippert, E.L., & Boice, K.L. (2019). The roles of patterning and spatial skills in early mathematical development. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 46 166-178 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.03.006
Siraj-Blatchford, I., Sylva, K., Muttock. S., Gilden, R. & Bell, D. (2002). Researching effective pedagogy in the early years research report 356 DfES/HMSO