Navigation

CategoryArchived material

Featured

Archived material

The Revised EYFS 2012 – some thoughts

Posted by

Kathy Brodie on April 17, 2012.

The Department for Education has published the Revised Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage.

It is available on their website, but, disappointingly, is only downloadable. The Framework becomes statutory in September 2012, so there’s not much time to become familiar with it (certainly less than when the EYFS was originally introduced).

From first reading, there seems to be only minor tweaks, the most obvious being the reduction in the number of pages (31 from beginning to end, down from 55). Another tweak being the seven areas of learning and development, which have been divided into prime areas (communication and language; physical development) and specific areas (literacy; mathematics; understanding the world; expressive arts and design). I feel the differentiation between prime and specific has been dealt with more eloquently in the development matters (practice guidance) on the Early Education website..

In general, it is what was expected. However, there are a few elements which worry me.

1. The ‘preparation for more formal learning’ (page 6, 1.9 penultimate paragraph). I had thought we’d left that behind long ago. Children should be doing what is developmentally appropriate for where they are NOW, not where they may be in 6 months time. Reception teachers, who are already struggling against the inappropriate top down pressure from head teachers, may well feel that the rug has been pulled out from under them.

2. The guidelines for the progress check at age 2 (page 10, 2.3 onwards). These seem very woolly, which may be good for those confident in completing this new piece of paperwork, but I feel the Framework should have been more prescriptive here. The requirement is for a ‘short written summary of their child’s development in the prime areas’, identifying strengths and any areas where progress is less than expected. How short is short? What sort of areas would need highlighting?

This section also indicates that any identified Special Educational Need should be identified. I would sincerely hope that practitioners would not wait until the progress check to highlight a child’s possible SEN, but I can see that the temptation would be to do just that.

There had been much discussion prior to publication of how the progress check would be shared with Health Visitors. However, on page 11, we find that it is down to the parents/carers to share the progress check with the health visitor. Unfortunately I fear this will either just not happen (creating an obsolete report) or will only happen where there are no concerns, so the very children who need help will slip through the net again.

3. Training and qualifications. There is a worrying phrase used on page 17, section 3.22. ‘providers should consider supporting’ staff to obtain level 2 qualifications. I feel this leaves a massive loophole for unscrupulous providers to not bother with training because its been ‘considered’ but nothing has been actually done about it. The original EYFS says ‘In particular, those staff with no qualifications should be supported in obtaining a relevant qualification at a minimum of a full and relevant level 2 qualification’ (Original EYFS, page 31) which I feel is a much stronger statement.

4. Risk assessments. Page 25 says that ‘providers must determine where it is helpful to make some written assessments’ and that it ‘does not necessarily need to be in writing.’ I would advise all providers to check the legality of this for their particular setting on the Health and Safety website. The Health and Safety laws may require written risk assessments, even if the EYFS doesn’t.

5. Record retention. The original EYFS demands that records must be kept for 3 years (page 40), whilst the revised version suggests a ‘reasonable period of time’. This is dangerously vague and could allow records to be destroyed before a child has transferred to school (6 weeks may be considered a reasonable time?).

And this really is a good example of my main doubt about the revised EYFS.

By reducing the quantity, I feel that it has created a number of areas which are open to interpretation. Although it could be argued that it makes the Framework more flexible, I’m a little worried that inexperienced or less confident practitioners may not find the support they have had in the past.

Similarly, it may not be helpful when the Ofsted inspector calls!

Overall, the revised EYFS is not a big change to the existing Framework.

It will be how nurseries and settings choose to implement it which will make the difference.

with thanks to Ryk Neethling at http://www.flickr.com/photos/rykneethling/ for the image

Featured

Archived material

EYFS Consultation document

Posted by

Kathy Brodie on August 16, 2011.

Having just completed the EYFS consultation document at the DfE website. I have serious concerns about some of the document.

1. The qualifications required are the bare minimum – Level 3 for managers and half of the rest at Level 2 – despite all the research (EPPE, REPEY, Tickell Review) confirming again and again that a graduate led workforce results in better outcomes for children.

2. “School Readiness”. Apparently the Early Years is all about ensuring the 5 year olds of England are “ready” for Key Stage 1. This has replaced play and emotional development as being key for children. In addition the Literacy Early Learning Goals have been altered.

