eyfs1966 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I welcome the streamlined format, but until we see the final approved document (not expected before March 2012) it will be hard to believe that all the "recommendations" will be adopted. It will also mean that we all have a very short lead time to get all our policies and procedures, learning journeys, displays, information for parents, websites, sef, etc etc etc updated before we go live from September 2012. I just hope that Ofsted and our LEA advisors really take on board the review, especially the very strong call for streamlining paperwork. Given that the current EYFS does not require us to keep the copious amonts of paperwork that we are in reality expected to keep (due to Ofsted and LEA)< it would take a braver soul than me to streamline and risk being "satisfactory" which as all in the PVI sector know, may be good enough in Ofsted's eyes, but falls very short of the minimum standard of good expected by our parents. I fully welcome nearly all the recommendations . My only concerns would be 1) the Steiner Waldorf exemption, which begs the question WHY??) and yes I have read her case, but simply don't agree- cant see why they are not expected to follow the PRIME aspects of learning and development) 2) The possible exemptions for independent schools- again for the reason above. I also have a real problem with ststements like "aiming for a graduate led approach with all staff at a minimum of level 3" which is not a reality given the funding crisis we all face. Let me be clear, I have no problem with the intent, but real problems with the practicalities of this. Same is true for the wooly statement on looking at ratios in reception classes. But overall, I must say this appears to be a very sensible review, which has cut to the real core of the EYFS, and perhaps better reflects what the EYFS was ever intended to be rather than the large cumbersome beast that it has become in reality Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowlow Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 having read a little more now I must say I agree with androyd the ELG's are huge and I am sure the multiple assessment points will cause no end of confusion and be interpreted differently between settings. We have all heard the less paperwork carrot before but as eyfs1966 so rightly says this is more in the hands of the LEA and Ofsted. When our inspector came they actually weren't interested in our practice at all even though we had some exciting new developments to practice. She freely admited that our knowledge and use of the EYFS was in depth/comprehensive but the committee didn't have one bit of paperwork to hand and that was that. Not matter what else we said and did they marked us down, our parents were up in arms on our behalf and even helped us appeal with loads of letters. I am trying to keep an open mind though but do have some concerns and feel all has been carefully worded but to the benefit of who? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Yes I definitely am sad. having looked at 24-36 months there are only 19 seperate sentences and in the 36-48 months only 23 sentences. This is a big reduction from the statements in development matters currently and I am very much in favour of linking this to the health targets, putting it in the red book and using it as an entry baseline for any child. At least it would be better than the current position where although there is no actual requirement in the EYFS for on-entry assessment, everyone has had to come up with their own system. This would standardise things across the sector and personally I welcome it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I still have to find the time to read it all....I am taking it to bed this weekend....but am curious about the qualification statement someone made "aming for a graduate led approach with all staff at a minimum of level 3" - does it say this will be enforced in Sept 2012? - sorry for being lazy I will read it - been such a busy week... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyfs1966 Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 I still have to find the time to read it all....I am taking it to bed this weekend....but am curious about the qualification statement someone made"aming for a graduate led approach with all staff at a minimum of level 3" - does it say this will be enforced in Sept 2012? - sorry for being lazy I will read it - been such a busy week... Hi Shirel, the exact quote is "I recommend that the Government retain a focus on the need to upskill the workforce, to commit to promoting a minimum level 3 qualification and to maintain the ambitions for a graduate-led sector.". No specifics are given, but you can read the quote in context on page 53/54 of the full report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 Thank you my dear....thats my bug bear at the moment..staff that dont want to train.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted April 1, 2011 Share Posted April 1, 2011 We report FSP scores in the six areas every June but the local authority only judge our FS standards by our combined scores in CLLD, PSRN and PSED. This is because up until the end of this academic year the LA quality of EYFS has been judged by the DfE on all your 78+/6+ in all 7 PSD and CLLD outcomes!!! We do look at the other outcomes but this is one of the key indicators for the LA data. Believe me, it matters when you are being held responsible for it!! What kind of setting are you in JenWren? And can I ask where you heard that your inspection will be deferred? A colleague said something similar that she "heard somehwere" and I was quick to think that was wishful thinking!!We (private day nursery) were last done September 2007 and are waiting with baited breath!! This is currently related only to schools' Ofsted inspections I believe. There are deferrals of schools who have sustained good outcomes e.g. yr6, as their data is available to Ofsted via Raise Online so they can see how good outcomes are without visiting. We've had several in my LA deferred with some calls from Ofsted this week. Funny how Tickell praises ECAT a day before it ceases. ECaT : In our LA, and I believe in the funded LAs, funding has been continued for another year as the Govt sees this as a very positive intervention. As data is submitted to DfE to monitor impact this has helped prove it's effectiveness and it's seen as a good early intervention as well. I was also sceptical and wondered if she would take on board the issues of the sector whilst retain the good things EYFS has brought like entitlement for reception children to BE in the EYFS in the first place. Be interesting to see what Green/white papers come out of this. Cx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 2, 2011 Share Posted April 2, 2011 HI New member... just secured my first EYFS teaching position after 6 years slogging... Just reading the whole feed and catching up on all the new implications and it looks like we will still be tied for this