"threat To Toddlers"?

[Guest]

Peggy I feel you always put forward a thoughtful and considered opinion which in no way reflects your personal "disappointment" and certainly can't be described as biased. I for one always welcome your informed professional views and have great respect

for your opinion.

 

 

Thanks Marion, but I do feel biased and a bit uninformed because I haven't really digested the EYFS yet and as Steve say's he has seen it in working progress to the benefit of the children. Let's just hope that too much government intervention doesn't drive away excellent practitioners like Helen and forum members et al.

 

Peggy

[Marion]

I don't think settings such as Helen's are at risk as she is clearly an experienced and confident practitioner who is capable of "arguing" her corner if the need arose but I do fear for less informed/experienced practitioners.

[Helen]

Thank you for your comments

I'm going to watch this debate with great interest, and I'm looking forward to hearing about and understanding a variety of opinions. On studying the EYFS over the last few weeks, my impression is that a sixteenth of it is concerned with the academic, possibly target-led content (ie 4.4 in the Learning and Development theme). The rest, I believe, describes the practice most people would want to see in an early years setting, and at the moment I don't understand what the objections are to these other sections. I am very willing to be informed, however!

 

The one thing I do appreciate is that for Steiner settings, and others, the targets for writing, etc will directly clash with the educational philosophy. I remember meeting with a very experienced and admired Steiner kindergarten teacher who told me that Ofsted were happy for her not to follow the then desirable learning outcomes for literacy because she was able to demonstrate that further up the school, children were achieving well. This was taken as evidence that very young children did not need to be forced into early literacy before the Steiner system allows. I can't see that this would be acceptable to Ofsted now that the EYFS is to be statutory.

 

With continued training for all involved in providing the EYFS, and with a new Ofsted inspection regime for the EYFS, there is every chance that the child-led approach we all want will be supported, and this could prevent the ticklists and testing we fear will happen in settings whose practitioners are experiencing top-down pressure. I'm about to read the consultation document about inspections of early years provision from Sept 08. Fingers crossed.

[aliamch]

I walked into work this afternoon to see two senior members of staff 'testing' children on their numbers, colours, shapes etc. The poor little sods were taken into a corner where they stayed until the staff had ticked all the boxes they needed! When I asked why they couldn't complete observations by playing with the children I was told that they didn't have the luxury of playing!

Karrie

[Guest Wolfie]

[HappyMaz]

Not pompous Maz

Thanks Rea!

 

Hali and I were at an EYP training today looking at the legal context and inevitably we talked about the EYFS and how we were all feeling about it.

 

One member of my group felt it was a prescriptive curriculum which seeks to fit the child into the framework whereas I see it very much as a supportive framework which will enable practitioners to offer meaningful pre-school experiences which flow from children's own interests, skills and abilities.

 

We came to the conclusion that the EYFS will stand or fall on our abilities to implement it according to our own ethos and the needs of individual children in our care - and obviously being able to justify our rationale to Ofsted. We in turn will need the wholehearted support of local authorities, training organisations and early years advisers - the message must come from the top down that what we have learned about child development and how best to support children's learning hasn't changed.

 

We know that formal testing is not an appropriate way of assessing young children's learning - and whilst I haven't read the document from beginning to end I wasn't aware that the EYFS documentation says anything to the contrary. However, in the words of "That's Life" - unless of course you know better!

 

I realise that I am in a fortunate position in that I can ensure that the EYFS is implemented meaningfully in my setting - and will have the ultimate responsibility of defending my position come the day of the Big O visit. However, I completely understand the concerns that have been voiced here about inexperienced practitioners being pressurised to adopt more formal teaching methods much earlier than is developmentally appropriate for very young children (and to endlessly test to monitor achievement).

 

A strong theme that came out of our discussions today was the need to learn from our colleagues both in other countries as well as from those in this country who come from a different curricular perspective whilst implementing the EYFS. This continual reflection and the sharing of best practice might provide a good shield against the dangers expressed during this debate.

 

I'll be watching this campaign very closely as it unfolds - the debate itself can only help to raise awareness of the challenges posed by the EYFS and drive our work to improve standards.

 

Maz

[Marion]

I think the potential dangers of EYFS are summed up in this thread http://www.foundation-stage.info/forums/in...c=11448&hl=

 

From what I understand about the campaign one aim is to have the status of EYFS reduced to professional guidance rather than STATUTORY curriculum.

[Rea]

I walked into work this afternoon to see two senior members of staff 'testing' children on their numbers, colours, shapes etc. The poor little sods were taken into a corner where they stayed until the staff had ticked all the boxes they needed! When I asked why they couldn't complete observations by playing with the children I was told that they didn't have the luxury of playing!

