AnonyMouse_10713 Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Has anyone seen the Anti-EYFS petition article in Nursery World or Early Years Educator Magazine? I hadn't heard of it before and then read two different articles about it in the same week! I just wanted to bring it to everyones attention. It may spark an interesting thread!? Just wondered what other people make of it. I don't know how to make a link to the site, the address is: http://openeyecampaign.wordpress.com/
AnonyMouse_8466 Posted February 7, 2008 Posted February 7, 2008 Has anyone seen the Anti-EYFS petition article in Nursery World or Early Years Educator Magazine? I hadn't heard of it before and then read two different articles about it in the same week! I just wanted to bring it to everyones attention. It may spark an interesting thread!? Just wondered what other people make of it. I don't know how to make a link to the site, the address is: http://openeyecampaign.wordpress.com/ There has been a long thread about this, Shiny - entitled (I think) "Toddlers under threat?" or something similar. As you say, all very interesting... Maz
AnonyMouse_534 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Hi all I think most of us are intellegent practitioners and can judge how to implement the EYFS. There may be some parts that could do with changing but on the whole I like it. I did notice if I wanted to go to the conference it would cost me £60.
Steve Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 The thread Maz mentioned is here Shiny. I agree with you Lou. The EYFS is really just a natural evolution of the FSF in content, which I think most people are very happy with.
AnonyMouse_73 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Hmmm, I wonder if anyone would actually believe me if I said I meet people almost daily now who are working with children, and who have not yet even seen the EYFS document let alone actually know what it is. Just to be slightly controversial so early in the morning, an assumption that everyone knows what they are doing is just not the case. (which is why the forum is so important in that message) Not that I'm saying one way or the other about the campaign, I think that's up to everyone as individuals to decide whether they agree with it or not.
Guest Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) At present the word from the DCSF is that parents can apply for exemptions from the learning and development areas of the EYFS, but... they are still maintaining (at this point) that those parents will have funding removed from them, but are checking if this could be changed. I predict it won't. There are no real changes to it for many nurseries, but there is a fundamental change in that, before children could be "working towards" but not now. They either achieve or not. This gives no place to anything other than state education. If we don't teach numeracy and literacy our children are deemed to be not achieving. This affects nurseries with an alternative ethos and looks like they will need to close. ANother article in the times today: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/e...icle3330238.ece I can't see that they will suddenly take note of this either and I'm feeling cynical about the research they are about to conduct into this. We are quite set apart in our compulsory school age, yet have one of the lowest achievements in the developed countries. Edited February 8, 2008 by Guest
Steve Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Erm - did I say the FSF? I think I probably meant the FS didn't I?
AnonyMouse_4544 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 What I am seeing happening in my area is that parents who use childminders are removing them from registered childminders because they do not want them to be part to EYFS. Some childminders are closing down and others are de registering.
AnonyMouse_4544 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Can I also point out that the campaign is NOT anti EYFS it is aimed at having the statutory nature of the EYFS document reduced to professional guidance not at removing the EYFS totally.
Guest Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) What I am seeing happening in my area is that parents who use childminders are removing them from registered childminders because they do not want them to be part to EYFS. Some childminders are closing down and others are de registering. I did wonder if that would start to happen. If a childminder is collecting a 4 / 5 year old from school why on earth would their parents want the EYFS to continue after 3pm?? That's just one example. So in effect this then creates an increase in unregistered care givers. Edited February 8, 2008 by Guest
Steve Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Well actually, if parents are taking their children away from registered childminders (and nurseries for that matter) because they don't want them to have anything to do with the EYFS, I'd say that's because of the misrepresentation of the EYFS that the campaign has provoked (albeit unintentionally). Marion, you began the last topic by linking to this article in the Times. I'm not surprised people wouldn't want their children attending the sort of setting that this seems to suggest will happen with the EYFS, but I don't believe it bears any resemblance to the EYFS.
Guest Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I have to say that more than half way into our training there has not been a single thing we are NOT doing already. I like the EYFS
AnonyMouse_3139 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Mundia, I know people like that. They have seen the folder but wont open it because its not September. I'm still in 2 minds about the whole thing, on the one hand, what I've read in the folder is good, I agree with the philosophy of play, always have. But on the other hand, its a case of government telling us what to do in an area that I dont feel they should.
Guest Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 (edited) Well actually, if parents are taking their children away from registered childminders (and nurseries for that matter) because they don't want them to have anything to do with the EYFS, I'd say that's because of the misrepresentation of the EYFS that the campaign has provoked (albeit unintentionally). Marion, you began the last topic by linking to this article in the Times. I'm not surprised people wouldn't want their children attending the sort of setting that this seems to suggest will happen with the EYFS, but I don't believe it bears any resemblance to the EYFS. I don't think it is that they want nothing to do with the EYFS (not in my experience anyway) I think it's more to do with a one size fits all with regard to all children by the age of 4+ having to show numeracy and literacy skills and being recorded as not achieving if they can't. Where does that leave children who aren't ready for this, I suspect girls will fair better than boys but that is beside the point. For a setting like us it means we either ditch our ethos or get poor ofsted reports and lose funding for our parents, whereas in the past we have been "good" in all areas when working with the EY goals in the current manner (as it wasn't a closed book) It may be of interest to read this: http://www.savesteinerschools.org/wp-conte...0Dec%202007.pdf Especially "Irrational policy conflicts " Edited February 8, 2008 by Guest
AnonyMouse_534 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I think it is healthy to have an open discussion about these issues but in the mean time we do have to be seen to implement the EYFS (in september.) It is more work for me and my team while we get used to it but our children will not know any difference. They will still come into play and have fun as normal. I don't understand how there are still practitioners that have not seen the document yet. I do understand that not everyone has had the training. Not sure why people are not using some of the childminders. It could be as Steve mentioned the press are very clever at reporting the bad points of everything.
