LKeyteach Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I thought that in the very near future there will be a new statutory framework. Well it might not be a framework anymore it may just be statutory. so what do you want to see in it? How would you structure it? Lets get creative and then see what happens. I liked the principles and would like to keep those. I would happily keep the stuff about Ratio and Qualifications. Ratio I would like uniformed so 1:8 across all settings and not linked to higher qualifications. I would like to see recognition of qualifications and EYP/EYT for leadership and for those working with children. Importantly play is what children do and is how we assess progress. But practitioners are professionals and should have some judgement. Sorry have to go before Hubby finds out I've not been doing what I should have been. But will be back to post more as I get into the groove. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
louby loo Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 When we were inspected in Jan we were told the EYFS would be undated in September ? Sorry can't offer suggestions....I have total brain melt down - that and I'm sticking to my 'no holiday work rule' big-time. :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: Obviously checking in on this forum is leisure time pursuits - not work. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildflowers Posted April 1, 2016 Share Posted April 1, 2016 Perhaps the changes only are in relation to the Profile... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 Well I'd bin the baseline and keep the EYFSP at the END of the EYFS so that reception children are kept safe in the phase. I'd ensure wwhatever it had in it was applicable to all schools - academy, free or maintained I'd have Reception ratios aligned with everyone else so the poor teachers don't have to struggle with 30 children by themeselves. Cx 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LKeyteach Posted April 3, 2016 Author Share Posted April 3, 2016 Thank you. something else I have thought about is the constant changing safeguarding requirements. The difficulty with frequent changes is trying to remember them. We have to react to changing situations but we have had to change the title of person (cpo, cplo. Dsl)responsible for safeguarding so many times I have to really think what the current fashion is. Also hubs, duty officers and official names change. I would like to see this simplified so that I can get on with the job of safeguarding. How would you change the learning and development requirements? Other than already mentioned. Which statements would you remove or what would you like to add? Qualifications. Can we add playworker back to relevant qualifications. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 How would you change the learning and development requirements? Other than already mentioned. Which statements would you remove or what would you like to add? Do you mean the statutory educational programmes or development matters? There aren't statements in the statutory educational programmes, just a descriptor of the types of things you must ensure children experience to meet the ELGs and Dev matters isn't statutory so you can miss out whatever statements you like! Cx 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mouseketeer Posted April 3, 2016 Share Posted April 3, 2016 the statements I'd really like to see swapped are in maths: 30-50m -matching numerals to quantity and comparing groups of objects, saying when they're the same 40-60m - counts objects up to 3 or 4 saying number name for each and counts 1-10 ...how are they supposed to do that at 30-50m when they can't even count them until 40-60m ? and the 30-50 SSM is way to focused on shape. and like you LKeyteach the constant changes in titles for the same role...I still haven't figured out if I should have a SENco or a SENDco now ? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildflowers Posted April 4, 2016 Share Posted April 4, 2016 (edited) I would no longer expect four-year-olds to be able to: - write simple sentences which can be read by others - use technology for particular purposes (incl. use ICT hardware to interact with computer software) Edited April 4, 2016 by Wildflowers 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LKeyteach Posted April 5, 2016 Author Share Posted April 5, 2016 Dev Matters were produced by Early Education (I think) but are useful guide for us all, although non statutory. I know here we add our own and also different cohorts require different experiences. But as Mouse & Wildflowers have said some of the descriptor need looking at. I would like to add some more positive statements about play. I'm working on how to word it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildflowers Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 The two I mentioned are parts of the statutory goals (not the DMs).The one for writing is too advanced, not only in my experience - about half of all children can't meet it, if I remember correctly. Even if ICT is necessary to learn, I can't see that the 'learning' they get at this age is of much value - to press a switch, swipe a screen and click at something. (And if they know more than that, then I would be worried about their childhood.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts