Mythbusting the Good Level of Development (GLD) in the EYFS
The DfE’s target that 75% of children will attain a GLD by 2028 is an integral element of the ‘Best Start in Life’ strategy, and part of the specific and uncompromising commitment to reducing inequality and addressing the impact of disadvantage. Great!
The emergence of this target has intensified all our focus on the nature and purpose of the GLD specifically and the Early Learning Goals (ELGs) assessed though the EYFS Profile. While the EYFS Profile (and its predecessor, the Foundation Stage Profile) have been in existence since 2002, and the GLD as a measure since 2013, there still remains some confusion, misinterpretation, and a lack of understanding about the purpose and nature of both.
Central to this is the (mis)understanding of what the GLD is, what it isn’t, what it does, and what it doesn’t. Equally important is the way in which the resulting information is interpreted, engaged with and utilised.Despite best intentions, rarely does an initiative escape the effects of unintended consequences.That demands us to be specific about its envisioned purpose, even if this is different to what is happening here and now.
In essence, the GLD is an attainment description and measure, against the ELGs as criteria, for the end of the reception year (YR). It assesses and records the attainment of ELGs in the Prime Areas in addition to the Specific Areas of Literacy and Maths. As part of EYFS Profile data, this information is primarily used to support the individual child’s transition into Y1. An ‘emerging’ rather than ‘expected’ judgement for an individual ELG indicates the child will still need support in that area to continue developing. While the attainment of the GLD offers an indication that a child is ready for the demands of the Y1 requirements in the National Curriculum. Additionally, the nationally published data indicates the percentages of children, and identified specific groups, that attain ELGs and a GLD overall.
It is worth identifying and exploring some of the most common emergent and consistent mythologies that misrepresent the EYFS Profile and the GLD, and seeking to address the misunderstandings and misinterpretations that appear to exist.
Myth one: GLD does not support typical Child Development and is developmentally inappropriate.
The GLD does not proport to represent child development, which in any case is a process not a set of outcomes. The GLD is quite clearly a criterion referenced assessment which children do or don’t attain. The judgements themselves are ‘best fit’ but the attainment of a GLD is indeed binary. The EYFS Profile, and the resulting GLD is deliberately a fixed aspiration point that indicates the child is ready to begin accessing the National Curriculum at KS1. The converse is also true, and the purpose of this is to ensure that the child is fully supported. In terms of being developmentally inappropriate, the data itself would challenge this. In the last published data for 2004/2005, 67.7% of children attained a GLD. When children eligible for FSM are removed from the dataset the figure is 72%. I will return to this, but the essential conclusion is that while the pitch may be challenging, most children do attain it.
Myth two: The GLD doesn’t reflect nor account for progress that children make – especially when they don’t attain the GLD.
Again, nor does it pretend to do so. The GLD is intended to identify individual support for transition and a proxy marker for the national picture of attainment. It does not take account of achievement and progress and is not designed to do so – that is the nature of any standalone criterion referenced assessment. YR teachers develop an intricate and sophisticated knowledge of all aspects of the children they work with are able to identify a whole range of progressions and achievements that may or may not be recognised in the GLD. All this forms part of the complex and unique picture of the child, which could never be represented by the GLD alone – and nor was it ever meant to. It is worth reiterating that the EYFSP and the GLD are descriptions of attainment not achievement.
Myth three: GLD outcomes are not adjusted for age, ethnicity, EAL, gender or socio-economic status.
The GLD is a criterion referenced measure of attainment so does not factor in these contexts (although analyses are available as part of the EYFS Profile SFR analysis). But here is the returning point, 60% of Summer born children, 63.5% of children who speak English as an additional language, and 51% of children eligible for FSM go on to attain a GLD. The purpose of any data is not to provide a concluded fait accompli but the basis of asking questions and beginning the conversation. In this case it is relatively straightforward - what is it that is preventing the remaining children from also attaining the GLD alongside their similar statistical peers and what can be done about it? However, the challenge to this myth goes deeper. Are we - albeit unintentionally – creating a false ceiling of expectation of attainment for children defined by these characteristics? Early years evidence clearly demonstrates that the effectiveness of practice and provision and ensuring that the appropriate identified support is in place can be transformative despite statistical disadvantage and indeed can deny it. As long ago as the Perry Pre-school Study and more recently in EPPE’s ‘Performing against the Odds’ and CREC’s ‘High Achieving White Working Class Boys’ studies demonstrate carefully individualised approaches can ‘flip’ the expected trajectory to success. Of course, this needs awareness of the specific needs and barriers that a child might have, but only to address them and ensure that learning and development flourish.
Myth four: The GLD discriminates against children with SEND.
As with the notion of progress – even if it doesn’t mean attaining a GLD – all teachers and schools will celebrate this and identify the level and nature of progress that children with SEND will achieve. This may not affect or be recognised in the local or national GLD figure but again, that was never the intention. Of course, there are individual stories of individual achievement within this but the purpose of the GLD is different and separate.
Myth five: Pursuing the GLD will lead to a narrowed curriculum in order to attain the target.