The original EYFS required children to “Link sounds to letters, naming and sounding the letters of the alphabet. Use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words.” (EYFS, P.53) and “Attempt writing for different purposes, using features of different forms such as lists, stories and instructions… begin to form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation.” (EYFS p. 60).

However, the new EYFS requires children to “read and understand simple sentences in stories and information books, using phonic knowledge to decode regular words and read them aloud accurately… children write their own … simple stories which can be read by themselves and others.” (EYFS Consultation document, p. 9). This is a significant difference. Is the hope that by asking 4 year olds to write their own stories that the level of literacy will be raised?

A brief look at the research from around the world ( unicef vexen) shows that starting children’s literacy earlier doesn’t mean better results at age 11. In fact the later children start formal training, the better the long term outcomes for literacy. You would think the Year 6 teachers would be screaming for less literacy in the Foundation Stage.

3. Babies seem not to get a mention, except to say they must be segregated from other children. This is a massive shame. There is lots of research from many years to show that there are a range of benefits to mixed age groupings, including keeping siblings together, social development, nurturing, peer learning and emotional development (Cohen, 2002, Derscheid, 1997, Di Santo, 2000, Gmitrovaa et al. 2004, Goldman, 1981)

I know it wouldn’t be suitable for every setting, but to require that there is segregation removes all the learning opportunities which may be available for children in mixed groups.

This is why it is so important for everyone to complete the consultation form. These are my concerns and I’m pleased that I have the opportunity to voice them.

Make sure your voice is heard too.

The consultation ends on the 30th September 2011.

References

Cohen (2002). How the child’s mind develops. Hove: Routledge

Derscheid, L. (1997) Mixed-Age Grouped Preschoolers’ Moral Behavior and Understanding Journal of Research in Childhood Education Vol. I I. No. 2

Di Santo, A. (2000). Multi-age groupings in early childhood education: The affordances and opportunities of a multi-age child care model. Ottawa:National Library of Canada

Gmitrováa, V. and Gmitrovb, J. (2004) The primacy of child-directed pretend play on cognitive competence in a mixed-age environment: possible interpretations Early Child Development and Care Vol. 174(3), pp. 267–279

Goldman, J. (1981) Social Participation of Preschool children in same versus mixed-age groups Child Development Vol. 52 p. 644 – 650

McClellan, D. and Kinsey, S. (1999) Children’s Social Behavior in Relation to Participation in Mixed-Age or Same-Age Classrooms Early Childhood Research and Practice Spring 1999 Volume 1 Number 1

Image by sabianmaggy

Featured

Archived material

The EYFS Review – part two – The Impossible Curriculum

Posted by

Kathy Brodie on April 14, 2011.

This is part two of the posts about the Tickell, or Early Years Foundation Stage, Review. In part one I have looked at the quantitative and qualitative data which was gathered during the consultation phase. Here in part two I’ve considered the 46 recommendations in detail and how these might affect practice in the Early Years. The report can be found here.

Arguably the biggest change recommended is “that personal, social and emotional development, communication and language and physical development are identified as prime areas of learning in the EYFS.” (page 21). Note that CLL has lost Literacy, which would appear as one of the “four specific areas in which the prime skills are applied: literacy, mathematics, expressive arts and design, and understanding the world.” (page 27). Problem solving, reasoning and numeracy has been re-replaced with mathematics. I feel this is a shame. To most people “mathematics” inevitably means numerical calculations rather than the much broader areas of spatial awareness, patterns and shapes.

Three characteristics of effective teaching and learning are recommended: “playing and exploring, active learning, and creating and thinking critically” (page 27) This is so children’s learning can be supported effectively by all practitioners, whether that is a play worker or childminder. This highlights one of the most thorny issues of the EYFS. It is a generalised curriculum trying to be ‘one size fits all’ which is very difficult. Make it too woolly and it will be open to misinterpretation (intentionally or otherwise). Make it too prescriptive and risk excluding sections of the childcare community. Whether defining characteristics of effective teaching and learning will solve this remains to be seen.

