Anti Eyfs Petition

[Guest]

I've found this thread really interesting.

I am a childminder and have attended part 1 of EYFS training - principles into practice - and can't say I've seen anything which differs to what I (& many other childminders) already do, other than having to show "formal" planning, observations and assessments. I heard at least 2 childminders say they'd not seen the EYFS pack and hadn't got 1 at home! Many also commented they "don't want to teach" or "aren't teachers" - I like to think "my" children are taught something while they're with me!

Interestingly ALL my clients are EY teachers and they seem to have to take more on board than I do, to cover "care" - they all chose a childminder for a home-from-home and someone to be "mum" when Mum can't be there. They are happy that I respond to their childs needs on a minute by minute approach. If they're tired after nursery or school they can chill with a book or in front of the tv and this was fine with Ofsted when they inspected in November.

I am concerned that some childminders will de-register and work unofficially - a sad return to days gone by with no quality assurance or insurance and childminding viewed as a second class service, provided by mums to earn pocket money while they stay at home with their own small children! Some will choose to work in the parents own home or as a nanny to avoid the EYFS.

Parents are put off by the thought of their babies and toddlers being assessed as reaching or not reaching a set level at a set age, and this information then following them through life.

As there are no hard and fast rules how I have to record this information I will try my best to show each child as unique and achieving in line with their age, stage and development and hope their parents are proud of their achievements!

Nona

[Steve]

Whoops - sorry to be late catching up on this. I was away for the weekend doing exciting things as part of a late Christmas present!

 

Marion, no need to be sorry to disagree with me. It's a discussion I'm sure we can all be learning a lot from, and must help with people who are trying to reach their own conclusions about the change the EYFS implies.

 

One of the interesting things I hadn't been conscious of before is this difference between looking after a child in your home (RCM) and looking after one in their own home (nannies), and the different obligations it entails. Also the time limit of 2 hours after which you need, as a childminder, to work with the EYFS.

 

My feeling, however, is that there is very little that the children are likely to do in the home of a childminder which doesn't reflect the EYFS - including watching TV. The children don't need to feel as though they're being tested or assessed or forced to learn in order to help make the tea, go shopping, listen to some music or read a book - and these are all things that are perfectly good activities for the childminder to make some notes and observations on in order to comply with the EYFS.

 

Of course, if you mean just plonking them in front of the telly to watch wall-to-wall cartoon network until they're collected, then no, this isn't acceptable (I think Sue Palmer's toxic childhood books have something to say about this). But then, surely none of us are going to be happy with paying a qualified childminder to do that are we? Any more than a good childminder is going to want to do that? Most childminders these days are professionals, who are able and keen to show that they have a genuine knowledge of children's needs and behaviour, and want to provide them with something enjoyable and stimulating (just look at Nona's post above).

 

I'm sure there are things that will need adjusting and changing with the implementation of the EYFS - one that springs to mind is the necessity in wrap around care for childminders and reception teachers to liaise with each other - but my honest opinion (evidently not shared by a fair number of people) is that the EYFS provides a good platform for standardising minimal levels of care and offering the challenge of allowing good practitioners to go well beyond them - all in the context of child centred play based provision.

[Guest]

Quote "but my honest opinion (evidently not shared by a fair number of people) is that the EYFS provides a good platform for standardising minimal levels of care and offering the challenge of allowing good practitioners to go well beyond them - all in the context of child centred play based provision."

 

 

I disagree with you Steve, from responses in the forum and media, I think that many professionals, like you, are happy with the EYFS content, yes some parts of it they are happier with than others, even some parts of it they disagree with but overall in my evaluation, most people are saying it is not that different from what we already have.

 

I think it is a shame that the discussions have evolved to 'professionals such as childminders feeling they have to justify their very important roles and how they professionaly interpret and impliment the current, and therefore future Ofsted requirements across care and education'.

To me the debate should not be about content of the EYFS but about the ramifications of government dictating, by law, the content and implimentation of a government (national) curriculum for children under statutory school age. To me this is contradictory in terms of 'It's not a statutory requirement to send under 5's to school, but if you, as a parent do send your under 5 to school (preschool/nursery/childminder etc) your child must receive a statutory curriculum.

Lets for example say that the curriculum (call it EYFS) is the best in the whole wide world, no-one disagreeing with any part of it's content, quality assured by Ofsted inspectors. I would still have disagreement to the legislative requirement to impliment it. If I chose to offer something different to children aged under statutory school (education) age, I can not do this. If as a parent I wanted to have the choice to send my child to a registered setting (which ensures regulated security for my childs well being,)which offered a totally different ethos or curriculum base, ( lets say a curriculum based entirely on 'creative thinking and PSE, for example)', a setting that doesn't follow the prescribed government curriculum, I will not, as of September 2008 have that choice. My fear is where will this legislation lead to in the future?

Lets look to maybe 5 - 10 yrs time, how much more government intervention will there be, It is, to me, harder to negotiate and change what is 'law' compared to guidelines (as we have now). How do the government know they have got it right this time, their track record isn't that good, changing from DLO to FSC/BTTM to this in less than a decade. How soon will it be that government decides to make attendence at school statutory for under 5's? We've accepted that they can say what curriculum our under 5's follow, so in my cynical mind the obvious next step will be statutory attendence too.

 

My question is should the government dictate, by law, what 'education' is offered in every single early years establishment in the country, leaving no alternative for parents who choose not to put their under 5 yr olds within an 'educational system'(based, might I add on 'academics' beliefs of what education should look like), but who nevertheless want childcare other than stay at home themselves or have nanny at home, or unregistered care?

 

 

Peggy

[Marion]

Steve as a reception teacher I have no major complaints about the content of EYFS (other than the 1-30 ratio) but I feel it should be professional guidance NOT a statutory curriculum. But Peggy has expressed my feelings more eloquently than I ever could so I'll just say ditto.

[Susan]

I'm still confused. The FSC is statutory.

Does a statutory document not mean that children "in care" ie not at home with parents receive an equal opportunity?

 

Peggy, DLOs and ELGs didnt really change that much. The main difference was that DLOs were up to a child's fifth birthday, ELGs were/ are until the end of a the school year in which a child becomes 5 and therefore make a teachers life much more manageable working with one curriculum within Reception. ELGs remain as end of year goals/targets so actually there is quite a lot of consistency.

[Marion]

Susan only settings that received government funding have to follow CGFS but from September ALL settings irrespective of funding will have to follow EYFS.

[Marion]

As I keep saying the petition/campaign is not ANTI EYFS

"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’."

[Guest]

I'm still confused. The FSC is statutory.

Does a statutory document not mean that children "in care" ie not at home with parents receive an equal opportunity?

 

Peggy, DLOs and ELGs didnt really change that much. The main difference was that DLOs were up to a child's fifth birthday, ELGs were/ are until the end of a the school year in which a child becomes 5 and therefore make a teachers life much more manageable working with one curriculum within Reception. ELGs remain as end of year goals/targets so actually there is quite a lot of consistency.

 

 

Yes Susan, The FSC is statutory but the implimentation of it was entirely guidance, there are no 'must' elements of how it's implimented. A setting could register as a provider even if they chose not to follow the FSC. In September every registered setting has to follow the EYFS, if you don't want to follow the EYFS then you cannot become a registered provider. The DLO's / FSC (ELG's) are similar but changes were made, and again changes made to EYFS compared to FSC. This is, some may say, reflective and that changes will occur as curriculums are evaluated and as social policy changes ie: Every child matters for example. However, it is not the content or even the end goals, it is the 'singularity', no choice that I disagree with.

 

Peggy

[Susan]

Thanks.

 

So have you signed up, Peggy?

[Guest]

To be honest no I haven't, my reason being that I feel that the campaign has (even if by default) misrepresented the issues by including comment on the content rather than just stating the principle that I feel that is wrong, the legislation that says non registration for settings who do not follow the curriculum, and my principle that I don't think government should dictate the curriculum for this age range in non compulsory (attendence) of education.

 

I did however, participate in the original consultation with these views, I also stated these concerns on the forum back in August 2006.

 

HERE 6 th post down

 

Peggy

[Steve]

I think there's a problem in that many, if not most, people believe that the Open Eye campaign IS against the EYFS - witness the Times newspaper article we linked to originally - and look at the title of this topic, which was used after Shiny read EYE and Nursery World articles on the campaign. At the very least the press is still misreporting it - so I guess this conversation is doing a good job of clearing that up at least - we can all agree that actually the content of the EYFS is a fine thing!

 

(and Marion, I'm with you all the way on class sizes - up to and including secondary schools.)

[Marion]

Well Steve I was hoping they would reduce adult child ratios in the maintained sector in line with PVI settings rather than increasing PVI in line with maintained as looks likely to happen with EYPS.

[Guest]

The statutory framework for EYFS 1.8 states

"providers have a duty to ensure that their early years provision complies with the learning and development requirements, and the welfare requirements. in addition, this document contains statutory guidance. All providers must have regard to this guidance, which means they must take it into account and, IF THEY DECIDE TO DEPART FROM IT, THEY MUST HAVE CLEAR REASONS FOR DOING SO AND BE ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THEIR ALTERNATIVE APPROACH ACHIEVES THE ENDS DESCRIBED IN THIS GUIDANCE. Ofsted will take account of any failure to have regard to this guidance when exercising it's functions, including any proceedings which are brought under the Act"

Anyone feeling brave enough to be the first to challenge Ofsted at their inspection? Not sure I am!!!

 

EYFS was mentioned on the One Show this evening by Melinda Messenger - "a curriculum for babies and up to 5's" hardly a positive comment!

[Sue R]

Yes, Marion, so was I!!

[Marion]

Melinda Messenger is actually the fourth signature on the petition

[Sue R]

Hi,

 

Nona, I believe the Steiner and Montessori folk have already shown they have an excellent alternative, in past Inspections , comments etc.... I'm sure that can continue. But let's not lose sight of the fact that most decent other providers are already using practice that has anticipated the EYFS, so is no real change!

 

Sue

[Marion]

Steiner schools certainly believe they won't be allowed to continue teaching to their philosophy.

"No exemptions

 

The Childcare Act 2006 and the requirements of the EYFS are already law. It turns out that the exemption regulations being drafted currently offer no exemptions that will work for Steiner Waldorf kindergartens. As a result a letter has been written asking for the regulations to be made more flexible to allow such exemptions."

 

http://www.savesteinerschools.org/about/

[Guest]

Sue R - I totally agree.

I've spent this afternoon adding labels to my photo albums showing how the activities fit into the 6 areas covered by the early learning goals and I have something for each of them already there!

I now plan to take the albums on part 2 of my training to evidence to those who still haven't grasped that they're not being asked to do anything new!

I've also shown them to parents who visited me to discuss a place for their baby and they've gone away happy and relieved that I'm not going to be issuing their 3 mth old with an exercise book and a book bag!

Nona

[Sue R]

[HappyMaz]

Well Steve I was hoping they would reduce adult child ratios in the maintained sector in line with PVI settings rather than increasing PVI in line with maintained as looks likely to happen with EYPS.

Not in my setting Marion - I'd consider it a failing to allow my ratios to go out to 1:8 let alone 1:13 because I have EYP status (note the confidence, ladies )

 

I still don't understand how EYP status is going to confer extra sets of hands to cope with the extra noses to wipe, cuddles to give and observations to write all at the same time... What's the standard for that then?

 

Maz

[Guest]

Steiner schools certainly believe they won't be allowed to continue teaching to their philosophy.

"No exemptions

 

The Childcare Act 2006 and the requirements of the EYFS are already law. It turns out that the exemption regulations being drafted currently offer no exemptions that will work for Steiner Waldorf kindergartens. As a result a letter has been written asking for the regulations to be made more flexible to allow such exemptions."

 

http://www.savesteinerschools.org/about/

 

The campaign came off the back of a seminar that the SWSF (Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship) requested with the DCSF. At this seminar, and following the seminar, we have been told that, yes, exemptions will be allowed. The reason exemptions will be allowed is due to the fact that parts of the EYFS do not hold true with other government policy of allowing diversity in education and parental choice.

The exemptions the SWSF would like are in the area of learning and development and pay particular regard to numeracy and literacy. Steiner Kindergartens (like mine) have been in receipt og government funding for many years and received good ofsted reports. There are many Kindergartens who have not been in receipt of funding and have still had good ofsted reports, all the time working towards the ELG's.

The Kindergartens in receipt of funding were in a better position to accept the EYFS (as there aren't many changes as people have said) but a very small change in it would mean that we must forget our ethos to continue to receive funding. The Steiner Kindergartens and schools got together and decided to support each other, no matter what their situation was, and protect their ethos.

My setting will close in September if we cannot be allowed to continue as we have. My parents would choose an exemption (as they chose to send their children to a setting such as ours because of it's ethos). At present it has only been reiterated that exemptions will be allowed (as this was always the case) but.... anyone choosing to apply for an exemption (and settings cannot do this, only parents) will have their funding (NEG) removed. This leaves parents who choose anything than a mainstream education having to pay through the nose for it. My parents wouldn't be able to do that.

We are a charity, we operate at a loss most years, we provide many things for our children at no cost, we work extremely well with our parents, our children go on to do extremely well in school (my own children did not read or write until around 6+ years and are now advanced in both, in their school. They have a love for school which I feel is due to their early years' education).

But now, we are looking at closure in September.

It doesn't affect many nurseries (probably like the ones people manage on this forum)........ but it does affect a fair few that you may not know about, and not in a good way. I for one would like to see the continuation of diversity in education in this country.

[Guest Wolfie]

I have to admit that I'm very ignorant about the details of the Steiner Waldorf philosophy and this thread has made me think that I should know more - can you provide a link to any material that I could read|?

[Guest]

I have to admit that I'm very ignorant about the details of the Steiner Waldorf philosophy and this thread has made me think that I should know more - can you provide a link to any material that I could read|?

 

Hi wolfie, yes here is the main link (as there are too many to list, with information) http://www.steinerwaldorf.org.uk/earlyyears.htm

[Guest Wolfie]

Thank you for that, I'll get cracking!

[Guest]

There are, now, some interesting comments on here:

 

http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/mortarboard/20...oung_child.html

[Marion]

Not in my setting Marion - I'd consider it a failing to allow my ratios to go out to 1:8 let alone 1:13 because I have EYP status (note the confidence, ladies )

 

I still don't understand how EYP status is going to confer extra sets of hands to cope with the extra noses to wipe, cuddles to give and observations to write all at the same time... What's the standard for that then?

 

Maz

 

Presumable EYPS has the magical properties that QTS already bestows on teachers enabling them to work 1-30 NOT even 1-13

[HappyMaz]

Presumable EYPS has the magical properties that QTS already bestows on teachers enabling them to work 1-30 NOT even 1-13

And another thing: does this 1:13 ratio include under threes? Is it safe to presume that someone with QTS will be working in a school where most children are roughly the same age? Mind you, if you have 30 reception children who are just settling I'm sure you have just as many snotty noses, temper tantrums and wet pants to deal with. And that's just the staff

 

Maz

[mundia]

thankfully Maz, it doesn't include under threes. And you are definitely right about the staff!

I don't know the answer to this, just musing really, but wont employing an EYPS and a 13:1 ratio work out cheaper (give that there is no salary scale for EYPS yet) and therefore force some settings on a tight budget to go down that path?

[Guest]

Yes Mundia, it will. And at the end of the day the ones who will suffer the most from this will be the children. And the staff too-we struggle at times with 32 children and 5 members of staff if we have a child, let's say, who has soiled themself, somebody is having a nose bleed and some of the others are just over active that day. How on earth we would be able to cope with all that with just three staff I don't know.

And I do appreciate that that is what many teachers are doing already, especially in reception classes and it is very wrong. This government seem to think that having a degree means that you are better able to look after children, and I know a well trained workforce is a good thing. But it just seems to me that we will be lowering standards of care for these small people. Instead of bringing the private and voluntary sector into the same ratios as schools it should be the other way round.

Linda

[Guest]

I just wanted to add another story to the thread that was in the Independent on the 28th. I have to say though I cringed at the term "nappy curriculum". I'm also pleased to see Dr. Aric Sigman has made comment, as I went to a talk of his and he stated that he wouldn't be speaking about subjects like this anymore as he had received numerous threats since his research into similar issues.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educatio...ons-788339.html