Karrie

 

This happens weekly if not daily at a nursery I go to. I have asked as diplomatically as I can if they think that is the best way to get information, if observing wouldnt be easier and the reply was 'We have to do it for that' and a hand was flicked at the FS folder.

[Steve]

So it seems to me that the potential pitfalls and dangers of the EYFS are becoming clearer. As Maz says above:

 

... the EYFS will stand or fall on our abilities to implement it according to our own ethos and the needs of individual children in our care - and obviously being able to justify our rationale to Ofsted

 

That being the case, it would be good to come up with a series of recommendations from the perspective of the experienced early years practitioner, to guard against those dangers. To kick off with, possibly something along these lines:

 

• Ofsted's involvement in agreeing specific early years training to their Ofsted inspectors, which emphasizes the importance of learning through play, that deprecates the use of formal testing and ticklisting, and which issues guidance available to early years settings on the things Ofsted will not be looking for in justification of their inspection results.
  
• All training courses to include components on how observation and assessment should be carried out and, almost more importantly, should not be carried out...
  
• EYPS pathways to include these components
  
• Headteacher courses (NPQH) to include specific early years components emphasizing the unique and separate ethos regarding learning through play. After all, with the Foundation Stage expanding and assuming the profile it now does, it can hardly be viewed as the insignificant 'starter' year it used to be allocated...
  
• Value added - a lot of work needs doing to describe how baseline assessments can be carried out to prove the progress made between entry and end of reception/keystage 1, without formal testing and assessment.
  

You're all vastly more experienced than me, so I'm sure you can rip that lot to shreds and reform and add to them. Let's see what you can do!

[Marion]

Steve I sincerely hope OFSTED do give training to their inspectors as I have yet to be inspected by anyone with any early years experience or knowledge. In maintained settings paperwork to prove value added is the main focus of OFSTED. Aginst the NAA recommendation OFSTED love one off testing (ICT) that produce graphs for value added.

[Guest]

I am aware that our county who are delivering outstanding training for all providers, has offered the same training to Ofsted. I await their response with interest!

[HappyMaz]

I am aware that our county who are delivering outstanding training for all providers, has offered the same training to Ofsted. I await their response with interest!

And didn't someone say somewhere that Inspectors are going to get two days' training before being 'qualified' to inspect against the EYFS?

 

Maz

 

PS Which county do you live in LJW?

[Guest Wolfie]

No, only ONE day.....

[HappyMaz]

No, only ONE day.....

Well that's ok then!

 

Seriously, does this tell us anything about Ofsted's view of the impending changes?

 

Maz

[Marion]

I'm not sure that I understand the process in PVI settings all I know is that it is different from maintained settings.....wonder if EYFS will change this too?

 

At my last two inspections we had two inspectors (neither early years trained or friendly) who basically frightened the children by their approach.

[HappyMaz]

I'm not sure that I understand the process in PVI settings all I know is that it is different from maintained settings.....wonder if EYFS will change this too?

I know that you can download the document of the criteria the Inpsectors use - it would be really interesting to see what changes in the advice/guidance they are given.

 

Maz

[Sue R]

Marion - our last Ofsted was just one, highly Early Years oriented and knowledgable Inspector. First day in setting observing , second day out of setting with paperwork, third day in setting, sorting out loose ends am. Feedback at 3.30 pm and one ecstatic Day Nursery after that! She blended into the wallpaper perfectly, children unfazed and just about inspecting her! (Well, pre-school ones, anyway!)

 

It was four years ago (well bar one month) though!

 

As DN, there were all the National Standards to consider as well. Should be more streamlined now it's all in one document.

 

Sue

[Susan]

At my last two inspections we had two inspectors (neither early years trained or friendly) who basically frightened the children by their approach.

 

 

I didnt think they were allowed to inspect unless they were FS friendly!

[Sue R]

As DN, there were all the National Standards to consider as well. Should be more streamlined now it's all in one document.

 

Sue

 

Sorry, all! Of course that should have read 'Should be more streamlined, once we are being inspected to EYFS, with all requirements etc in one document'.

 

Sue

[HappyMaz]

I didnt think they were allowed to inspect unless they were FS friendly!

You do hear such stories though, don't you? And I suppose it depends on your definition of 'friendly'....

 

Maz

[HappyMaz]

The letter from the OPEN EYE campaign is on page 13 of today's Nursery World. Certainly the editor has a forthright view about it.

 

I'm just off to the campaign website to see who the "faintly puzzling" people who have signed the letter might be..

