31 replies to this topic

[Sue]

Posted by Sue on behalf of Denise who is putting together the conference presentation

Hi Everyone
I have been trying to pull a few of your ideas together and wondered if you would take a look and add anything missing, clarify points and generally comment on them for me?

First the general topic of EYFS

Considering the framework as a whole -
basically there appear to be 2 views here
one welcoming it and seeing it as justifying existing good practice including learning through play and supporting personalised learning and moving away from topic based and themed learning with the associated copious planning documentation (long medium term planning). That it is more about philosophies and pedagogy (including play and active learning, giving choice and supprting child intiated activities, inclusion and developing positive relationships with children and each other, working in partnership with parents etc) than learning goals and targets and that the layout with the 4 guiding principles supports this view. You welcome the changes, though want time now to embed them. You talk about specific changes in practice which you value e.g the use of outside area, as this has been an area you wanted to change before and now you have some official backing. You also the value having one framework across 0-5 years rather than the 2 previously.

The other is a concern that early years might be becoming like formal school learning, that the paperwork might increase with individual observation, assessment
and planning and take time away for the job of teaching. That it might be a move towards a national curriculum that is similar to that we have seen in primary schools with all the issues and difficulties that brings and the children themselves (their needs wishes etc) somehow getting 'lost'. That we might also see league tables with the profile being misused as assessing setting practice that might also lead to differentiated funding etc

The first positive view seems to be the dominant one, but many of you have talked about these different views and why you think they exist in these and other conversations. They seem to reflect the training, experience and confidence of practitioners working in this very diverse workforce. Some settings and LAs have been very proactive and have been working with and implementing the EYFS for 2 years , while others have only been working with it since sept 2008 and with very little guidance. Some are working in settings where the management do not understand early years ( e.g. reception classes where the ratios are are at the maximum legally allowed 1:30) and others where there seems to be little support with training and a lot of confusion over issues such as observation, assessment and planning (e.g some childminders, practitioners from small PVIs and out of school settings have commented here).

It seems to me that some of you find yourselves in a position where you feel able and empowerd to INTERPRET the EYFS to suit you, your setting and your children while others are trying to IMPLEMENT it with little support and sometimes with many obstacles.

I was thinking I might give these very different views and then talk a bit about change management and the importance of accepting and getting involved in debate and discussion with the opposing views as you do so well here as well as recognising all the positives what do you think?

What comes over very strongly in your discussions is your passion for your work and the depth of care you have for the children you are working with and how you want them to be at the centre of any changes made - their interests, well being and development. That you are all coming from different settings, job descriptions, experiences etc and yet you come together so well here. Maybe because you share the same passion and seem to show the same very caring and fexible attitudes (I thought your views on ofsted were really helpful and I will summarise those too). I am not sure how I will get that over but I think it is really important.

Sorry this has turned into a bit of a ramble as I am beginning to piece my thoughts together. Any comments, additions, corrections, negatives very much appreciated. Go on be my critical friend!



Kind regards
Denise

I will do some brief summaries of other areas a little later but this is the main one, I think. Unless of course I hear differently from you

[Inge]

Was a bit confused (doesn't take much) until I got to the end and found it was not really a Sue post...

sorry I digress


think it has been very clearly said and says most of the things I have been reading and seeing over the last year or so...

i wonder if ratios are also a big part of this as it is hard for anyone to implement the eyfs correctly, or as we would wish to with ratios which do not allow this... 30 children with 1 teacher to do all, seems to me an impossible uphill task, I know many do it, but feel is it the best for the children.

even the 1:13 for eyp with 3 yr old is in my mind unrealistic. (unless as many feel we grow extra arms legs and heads to cope )

dont know if this is correct place to address this but do feel that it is a huge issue for many settings..

Inge

[Sue]

Inge, on Sep 14 2009, 12:26, said:

Was a bit confused (doesn't take much) until I got to the end and found it was not really a Sue post...

Inge

Sorry Inge....I have changed it so it is clearer I hope.

Denise has kindly agreed to do the London conference as Steve has been called away during Helens family bereavement.

So if you could all give Denise your views I would be most grateful.

Sue

[denise2]

Thanks for your comment Inge, as you say 1:30 in reception and to 1:13 for EYPS are the recommended maximums but not necessarily (in my oppinion at least) to be advised. When I have asked about this before people have told me that in practice this rarely occurs, that management realise how difficult this would be and so provide a TA in reception classes and/or never go near to the maximun numbers. What is your experience? I would like to give some numbers/hard facts if possible.

Kind regards
Denise

[NickySussex]

Hi Denise,
When my Foundation profile scores were moderated last year the moderators tried to encourage my headteacher to think more carefully about TA allocation because at that time I had most afternoons 1teacher:30 children.
They tried to encourage 2 full time TA's but that is never going to happen!!! So this year I have the equivalent of 1 full time TA but it's actually 3 different TA's working on different afternoons. This is an improvement but as I now have a child who needs close monitoring for illness then it's almost back to 1:30 all the time. Also what happens to all those times when the TA who is alos a first aider gets called out to deal with an unwell child and then it takes 30 mins to contact parents etc so you are back to 1 teacher and 30 children and an indoor and outdoor area to use without proper support.

Sorry for the moan been a really awful start to the term
Nicky Sussex

[Inge]

denise2, on Sep 14 2009, 17:07, said:

Thanks for your comment Inge, as you say 1:30 in reception and to 1:13 for EYPS are the recommended maximums but not necessarily (in my oppinion at least) to be advised. When I have asked about this before people have told me that in practice this rarely occurs, that management realise how difficult this would be and so provide a TA in reception classes and/or never go near to the maximun numbers. What is your experience? I would like to give some numbers/hard facts if possible.

Kind regards
Denise

Hi Denise...

I was lucky in PVI with 1:5 ratio, ans for us 1;8 was rare, but jsut know from reading on here over the years how lucky I was and how others have issues with it. perhaps others will add their experiences as regards ratios. It must be hard with indoor and outdoor areas to cover.

we were worried about the eyp status though, as we could not afford to pay eyp without doing a 1:13 ratio.. we relied on the funding which only just covered the outgoings as it was an we subsidised it with fund-raising for extras.

Inge

[Upsy Daisy]

Sue, on Sep 14 2009, 11:06, said:

where there seems to be little support with training and a lot of confusion over issues such as observation, assessment and planning (e.g some childminders, practitioners from small PVIs and out of school settings have commented here).

It seems to me that some of you find yourselves in a position where you feel able and empowerd to INTERPRET the EYFS to suit you, your setting and your children while others are trying to IMPLEMENT it with little support and sometimes with many obstacles.

I think these comments particularly apply to childminders. There are those who are well informed and feel able to interpret the guidance in a way which suits the ethos of their setting. However I think there is a whole group of childminders who feel intimidated by the EYFS, see it as a requirement to introduce a more formal structure to their setting and keep copious, pointless written records. There does not seem to be an awful lot of effort being made to help these childminders resolve these issues. This means that many don't know where to start and have not made the changes which are required of them before they are inspected. This has lead to some excellent childminders having a satisfactory rating which is totally undeserved.

Sorry, rant over.

[Peggy]

Hi Denise,
Your summary appears to me to have got the right balance between the for's and against's.
I closed my preschool pre EYFS but follow the forum discussions avidly and I also maintain a keen interest in all things EY's.

As an outsider my first 'dismay' about the introduction of the EYFS is the fact that unless you deliver it you cannot be registered with Ofsted, and you cannot provide a childcare service unless you are registered with Ofsted, basically the EYFS is a compulsory curriculum for ALL under 5's (although recently I hear that Steiner have had dispensation from some aspects of the EYFS ). I am not a Steiner follower per say but I don't believe that a one size fits all curriculum is actually for the benefit of children, I believe there should be more faith from central and local government that the people who work in this profession do actually know what is best for the children they teach.
I have become aware of a growing 'lack of confidence' from practitioners, I think this is due to too many 'advisors', government guidance, and the 'threat' that Ofsted holds over any setting. Experienced professionals are beginning to lose trust in their own abilities and knowledge. This to me is a BIG downside to the introduction of a 'universal' curriculum.
I actually ran my preschool business within most of the EYFS ethos for 20 yrs prior to it being written. The problems today, I believe are due to government interference, government funding, thus making us 'accountable', when really the accountability should come from the children and parents as I have always felt for the many years I worked in preschools.

But the above thoughts don't help except I think in your profound comment about managing change, one of the many effects of change is a lack of confidence. If practitioners could build their confidence back again I do think things will improve. An overkill on training also, I believe can reduce confidence, many forum posters have said they've attended training and learnt little more than they have read in guidance documents.
A shift to 'empowering' and 'valuing' practitioners from all sectors, ie: Government, LEA's, Ofsted and CWDC is what I would like to see for the future.

Oh and definately more funding to enable proper resources, especially a rise in staffing levels to improve ratio's AT ALL TIMES.

Peggy

[Gruffalo2]

'It seems to me that some of you find yourselves in a position where you feel able and empowerd to INTERPRET the EYFS to suit you, your setting and your children while others are trying to IMPLEMENT it with little support and sometimes with many obstacles.'


I seems to me that this comment is very significant. So much boils down to the confidence of the practitioner. Some practitioners are confident and are able to interpret the EYFS and apply it to their situation (i.e. INTERPRET). They are ready and able to justify what they do to parents, other professionals and to Ofsted when they come knocking.