In part one I highlighted the fact that the EYFS doesn’t call for extra paperwork – it’s a perception that ‘everyone else’ has, from Local Authorities to Ofsted representatives. This is recognised on page 28 and on page 31 it is recommended that the paperwork should be “kept to an absolute minimum”. Who will be brave enough to be the first to buck the trend and ditch meaningless forms which don’t inform practice or support the child?

It has been recommended that the number of early learning goals (against which a child is assessed at the end of Reception Year) be reduced from 69 to 17. These are to be judged using a “simple scale” (page 31) of emerging, expecting and exceeding and link more closely to the National Curriculum. These do seem to contain a lot of statements for one early learning goal (page 72), but they have been grouped together in a sensitive and sensible manner.

Another very sensible decision is to allow mobile phones to still be used in settings (page 39). The vast majority of settings already have policies about mobile phones. After all, it is the way in which they are used which is the problem, not the phone itself.

The second recommendation (page 13) is that the framework remains statutory across the early years. The argument being that if it isn’t statutory then the areas of greatest deprivation, and therefore greatest need, will suffer the most. Having worked with a number of children’s centres around the country I would whole heartedly agree and think this is a thoroughly laudable recommendation.

Interestingly, when referring to independent schools opting out, Dame Tickell has suggested that they should not be exempted, and that the argument that all independent provision is superior to other provision is still to be proven (page 14).

Hopefully the recommendation on page 17, that the EYFS is available in more formats, more easily, will mean that we can get paper copies again. I sincerely hope so! My final copy of the EYFS separated from its spine during training on Saturday.

It is very encouraging to see parents and carers getting special mention (page 18). When Dr Margy Whalley spoke at the North West EYP Conference in March this year, she had plenty of good reasons for why this is good practice. Dr Whalley enthusiastically encourages home visits and has multiple examples of their benefits. At the moment I am reading Kate Wall’s book ‘Special Educational Needs and Early Years’ where she emphases the ‘partnership’ being a joint decision making one, including planning and assessment, if it is going to be truly beneficial.

However, I feel a little sad that there has to be a specific recommendation to give parents an overview of the EYFS when they start (page 18). I had imagined that this was good practice and would be happening as a matter of course in most settings.

The recommendation for a 24 – 36 month summary of a child’s development – written in conjunction with the Health visitor – screams “extra statutory assessment” and ” more paperwork”. In addition there is the question of access to health visitors and how parents will view this, particularly if they already have some concerns, but don’t want their child ‘labelled’. The hope that the practitioners will be allowed to exercise some judgement in this matter is optimistic. Adding an extra page to the ‘Red Book’ is a good idea, but this set of recommendations are best suited to parents who are engaged with their children’s learning and development already. Are they going to reach those families who are difficult to engage already and are sometimes the most disadvantaged?

Although the praises of the children’s centres and their work is truly sung on pages 25 and 26, the Review falls short of actually giving any recommendations, which is an opportunity missed.

It is recommended that written risk assessments be removed (page 41) – is this too much other way? This appears to be in response to childminders concerns that they are under the same regime as large childcare companies (see part one of EYFS review) and doing written risk assessments every day is clearly too onerous. Hopefully this wont tempt settings ‘not to bother’ with risk assessments, because they only have to be produced if asked for.

The 1:30 teacher to child ratio in reception classes is to be re-reviewed (page 30) because there is not enough ‘clear evidence’ to say this ratio is too high. Is the lack of evidence a demonstration of the hard work teachers have put in to ensure children aren’t penalised? For children to go from a ration of 1:8 to 1:30 in a matter of weeks, as well as coping with a change of setting, change of key person, change of routine and going from being the ‘big boys and girls’ to being the smallest in the setting again must be incredibly difficult. Maybe this should be reviewed from the child’s perspective first?

Overall the Dame Tickell appears to have listened carefully to the practitioners and educators who have been involved in the Review of the EYFS. There are lots of common sense recommendations and I can certainly recognise some of the dilemmas, such as Ofsted requirements sometimes being at odds with the EYFS. The bigger challenge may be that producing one curriculum for such a diverse set of child care situations – and pleasing everyone – may be impossible.

The summary of the recommendations start on page 56 of the Review report.

Featured

Archived material

The EYFS review – part one – much ado about nothing?

Posted by

Kathy Brodie on April 8, 2011.

Note: for our up-to-date guide on the 7 Areas of Learning in the EYFS click here.

And for our in-=depth guide to Early Learning Goals click here.

So, the long awaited EYFS Review is out and being pored over by one and all. I thought it might be interesting to see what line of attack the media had on this one. Supportive? Derisive? Outraged?

The TES decided to go front page here and then misunderstood Dame Tickell’s view on phonics here. The Times went for the “nappy curriculum”, as did the Guardian, who focused on the exclusion of independent schools here. The Sunday Times (News Review, page 9) has a reasonably balanced overview, although I’m not sure that prior to the EYFS all “little ones would stay at home, having stories read to them, being taken to the playground and having friends over to play”.

Certainly in the media there have not been many objections or calls for a petition to stop the Review. So all in all, has it been Much Ado About Nothing?

I’m going to approach this by looking at the two aspects separately. First the statistics and information from the online questionnaire, literature review and qualitative study. The next post will look at the recommendations that have been made from these. This is because I think its important to understand where the recommendations have come from and the sort of things that practitioners (whether that is a play worker, teacher, childminder or early years practitioner) have asked for.

The EYFS Report on the Evidence (2011) can be found here and the Tickell review (2011) can be found here.

One of the impressive things is that over 3,300 people responded to the online questionnaire. That is a lot of people. However, it is still only 0.7% of the total workforce (DfE, 2010). Not even 1% of the early years childcare staff have had their voice heard.

Chapter one gives a brief overview of the situation so far. Chapter two deals with the welfare (mandatory) requirements of the EYFS and how these have already affected practitioners. The views reported here are diverse and many ‘depend upon the situation’. So, for example, doing a risk assessment for a setting which has an annual trip is very different to a risk assessment for a childminder who is out every day. But both situations are governed by the same piece of legislation.

The thorny issue of transition is dealt with at the end of chapter 3, highlighting the sorts of ‘top down’ pressure that many reception classes feel.

On page 35 (Chapter 4), 4.18 the biggest myth of the EYFS is laid bare. The EYFS does not call for extra ‘paperwork’. It asks for observation based assessments and planning. According to the review, the demand for paper comes ‘other sources’, for example the inspectorate or Local Authority. This is something which I have challenged practitioners on many times. “Where does it say in the EYFS that you have to fill out A4 folders of observations every week?” and, more importantly, “How does the child benefit from this?” Thank goodness this issue has been explicitly stated in the review.

The EYFS Profile is criticised by practitioners for being too bulky and time consuming. It is suggested that the results are not used by the Year 1 teachers (although, in my personal experience this is an educational law – “no educator will trust the summative reports of the previous key stage”) and that only a third of parents receive them. Combine this with the “highly subjective” and “wide variation” (page 37) that headteachers report and you can see why this has been targeted for change.

The key person, which was controversially included as a mandatory requirement, has been accepted by practitioners and parents alike. Although, understandably, teachers who have 30 key children are not so keen!

Chapter 6 deals with training and development of the workforce. The good news is that training levels are rising and more nurseries have level 6 (degree qualified) practitioners. Even better is the finding that Early Years Professionals (EYPs) are improving the quality of care and education that children are receiving. The biggest complaint was that training was patchy and not of a high enough quality. In many ways this is really good news. It means that practitioners are demanding more in depth, challenging courses and are really recognising the benefits that these courses bring.

What does this tell us about the sorts of things that practitioners have asked for? The underlying theme appears to be that, in general, the EYFS is well used and well respected. The additional ‘paperwork’ is more a demand from other sources than a requirement of the EYFS. There are some accepted good practices, such as key person. Levels of qualified practitioners has risen and is continuing to rise. The EYPS has been shown to improve outcomes for children.

What has been asked for is clarification in some areas, such as the EYFS Profile and smooth transition between settings.

In general this is a balanced Review, albeit based on the views of practitioners who had internet access and felt strongly enough, one way or the other, to respond. So maybe not ‘Much Ado About Nothing’, more ‘As You Like it’.

References:

DfE (2010) Childcare and early years providers survey 2009. London: DfE

Brooker, L., Rogers, S., Ellis, D., Hallet, E. & Robert-Holmes, G. (2010) Practitioners’ experiences of the EYFS. London: DfE.

Kathy Brodie: Free CPD for Early Years Professionals