Guest Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Erm - did I say the FSF? I think I probably meant the FS didn't I? Freudulant (spl?) slip maybe Steve. I would say the EYFS is a natural evolution of the DLO / ELG -FSC, shown in FSF discussion, debate and Reflective practice of many EY professionals, and most people ( if not all) are very happy with the FSF. Mind you, lest we forget were we all happy with the original intervention by government on the EY currculum ie the DLO's of which the EYFS has evolved from????? Peggy
Guest Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I feel that the EYFS has benefits because of the combining of the early years curriculum guidance and birth to three. Although we are a pre-school and our children are almost three when they join us we still have regard to B23 and I just found it a nightmare working with two separate documents. And I also don't feel there are many great changes to it and I certainly won't be drastically altering what we do. I think where most people have a problem is in the fact that it is now statutory and that, although it was said that there would not be a curriculum for babies, many feel that this has in fact been sneaked in through the back door. We need to be allowed to get on with the job we do best which is looking after the children in our care. I just hope that once the EYFS is in place we will be left alone and no more changes happen for a long time. Linda
AnonyMouse_4544 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Sorry to disagree Steve but in the cases I am referring too parents are a nursery head teacher and a primary school teacher so are not making these decisions from a reaction to newspaper headlines but from a very informed position.
Steve Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 It would be interesting to know what parts of the EYFS they found so unacceptable Marion. The ELGs in CLL, the fact that it is to be statutory or something else?
AnonyMouse_4544 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 They do not find the curriculum unacceptable for schools nurseries etc but made a concious choice to send their children into a "home" situation rather than a setting and don't wish them to follow a curriculum at such a young age. Others as has already been suggested think that after spending the day in school should be allowed to relax without the childminder having to justify to OFSTED why they are not engaged in planned "learning experiences" rather than watching TV which has happened to one parent recently.
AnonyMouse_79 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 That's really sad, what do they do instead, Marion? I feel more and more fortunate to have been in a position whereby I was able to be at home with my children when they were small but not everyone can do that. I also stopped all after school activities as my children could not cope with being in another situation where they had to conform in a group.
AnonyMouse_4544 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 Susan you have expressed better than I could the feeling behind these decisions. In one case mum has handed in her notice as a teacher and leaves at half term to look after her child. I another case the child minder is de registering so she will not have to follow the curriculum but can offer an "auntie" type service after school which is what the parents want.
AnonyMouse_3139 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 So if a childminder doesnt register are they still allowed to have other peoples children for payment? I thought thats where tax and such got involved, but I am exceedinlgy vague on those sorts of things. I certainly wouldnt want my lads doing 'work' at the end the school day, I didnt make them do homeowrk for just that reason, and I wouldnt want their carer to be worried about observing and recording rather than seeing to their immeadiate needs, food and drink, I'd want a home from home, shoes off, tele on. Theres already research out today about how our children are the most tested and start school earlier than other in countries, now it seems they wont get a break from it either!! So very glad my lads are nearing the end of school life
AnonyMouse_4544 Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I think you have to be registered with OFSTED to be a paid childminder and don't know the exact details of how the lady plans to get around this but it was discussed that "nannies" don't have to follow EYFS so perhaps a change of title but I am only guessing...
Guest cathy m Posted February 8, 2008 Posted February 8, 2008 I think you have to be registered with OFSTED to be a paid childminder and don't know the exact details of how the lady plans to get around this but it was discussed that "nannies" don't have to follow EYFS so perhaps a change of title but I am only guessing... Anyone caring for a child under the age of 8 for more than 2 hours each day (in their home and not the child's) has to register as a childminder. As Marion said nannies don't have to follow EYFS Cathy
Guest Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 As others have eloquantly put, It is the 'freedom of choice' that is erroding. Peggy
AnonyMouse_3735 Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 And is the difference being that a nanny looks after a child in the childs home not yours? Inge
AnonyMouse_3139 Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 As others have eloquantly put, It is the 'freedom of choice' that is erroding. Peggy And from that I'd read 'Choice = Quality'. If you have no choice but to use a childminder who isnt registered, will standards slip and a return to using the 'lady up the road' who isnt inspected, happen?
AnonyMouse_4544 Posted February 9, 2008 Posted February 9, 2008 I just received an email from the campaign "On Thursday 24 January, the Steering Group members, Margaret Edgington, Anna Firth, Richard House and Lynne Oldfield, met with the Chair of the Select Committee on Children, Schools and Families, Barry Sheerman MP, and it is clear that Open EYE’s concerns are being taken very seriously at the highest level. It seems likely that at least some of the issues raised in the Select Committee's previous investigation of the early years, held some 6 years ago, are soon to be revisited by the Committee, and furthermore, Mr Sheerman has agreed to continue a dialogue with the group and to ensure that the concerns of Open Eye are fed back to the Committee and to DSCF Ministers. Should the Committee return to this issue, Mr Sheerman has also agreed to hold a second meeting with Open Eye. <<< Early Day Motion in the offing >>> Last week the campaign received an offer from Annette Brooke, MP for Mid Dorset & North Poole and Liberal Democrat Spokesperson for Children, Schools & Families to prepare a cross party EDM into the Learning and Development Requirements of the EYFS. Hopefully, the Motion will be tabled before the end of this month."
Recommended Posts