On the other hand, others are less confident and they are the ones, I suspect, who are trying to IMPLEMENT it. In most things in life it feels 'safe' to follow a formula and stick to 'rules'. But the EYFS is guidance, not a prescription. We all need to have the courage of our convictions, to know there is not one recipe for the care and nurturing of children, and to be ready to argue our case if necessary. We need to take the principles and messages embedded in the EYFS and apply them to our own situation, to our children, to our families.

I find it sad that I come across so many really good practitioners, who are excellent in the way they support children, but have so little faith in their own abilities. We desperately need to raise the self-esteem of early years practitioners. I understand that children need to hear something like 10 positive praising comments in order to cancel out just one negative one. Could Ofsted, LA advisors etc work on this principle? Could Ofsted have a format for reports that requires 10 positive comments to be made for each negative!!!

[denise2]

HI Everyone
Thank you so much for your comments please do keep them coming.... Even if you dont want to add much I would like to make sure that I am representing your views

So sorry to hear about your position Nicky but it does give me some really useful info thanks so much for sharing. and Inge I think you are right ratios are really important how can we provide quality if there are not enough adults?

I will emphasise the needs of childminders as you suggest Upsy Daisy and yes I agree there are extremes in practice and skills here with a big need for support and recognition of what they do and how valuable they are. I will add you comment re ofsted either here or in that bit - thanks

Thanks Peggy and Gruffalo2 I will emphasise confidence building and recognition of existing skills and the real importance of allowing and supporting interpretation rather than implementation. I think I might mention your suggestion re confidence building and Ofsted Gruffalo2 - I wonder how that will go down??

Many thanks once again. I think the presentation will have some really interesting issues and information for people to consider.

Kind regards

Denise

[SueJ]

Like Inge I think that ratios is definately an issue - I try to maintain 1:5 in my setting which enables me to provide lots of adult support to these very young children. I hope to get EYPS soon but this will not change my view on ratios - what it did mean is that I have undertaken the EYPS route as I know that it would not be possible to retain and pay someone their true qualified value to take on this role in a sessional setting such as mine and keep these ratios.

Peggy highlights the confidence issue which is hardly surprising given the changes since 1996 we have gone from the DLOs into the ELGs onto the CGFS, B to 3 and then into the EYFS. With various statutory requirements and changes to regulatory authority in between. No sooner do we begin to work with one framework than we have another one thrust our way.

I whole heartedly agree with Peggy about how the EYFS is pretty much what we were doing prior to the regulatory and accountability issues which have had a less than edifying effect on the amount of paperwork that comes with the job now.

[Inge]

and yes for me too.. eyfs is what I was trained to do 20+ years ago.. and have been through the full cycle of regular changes over the years..to only return to the same but having to justify it... and loads more paperwork to do so... my hope for all is that this stays in place longer than the others... giving time to be implemented before any changes again...

I never had 2 Ofsted inspections using the same framework.. think that says it all really...

Inge

[denise2]

Thanks SueJ and Inge
Yes I agree what is good comes around again and again and there have been early years professionals working in the field for years they just have not been recognised before (glad to hear you are rectifying that situation SueJ) and there have been loads of changes etc in early years. You mentioned the frameworks and legislation should I bring up the senior early years practitioner role ... where did that go?

Kind regards
Denise2

[SueJ]

I had completely forgotten about the senior practioner role - EYPS came in so quickly - perhaps it was realised that some of us have been hanging around for a while

[SuzieC8]

In principal I think the EYFS offers some useful guidance, but I think there are a few huge problems with the way it's currently being worked:

- The lack of confidence of practitioners which has been mentioned several times, mainly arising from the fact that setting leaders are being expected to do many tasks that would fall to a head teacher or administrator in a school. Also the fact that some (many?) come into the job with minimum qualifications. I completed the SEF for my setting leader because there was no way she could or should have been able to do this and really put across what we do at our setting. Even as a qualified teacher with 10+ years experience, I still found it tricky.

- The whole 'prove that you're doing it' mentality. If I could be convinced that all the observations and note making are for the children's benefit, I would be comfy with them. But to be honest the hours of work that the practitioners put into my son's profile were to my mind a waste, because it has gone in the bottom drawer after I had a quick look through it. I can understand that their observations should feed into their planning, but I'm not convinced of the case for recording so much of what children do. Wouldn't the time be better spent actually playing with them?

- Although setting leaders are typically now quite well qualified, particularly in the PVI sector there are many part timers and mums who've gone into early years because it fits in well with having young children. It's not going to be seen as a specific career choice for many until the pay and conditions are in line with what schools can offer.

- The whole way that the PVI sector works is a minefield. Since becoming chair I've been ever more convinced that the only reason I can do the role properly is because I am coming from an educational background. I'm not sure what the solution is, but how it currently works is far from ideal.

Hope that helps!
Sue.