Considering that the ELGs and consequently the GLD are the aspirations for the end of YR, based on the requirements of the Statutory EYFS framework, it’s unclear how this would directly affect the Curriculum delivered by EYFS educators. Of course, they will focus on the Prime Areas and the Specific Areas to ensure that children make progress. This is what will mostly be measured by the GLD, so far from narrowing the curriculum in any way it should be perfectly aligned. As we are all aware, the Curriculum delivered by educators will be unique to their setting, accommodating the specifics of the cohort and the community they serve and ensure that children make progress. The existence of the GLD as a measure at the end of YR should have no impact on this.
Myth six: The GLD will lead to a more formal adult led pedagogy.
The GLD is a measure of outcomes not process, it is a feature of Curriculum progression not pedagogical strategy. The statutory EYFS Framework is intentionally clear on this and the Learning and Development Considerations (1.14) states that, ‘This framework does not prescribe a particular teaching approach… Practitioners need to decide what they want children in their setting to learn, and the most effective ways to teach it.’ How we decide the most effective way of supporting a child’s learning, development and progress is a matter of individual – and individually formed – professional judgement. The myth itself points to a larger, and in some ways, more concerning misunderstanding that conflates Curriculum (the ‘what’) with pedagogy (the ‘how’). Additionally, the majority of the ELGs that comprise the GLD require a child to refine and rehearse a knowledge and/or skill in order ensure that it is secure. This is unlikely to be achieved if this is reliant on a purely adult led pedagogy.
Myth seven: The uniqueness of individual children’s learning and development is reduced to a number.
Again, this is a partial, and arguably wilful (mis)interpretation of the purpose and nature of the GLD. While it does of course produce a national – and local – dataset, every YR teacher that completes the EYFS Profile knows that the children they are assessing are far more complex and intricate than the simple dataset describes, and that the overall score provided by the GLD is a reference point for supporting that child’s development and progress into Year 1. To reiterate a previous point, the purpose of data is to prompt questions, it is not an end in itself. It is perfectly possible – if not inevitable – to have a data description of a child alongside and in parallel with more deep level individual and unique knowledge and information. While we can utilise all sets of data for a range of purposes, it clearly does not define us as unique human beings, nor does it attempt to do so.
Myth eight: Some children fail the GLD and will then be stigmatised.
The suggestion that this is a pass/fail situation is an absurd one. As described above the purpose of the assessment is to identify the specific support a child may need on entry to Year 1. As with any assessment – and especially in the EYFS – its primary purpose is diagnostic and woven into the pedagogical support than enables curriculum progress and development. The notion of a child being a ‘failure ‘in the EYFS is a perception that has no place in the philosophy and ethical paradigm that encompasses it, and the word itself should never be used in conjunction with the description of any child.
Myth nine: It has become a pressurised performance measure for schools and YR teachers.
Teaching in the EYFS and YR is a pressurised situation. We all realise that we have a critical window of time to ensure that children grow, develop and make progress so that they have the firm foundations to be successful in all aspects of life and learning. This has always been the case and always will be, and YR teachers are acutely conscious of the impact they have on the children they work with and their responsibility to ensure that this is the case. The GLD is simply one expression of this, and a useful means of providing an overview of national and local outcomes in the EYFS. It does not and should not add any additional pressure on either schools or YR teaching staff.
Myth ten: It creates anxiety for parents and carers.
How we communicate and present information to parents shapes and determines their understanding of the expectations and outcomes of YR. Effective induction arrangements that fully explain the purpose of the assessment(s) that take place and how they are used should not create anxiety but inform and reassure parents and carers about the purpose of YR and how their child will be supported on their journey of learning, development and progress. Such anxieties will only occur when the information is inaccurate and not fully communicated with parents and carers effectively.
Final words.
The GLD (informed by the EYFS Profile), remains a clear measure, and description of attainment at the end of YR, and exists alongside the nuanced and fine-grained information that YR teachers understand defines a level of development and achievement. The dataset it produces creates a headline figure that prompts questions and provides an insight into the challenges of attainment. Correlations between GLD and later attainment suggest that it delivers a consistent marker to support the importance and specificity of ongoing development.
Recent research from Child of the North, cited in ‘Early Years High 5’ (28 September 2025) by Dr Julian Grenier CBE,noted:
“Assessments by Reception teachers provide powerful insights.A striking finding in this research is around the accuracy of Reception teachers’ EYFSP assessments. The report comments that: The EYFSP was designed as an educational tool, yet it predicts later outcomes across health, education, and social care with remarkable precision. Teachers, through sustained observation of children in real-life classroom contexts, are often the first to recognise emerging difficulties. They capture not only academic skills but also social, emotional, and behavioural development.Evidence shows: EYFSP scores predict later SEN identification; Teacher assessments of early communication and social skills align closely with later diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder; early literacy and numeracy judgements forecast long-term attainment gaps”(1)
Most notably the variability of attainment between different groups, especially related to Social Economic Status (SES) create the opportunity to specifically identify and support learning trajectories for children that have the potential to literally ‘close the gap’.
