No. I won't calm the hell down. Bolder Beginnings in Mathematics

Six weeks ago, Ofsted's Bold Beginnings Report into the Reception Curriculum was released: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reception-curriculum-in-good-and-outstanding-primary-schools-bold-beginnings
I was looking forward to what it had to say, and had met with some R practitioners earlier in the month and had discussed what they thought would be useful. Pointers and examples of what others were doing and what we all might do to support our children though the R year, and into Y1, based firmly in what we know from research.

I am still angry about the actual report. Open the report and the Executive Summary opens with: 

"A good early education is the foundation for later success. For too many children, however, their Reception Year is a missed opportunity that can leave them exposed to all the painful and unnecessary consequences of falling behind their peers."

 

Maybe they thought no-one would read it over Christmas. Or maybe they thought no-one would think this a strange way to begin a report that you would want Reception teachers to take on board and develop. Leaving aside where the evidence for this statement comes from (where?), and that every R teacher I have come into contact with consider it an integral part of their job to learn and develop their teaching (despite one I came across in 1991); and that term "falling behind" - as a 4 or 5 year old? That old deficit model rears it's head again.
I have been trying to pin down exactly what I am still angry about.

Part of this is related to how the lively debate that has ensued has been received. 'We' - ie those of us who have laid down more clearly than I am here their objections to the report - have been accused of being "over excitable", "defensive", "a backlash", "mobbing" Ofsted, "caterwauling" "misinterpreting" "railing against it" and more besides. Why so much antagonism? Would the same people - all educators themselves - be happy if I used these terms about those of them objecting to a report into A Level or GCSE maths, I wonder?
But I wouldn't. I would read the objections and try and understand the level of anger and horror (yes horror). I wouldn't dismiss them, I certainly wouldn't tweet patronising tweets with no knowledge of the background into international early years education in this case, A level and GCSE maths in the fictional case. I wouldn't agree with it all. I wouldn't be happy with some of the tension and tone. But I would attempt to understand where these come from.

Part of my continuing anger is to do with how the report is written. Colin Richards' (@colinsparkbridg) piece for Schools Week on tone is illuminating: https://schoolsweek.co.uk/bold-beginnings-how-not-to-write-an-ofsted-report/.
I too am guilty. When I was contacted on December 8th for my first reaction to the report, my first word was "bullshit":
 https://www.tes.com/news/school-news/breaking-views/my-response-ofsteds-new-report-reception-teaching-best-retire-now
Suddenly it's adversarial. But it didn't need to be Ofsted.
Over the last 6 weeks I must have come into contact directly and indirectly with over 100 Reception and Y1 teachers. Without exception they are upset by the report. Those of us working in early years are left picking up the pieces from this.

And my anger is to do with the content of the report and the fact that the recommendations (which most busy headteachers will read at least first if not only) do not lead from the findings. (Delving deeper into the findings makes me really angry. Try the technical documents and judgement record (scroll down): https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reception-curriculum-in-good-and-outstanding-primary-schools-bold-beginnings)
The Reception curriculum cannot be usefully considered in isolation from the rest of the EYFS, neither as isolated from the Y1 and Y2 curriculum. Looking at the mathematics section, arguably, on the surface, not quite as controversial as the reading and writing sections, there is an unhelpful example of R children working with 3-digit numbers and several references to "schemes". Why? Where is the reference to the work being done to building the strong foundations our young children - who start school earlier than much of the world - and building these playfully? Instead we get:

"It was clear what children could achieve. The schools that ensured good progression frequently used practical equipment to support children’s grasp of numbers and, importantly, to develop their understanding of linking concrete experience with visual and symbolic representations. More formal, written recording was introduced, but only when understanding at each stage was secure and automatic."

and:

"Leaders who had ensured that progression in mathematical concepts from the very beginning frequently used practical equipment to support children’s learning of new concepts."  

Is this news to anyone? Frequently? What does this actually mean in practice? Formal recording only when ...etc? Has no-one read Martin Hughes (1986!)? https://www.wiley.com/en-gb/Children+and+Number:+Difficulties+in+Learning+Mathematics-p-9780631135814

Back to the practitioners I met before the report was out. We were looking forward to analysing the mathematics examples reported to see what was useful to us in relation to what else we are reading from international research about how 4&5 year olds learn mathematics. When I meet with them next we will spend some time picking up the pieces from the tone of Bold Beginnings, the feedback from the rest of their schools regarding the recommendations and the national messages being received and sent about the report. We will then spend most of the time together sharing the playful mathematical experiences we are exploring in our classrooms and analyse what these tell us about our children's learning, and then we will work together on positive images of early years 'direct maths teaching'.
Oh. We were doing all that anyway.

Bold Beginnings is not bold at all. It contributes nothing to the useful debate on early years mathematics education. I agree the profile of early mathematics needs to be raised, I have been working on it myself for some years; but Bold Beginnings is a (deliberately?) missed opportunity to recommend a full programme of CPD and engaging, practical and useful ideas based on research. Instead the writers opted for "schemes".
That's why I am angry. And I am not going to calm the hell down about it.