 

Maz

[Marion]

The inspectors we had admitted they knew very little about the Foundation Stage other than what they had read. One gentleman in a suit with clipboard positioned himself in a corner and growled at any child who approached. He did eventually approach a boy in the role play area and ask "What are you doing?" to which the child replied "Nowt........HONEST!" His comment to us was the child didn't know what he was supposed to be doing...............

[Guest Wolfie]

Frightening!

[Guest]

I would agree that the principles of EYFS seems to be in the best interest of the child - practitioners should provide a range of stimulating and interesting learning environments based on each child's interests and likes. however, most practitioners and settings will go straight to the guidance grids to see where the children 'should be' instead of using their daily observations and interactions of the child to inform the evaluation and planning in the setting. What I don't understand is how some of the high expectations of the CLL ELGs have been left in and how the Rose report has been used to encourage formal teaching at an early age with little opposition. Choice for parents is becoming a rarity, and with the Ofsted proposals to increase registration fees for day care settings to £450. I can see some settings having to close or put the financial cost onto the parent which defeats the whole ' affordable childcare' claims...schools could offer the whole birth to 19 which could make it affordable as the tax payer will pay for it!

[Guest]

I was part of a group of practioners/quoted experts who met with the DCSF in October at Westminster about this. I don't have the time this morning to explain the articles, or why we feel this way, but I will log back on later and give details.

 

Basically, though, it doesn't allow for diversity in education, breaches European law..the human rights act....the education act.. and lots of settings, like mine, could face closure due to it.

[Guest]

Thank you for your comments

I'm going to watch this debate with great interest, and I'm looking forward to hearing about and understanding a variety of opinions. On studying the EYFS over the last few weeks, my impression is that a sixteenth of it is concerned with the academic, possibly target-led content (ie 4.4 in the Learning and Development theme). The rest, I believe, describes the practice most people would want to see in an early years setting, and at the moment I don't understand what the objections are to these other sections. I am very willing to be informed, however!

 

The one thing I do appreciate is that for Steiner settings, and others, the targets for writing, etc will directly clash with the educational philosophy. I remember meeting with a very experienced and admired Steiner kindergarten teacher who told me that Ofsted were happy for her not to follow the then desirable learning outcomes for literacy because she was able to demonstrate that further up the school, children were achieving well. This was taken as evidence that very young children did not need to be forced into early literacy before the Steiner system allows. I can't see that this would be acceptable to Ofsted now that the EYFS is to be statutory.

 

With continued training for all involved in providing the EYFS, and with a new Ofsted inspection regime for the EYFS, there is every chance that the child-led approach we all want will be supported, and this could prevent the ticklists and testing we fear will happen in settings whose practitioners are experiencing top-down pressure. I'm about to read the consultation document about inspections of early years provision from Sept 08. Fingers crossed.

Exactly right, plus a few more details within it that just don't fit.

[Marion]

The petition is now on line for those wishing to sign

http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpenEYE/

 

Here is the full petition text:

 

We, the undersigned, petition the Prime Minister to commission an urgent independent review of the compulsory Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) policy framework, and to reduce the status of its learning and development requirements to ‘professional guidelines’.

 

We recognise the government’s good intentions in its early-years policy-making, but are concerned about the EYFS legislation, which comes into force in England next September. Our concerns focus on the learning and development requirements, as follows:

 

1. They may harm children’s development

 

2. They will restrict parents’ freedom of choice in childcare and education

 

3. Their assessment profile requirements may place an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on those who care for young children

 

4. Recent evidence suggests that government interventions in education generally may not be driving standards up and may be putting too much pressure on children

[Guest]

http://www.steinerwaldorf.org.uk/news.htm

[Sue R]

Thank you Titian, that made very interesting reading

 

Sue

[HappyMaz]

In what is now a daily email updating me on the progress of the OpenEye campaign, I see they have reproduced a long thread from Mumsnet full of what they call 'very ill-informed' views about the EYFS and the campaign.

 

I think I've said elsewhere on the Forum that this is my only on-line subscription (heaven knows where I'd find the time apart from anything else!) but I did feel a bit uneasy reading the thread and was wondering how I would feel if any of my FSF posts were quoted back to me in such an email in future. Moreover, how would I feel if I was targeted as one of those 'ill informed' contributors?

 

What I love about this Forum is that I feel safe to air my views (and sometimes even be provocative in order to get people thinking ) without worrying about coming under attack - or having my views dismissed as being 'ill informed' - if my opinions differ from someone else's.

 

Thank you all for enabling this online community to flourish with honesty, integrity and acceptance. And for not telling me how ill-informed I am even though you might think it!

 

Maz