Back to overview

Research School Network: Maths in the early years: what the research does (and doesn’t) tell us – Part Two Julian Grenier and Debbie Morgan continue their exploration of the evidence behind new changes to the EYFS

Blog

Maths in the early years: what the research does (and doesn’t) tell us – Part Two

Julian Grenier and Debbie Morgan continue their exploration of the evidence behind new changes to the EYFS

Share on:

by East London Research School
on the

In the second part of this blog, Julian Grenier (Director of the East London Research School) and Debbie Morgan (Director for Primary Mathematics, National Centre for Excellence in the Teaching of Mathematics) look at some of the changes to maths in the EYFS.

In our first blog in this two-parter, we considered some examples of evidence-informed practice. In the second part, we’re going to be looking at some of the strengths, and some of the limitations, of using research and evidence to improve teaching and learning.

Evidence-informed practice: strengths and limitationsThe key strength of evidence-informed practice is that it can bring greater insight and much more rigour to our work. For example, at Sheringham Nursery School we learnt a lot from focusing on how complex counting is. The guidance report makes it clear that to count, a child needs to understand:

  • The correct counting sequence (1,2,3,4 etc)
  • Knowing to pair one item with one count word
  • The cardinal counting principle (the last number counted represents the total number in the group)

The following brief case study from the EEF’s guidance report recounts some of this thinking we did together as a team. Behind that case study lies a lot of work by one of our maths leads, Fliss James, who worked collaboratively with a group of practitioners across Newham to investigate the maths learning of two-year-olds, and who also worked alongside many of our Early Years educators and teachers.

Picture 1

We also learnt to provide many more opportunities for children to develop fast-recognition of up to four items, or subitising. Previously, we would generally insist that children counted objects even if they told us confidently and correctly how many items were in a small set. Now, we recognise and value their ability to subitise, and we provide children with many more practical opportunities to work with small collections of things. The same goes for the emphasis we now put on part-part-whole relationships, providing real-life practical opportunities to explore how a number like 5 is made up of 4 and 1 and 3 and 2 etc.

After putting this strong focus on number, our next area for deeper exploration is how children explore shapes, spaces and patterns. Traditionally, we have always supported block play and many other opportunities for children to manipulate and talk about shapes, and make structures and patterns. Our initial look into this area suggests that we’ve provided plenty of time and opportunity for child-directed exploration, which is enormously important. But we may not have helped children enough to reflect on what they are doing and what they notice as, for example, they play with blocks.

Sheringham8
  • More of a focus on ​‘deep understanding’ – for example, number sizes are smaller, and there is more emphasis on understanding all of the necessary components of counting and a focus on subitising.
  • Less breaking down of mathematical learning into small bands. The previous guidance suggested what babies from birth to 11 months should be learning, then from 8 – 20 months and so on. The question to consider here is: do we want guidance from the DFE to direct practitioners in the teaching of maths to babies? Or do we want a looser framework that leaves more space for professional judgement, and for staff to focus on what’s most important for a baby in a childcare or childminder setting? We judged that it made better sense to focus on a single ​‘birth to three’ phase and consider some of the key early understanding of number that’s important. Child development at this age is very variable. It’s appropriate that very young children will learn about number and shape at different times. This was noted in the previous guidance, which reminded practitioners that ​‘the development statements and their order should not be taken as necessary steps for individual children. But in practice, the bands encouraged tracking children from one step to the next. With tracking came a perceived pressure to ​‘move children from one band to the next’. It’s important to check that children have secure understanding of early concepts, whatever their age, before moving them on to more challenging content.
Baby maths

There are two clear limitations of evidence-informed practice to note, as well. First of all, curriculum plans can’t entirely be evidence-based. There are many gaps in our knowledge, but we can’t sensibly leave a gap just because we don’t know something for sure yet about children’s learning.

There is a weak evidence base for the birth to three section of mathematics inDevelopment Matters, but the guidance does draw on the best evidence we have, and also the experience of practitioners working with babies and toddlers. Appropriately, it is guidance. Practitioners can increasingly modify the approach they take as we reflect on the learning and progress of the children we are working with. We can also modify our approach in the light of new findings.

A well-planned and sequenced early maths curriculum, together with well-trained and reflective practitioners, can help us to ensure that children enjoy maths and feel confident about working with shapes, patterns and numbers. That relies on a complex mix of professional skill, experience, common sense, and understanding the research and evidence. None of those elements is sufficient in itself, and no single ​‘blend’ is correct.

That’s why the EEF report, and Development Matters, are deliberately presented as guidance for practitioners.

Finally, we must continue to focus on the serious problem of educational inequality in Early Years maths. As Becky Francis, the Chief Executive of the EEF, powerfully reminds us:

Not all children learn the skills they need to succeed.

In 2018, just 66% of disadvantaged children achieved at least the expected level of development for number at the end of the Early Years Foundation Stage compared to 82% of their peers.

Once children fall behind, it is hard for them to catch up and they are likely to fall further behind throughout school.

More from the East London Research School

Show all news

This website collects a number of cookies from its users for improving your overall experience of the site.Read more