September and the new guidelines will start from Septemember 2012 should be a whole lot easier and we will have more time to be with the children. jo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mundia Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Welcome to the forum, dancer1961. Hopefully by now many people will have had chance to access and read the review. There are many positives and Im sure many aspects of the EYFS will remains. My general comments/questions are Its a shame Dame Claire doesnt think there is any clear evidence that reception ratios should be better. I wonder how much evidence there would have needed to be to have considered it 'clear'! I wonder what the 'new professional qualification' referred to will look lie, and do we really need something new? Its good to see the emphasis on home learning again and supporting the strong links many of us believe are important. The Steiner waldorf extension only refers to exemption from some learning and development requirements, not all. It is interesting that the review refers to school unreadiness rather than school readiness, yet doesn't really clarify what is meant by this. It strikes me that this is like grasping fog. It is good to see a strengthening of the relationship between early years practitioners and health visitors, and interesting to consider what this might actually look like in practice. As others have said, the trimming of the profile perhaps isn't that trimming after all, with many statements making up one band. Im sure the emerging expected exceeding was deliberately chosen at 3 Es and will result in E1,2, and 3. But within that, will there be a,b,c so as to distinguish between those who have achieved a few of the statements and those who have achieved most? Im not as yet convinced this is actually changing the measurement culture, rather more changing the weighing scales. (despite the reference to using a best fit approach) I am particularly interested in the use of the Teaching Schools model (like teaching hospitals) applied to early years, and wonder what this will loo like in practice. I agree entirely with reviewing qualifications and training as I am finding this to be very diverse in terms of quality. I am disappointed that problem solving and reasoning are to be replaced with mathematics again. For me, PRSN actually embraces all that maths is about. The proposed maths ELGs focus much more on calculation and using numbers and less on recognising and counting. This bothers me! Although I am pleased to see the addition of counting on and backwards. I wouldn't class the estimating and checking by counting as a higher level skills and wouldn't therefore place it as 'exceeding' Gosh, I had rather more to say than I realised.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Well said, that's more or less in a nutshell what we've discussed this week - were you in our staff meeting? One of the main points we raised was the one you make about statements being 'lumped together', and how this will work in practice. We already know that with the statements we have, some of the more long-winded ones can lead to a deal of confusion as to whether it's attained. The three E's just throw more confusion into the pot for these new statements. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mundia Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Well said, that's more or less in a nutshell what we've discussed this week - were you in our staff meeting? Yes I was that fly on the wall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hali Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 also that she wants Ofsted conversing with LAs - that will be interesting - and a 1st if it happens Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finleysmaid Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 also that she wants Ofsted conversing with LAs - that will be interesting - and a 1st if it happens yes but after the recent child protection cases hardly a surprise ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Ofsted have conversed with LAs for a long time - they just don't listen! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 Our advisers were in when Mrs O arrived, and bid a hasty retreat, saying 'we're not allowed to talk to them' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 7, 2011 Share Posted April 7, 2011 I am disappointed that problem solving and reasoning are to be replaced with mathematics again. For me, PRSN actually embraces all that maths is about. The proposed maths ELGs focus much more on calculation and using numbers and less on recognising and counting. This bothers me! I think you might have hit on something I was niggled by on my (brief) reading of the review. I felt that the promotion of creative thinking and problem solving was downplayed, although I am happy to be corrected. The only reason I could see for this was the focus on "maths" as opposed to "problem solving" and "expressive arts" as opposed to "creative development". For me creative thinking is far more important than all the pretty pictures that expressive art might produce! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fudgecat Posted April 8, 2011 Share Posted April 8, 2011 It seems there are two documents - here's the 'Report on the Evidence' - Jacquie's posted the other one above. Thank you for posting this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Thank you to everyone who has posted their views and reaction to the review. As a lecturer in the FD I am very interested in your views and as a Manager of a pre-school as well it affects my team too. I am currently printing every page off at home to read in the sun. CES Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Its been really interesting reading the comments you have all made about the review, so thank you. I haven't been around for a while but, with the review I decided I really need to hear your responses to the recommendations and how they may influence your practice in the coming months/years. So, I decided I just had to join again. My husband has already been asking 'Are you going to spend all evening on your computer again!! There is one particular area which I will be most interested to see how the recommendations are put into practice. This is around the suggested '3 characteristics of effective teaching and learning'. I can see they are basic skills that help children (and adults) to learn and develop and their inclusion could be very helpful. However they could also be very difficult to really observe, analise and evidence. I think some practitioners will need a great deal of support for this. I would also be very interested to know how many leaders and managers have received training in supervision? This is really empahsised under the safeguarding section. In my experience it is not common practice in settings, so this could also be an area where training is needed. Perhaps this is more common in other parts of the country though? Thanks to you all. Gruffalo2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts