suebear Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Having taken part in the Ticknell review they are asking opinions on the revised EYFS, have had this come through: CONSULTATION ON THE REVISED EYFS FRAMEWORK Today, the government will begin a public consultation on the revised EYFS framework: Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. This follows Dame Clare Tickell’s independent review of the EYFS published on 30 March of which her report and supporting evidence can be downloaded at: www.education.gov.uk/tickellreview The revised framework provides the response to many of Dame Clare’s recommendations. It contains proposals for a simpler, stronger and more accessible EYFS; making it easier for practitioners and parents to make even more of a contribution to children’s development during their early years. We appreciate the valuable input that you have made to Dame Clare’s review and we are now inviting everyone with an interest in early years to respond to the consultation on the revised framework. The consultation will run from 6 July to Friday 30 September 2011, with a view to implementing the new EYFS from September 2012. You can let us have your views by accessing the Department’s consultation web page at: http://www.education.gov.uk/consultations/...l=no&menu=1 You can also email your response to revisedeyfs.consultation@education.gsi.gov.uk or download a response form which should be completed and sent to Department for Education Consultation Unit, Area 1C Castle View House, East Lane Runcorn Cheshire WA7 2GJ Regards EYFS Strategy and Implementation Team Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suebear Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 just read up to page 14 and am stunned so much for less paperwork!!!! As for appreciating early years in its own right, it all seems to be school preparation..... Anyone else read this yet???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Yes I have - and I see what you mean about preparation for KS1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finleysmaid Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 ok please tell me i'm reading this wrong...are they seriously suggesting that by 48 monthe the children should be reading independently???? I am having a bit of a fit (i'll calm down later) but my setting currently has 47% of my children have EAL and several have sen...this revised document is awful for them...it doesnt take their needs into account at all.....why when all the 'well educated' places in the world are going for formal learning at 6.5 and beating us hands down are we trying to teach babies latin!!!!...lets all go to wales where play based curriclum is the norm. i agree there is a definite push towards making the children ready for school rant over Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 It actually says 'making ready for school' in several places. Reading and writing I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Aaarrrghhhh - another nail in the coffin for me! Will no-one listen - it's disheartening Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gezabel Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I had such high hopes and from what I have read so far I think I am going to cry Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I'm up to page 12 and I'm with you Gezabel. I've started my response but I d so hate the way government consultations ask you questions to "guide" your response rather than allowing you to give a true response. I end up writing all over the shop about different things which I think might then lessen the impact of the reply. Oh, and these 2/3 year old assessments - what about those children who don't go anywhere until reception class? And why do they get to miss out on play based learning (in a setting) as paragraph 1.10 could be interpreted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upsy Daisy Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 So it contains four 'guiding principles', three 'prime areas of learning and development', four 'specific areas of learning and development' and seven 'areas of learning and development'. So much for making it less complicated. I agree that it's far to focussed on school preparation and the key issues for learning and development for literacy and maths are far to prescriptive and demanding. I will be having my say. I did an hour of typing in this afternoon and then lost it by closing it down by accident so I will be careful to save it next time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apple Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 can anyone post a link to the revised document that we are supposed to be looking at? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
apple Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 doh! sorry if only I took time out to look more carefully!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suebear Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 eyfs link this is the exact link if it works if not follow link below revised eyfs and it is the 3rd blue writing free flow and all the benefits of outdoor play seem to have vanished, no problem solving any more either Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 OK I'm confused already!!! In point 2.5 on page 13 they are discussing the profile, and talking about assessment in terms of school readiness for KS1. Does that mean reception isn't regarded as part of the 'school' thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 Am weeping into my wine. Consultation? B****cks, foregone conclusion more like. Am sat here wondering why I bothered fighting so hard for the last 3 years Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I'm thinking about how a certain member of staff will be delighted! She will relish telling me that a more formal approach is welcome by her - I've only just stopped her doing handwriting books for the 3 year olds! That's taken months - what a waste of bloody time - I'm so bloody cross !!!!! I have scrumpled the pages up for now (I'll look again tomorrow) - this is not what we all need - they just won't LISTEN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suebear Posted July 6, 2011 Author Share Posted July 6, 2011 A lot of govt cost saving from the sounds of it. Our 2 yr olds no longer get health checks so it looks like we're expected to pick up on any concerns rather than the nhs, we're meant to pick up on any SEN concerns for which there is no support money or we're told it's too early, observe them over the next 6 months when all we do is observe them any way... and what happens if a child isn't toilet trained is it somehow our fault for somehow not having taught it correctly or not having working in partnership with parents successfully for it to have occurred. . . a lot of it making me feel quite twitchy.... I'm often saying it's not about preparing your child for school it's about doing what's right for your child now... ggrrr... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finleysmaid Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 ok have gone away and had a think...several things spring to mind 1 most children in our area start at 3 ...so how is their 'health check' going to be done? it would have to be at point of entry and we would be unable to identify any problems at that very early point. 2 i find the set up rather confusing...not easy to explain to parents and as already said it seems to generate more rather than less areas to assess 3 i object strongly to the idea that we are getting these children to be school ready......what about an holistic approach to them...where do life skills come in and dare i say it fun, joy and wonder. 4 i do not believe that teaching children early phonics is of real benefit..we should be still concentrating on talking and although the emphasis does seem to be on communication first(as it should) the teaching of more formal work seems to be very early on 5 if pre-schools are to teach phonics in a more formal way where is the training for this... we need to be taught at the same level as teachers and this IMO is not available at present...i'd like the pay to go with this too of course! 6 it appears to me that this system sets children up to fail at a very early age...it is based on what they cannot do not what they can and the balance of play/work and drudgery seems very off i'm sure there's more but i'm too tired to think oh and p.s. why do they get people like clare Tickell...who has no experience in the field of early education to write very expensive and usually very useless reviews...payed for by my taxes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scarlettangel Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I saved a copy of this consultation paper yesterday but reading all your comments I wish I had made time to have a read. . . . All I can say is lets not just sit and moan LETS DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Everyone who has even a slight concern MUST fill out the consultation paper!!!!!!!!!! Who knows what else we can do??????????????????????? HELP somebody!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I've just read an article about the launch and was more heartened by the comments Sarah Teather made with regard to "school readiness" (it's not often you'll hear me saying something like that!). The link to the article is http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul...tlement-changes What continues to worry me though is the interpretation that will be put on the framework by practitioners who have fought against the changes the original EYFS brought and I think we all know some of those. I feel the push will still be towards the worksheets and sitting in rows that we have all worked hard to get away from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 What we must also remember is that this is the GOVT response to the Tickell review so their agenda is writ large. Their spin is all over it. I am puzzling over the weasel words describing reception who seem to be in the EYFS or in "school" depending on what page you read. Although it is a framework for 0 -5 half the assessment framework seems to have disappeared. Yes children need the right skills to make progress in their learning as they go into NC/KS1 and the ELGs don't seem to be dissimilar in pitch to the ones we have now. They do need to be given the skills directly as they won't do this through osmosis but I am concerned that the level of formality in the language re reception will mean effective practice will become a watered down literacy and numeracy hour once more under the guise of "increasing formality" Cx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 (edited) I am puzzling over the weasel words describing reception who seem to be in the EYFS or in "school" depending on what page you read. Although it is a framework for 0 -5 half the assessment framework seems to have disappeared. I thought exactly the same, and I've printed out the framework (which in itself is INTENSELY annoying - WHEN will these people learn how to write in tables and how to space them!!!) and looked at it and it doesn't make a bit of sense - where's the rest of it! This can't be all there is, surely! Edited July 7, 2011 by Cait Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
suebear Posted July 7, 2011 Author Share Posted July 7, 2011 I'd noted that birth - 22 months seems to have vanished but then wondered, maybe they're not making any changes to that bit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Exactly! Where has birth to 22 months gone - does anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyfs1966 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Have just posted my rant on the alternative thread that's running under something like "EYFS review". Have given my consultation reponse and would urge all others to do the same. I presume that birth to 24 months will come back in at some stage....but maybe I am wrong. I thought that the Tickell version only had the latter stages just to show how the lead into the profile would work, (ie as an example), but it appears that the proposed revsion also omits the earlier age ranges. As with all such documents I suspect that the devil will be in the detail, so despite having already posted my first response to the consultation, will be going through the docuemnt with a fine tooth comb this weekend, and may just have to respond again! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacqueline1 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I don't know if i have read it incorrectly or missed bits, but it reads to me that the new EYFS is from two years onwards and nothing from birth to two years, as before we had developmental goals to work towads from birth. Am i right or wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I'm not clear - Dame C said she had done the latter stages to demonstrate the fir with the development checks and the ELGs etc, indicating in her text that the earlier stages would be completed by DfE! Cx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cait Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 So how can we comment on a document which isn't complete? It's very odd, isn't it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emz321 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 I haven't read it all yet but i am definately going to respond! i thought it was ment to being made simplier and easier to understand so that things were not misinterpreded and done differently in different settings. looking at the early learning goals whats a 'simple story'? a collection of words, somethings with a begining, middle, end? a sentence and what about the number one whats a larger number? what is simple addition its it adding 1, 2, 3? i'm all for less early learning goals but i think some of the have become less clear becasue they are trying to cram several into one! and school readiness its the wrong way to put it, its just gonna give parents and praticitioners the wrong idea! anyway already ranted to head about it now just gotta get everyone to respond! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juliewilk Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 Most of our children come to us (nursery in a school) at age 3 from home. They haven't been to another setting before us. Who will do their health check? Health visitors? I can't see that happening personally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vickymck Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 So if we have no developmental matters statements to 'tick off' is this the end for progress matters? I hated it at first but has been a useful tool in assessing our weaker areas of provision. I have scanned through the document this morning and thought that they had forgotton about birth to two bits as well. And what has hapened to starting with what they can do not what they can't!! What sticks in my mind from briefly reading is the amount of refenece to 'school readiness' and the lack of reference to 'play based learning'. I will defo be responding to the consultation. I was excited at the change to begin with bit I am begginnig to think that the we are better off as we are!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts