Review Of Eyfs Ordered

[Guest jenpercy]

Hello there,

Haven't written anything on this site for quite some while; but feel compelled to do so on this topic!

 

I too have been pondering 'moderation' within the setting and between settings. Having talked with the local reception class teacher I have found out that there are some quite large discrepencies between keyperson judgements and observations on children attending more than one setting as well as our own variancies for children within the one setting.

 

As a team, we do share our observations and interpretations of the EYFS practice guidance (especially the Development Matters and Look Listen & Note sections) so as to find a 'best fit' but it can raise some serious issues and debate, such as the context of the observation and therefore stage of development and next steps.

 

I feel all we can do is our best, but hope that I am giving to the children credit where it is due.

 

We have been told byat least reception teachers that they are not too interested in what comes from nursery. The children are given the first 6 weeks to settle in before obs start, and then "if there's a problem I look back at reports from nursery"

[AnonyMouse_30128]

jenpercy - if this is the case then they are not following a learning 'journey' as the eyfs states that this must start based on information before (or at) the point of entry, what they do with you and where they end up. if they have no start point then there is no beginning to the story!

P.S. difficult to tell some reception class teachers this though

[AnonyMouse_25084]

I find it so sad and it greatly angers me to hear that so many nursery/pre-schools have this opinion about reception teachers. I feel sorry for you that you must feed into these types of schools. As a reception teacher, I greatly value what comes from my feeder pre-schools/nurseries. I also agree that there needs to be better moderation of assessment of children so they are accurate, then maybe reception teachers will value them even more.

[Guest]

Well, we were all kind of expecting it, but today the BBC are reporting that the governmnet has ordered a review of the EYFS. What do we think this will mean in practice??

I hope that our comments are really considered seriously. Far too much paperwork expected - time would be much better spent on playing with the children and not exhausting staff with all observation, assessment and planning (OAP - yes, we will be) . Very irritating that advisors give you differing advice that Ofsted dont agree with - and red tape on safeguarding, health and safety and virtually everything. Please, please, please trust our professionalism and let us get on with the job. Schools give very short written reports ie one A4 page per year - why are we expected to evidence absolutely everything. There will be a lot of people leaving nursery teaching if it carries on like this.

[AnonyMouse_8466]

Far too much paperwork expected - time would be much better spent on playing with the children and not exhausting staff with all observation, assessment and planning (OAP - yes, we will be) .

Welcome to the Forum, only!

 

I'm not sure the EYFS does expect us to have a huge paperwork system - who was the head of national strategies who said that the only written documentation required by law was the Profile? I'll have to think about that.

 

I think the EYFS does give us credit for what we know about our children's learning and development, and requires us to keep only the records we absolutely need to help us plan for children's learning. There isn't anywhere in the EYFS materials that says how many observations we need to produce, or how big our learning journey documentation needs to be. I think it is we as practitioners who get caught up in the "if I don't write it down then no learning is happening" syndrome.

 

We as early years professionals (whether we have EYPS or not!) need to be very confident in what we do and stand up for our beliefs. If we can devise a system that has minimal amounts of paperwork but is effective then we can easily justify our approaches. I don't think that the people who wrote the EYFS set out to make a framework that places more emphasis on monitoring than it does on skilled and knowledgeable practitioners playing and learning together with children. I think for a variety of reasons, we have just interpreted it that way.

 

Am quite prepared to be challenged on this view, however!

 

Maz

[AnonyMouse_25084]

I completely agree Maz!

 

I think in terms of using EYFS in reception it has actually allowed practitioners to feel they can play with the children more. I think that observations should be made if they are useful to you as the teacher/practitioner, they inform your planning. If it isn't useful then, i would question why you are doing it - as long you have some recorded evidence. You can't keep everything in your head for all the children!

 

And I think that schools equally have as much assessment to do particularly with the introduction of APPs and we are accountable for what we do so i have no problems with the expectations of planning and assessment.

[AnonyMouse_2418]

As a Day Nursery in an inner city the majority of our children don't meet the ELG's as specified - but what we tend to look for is progress to measure our 'success' so if a child comes to us at age 2 on the 16-26 month age band - and leaves us on the 30-50 month band then there is sufficient progress made ! If a child came in at a level and no progress was made at all in a period of 1-2 years ( 3-6 terms) then that would give rise to serious concerns as to our curriculum delivery and the needs of the child not being met, also issues of the possibility of a learning disability.

[AnonyMouse_13401]

It is the profile that I find burdonsome! Far to wide and then used for the wrong purpose!!

[AnonyMouse_8466]

It is the profile that I find burdonsome! Far to wide and then used for the wrong purpose!!

I agree, Mumm! I wish they'd split some of the statements up because they are very broad indeed.

 

What do you mean about them being used for the wrong purpose?

 

Maz

[Guest jenpercy]

Welcome to the Forum, only!

 

I'm not sure the EYFS does expect us to have a huge paperwork system - who was the head of national strategies who said that the only written documentation required by law was the Profile? I'll have to think about that.

 

I think the EYFS does give us credit for what we know about our children's learning and development, and requires us to keep only the records we absolutely need to help us plan for children's learning. There isn't anywhere in the EYFS materials that says how many observations we need to produce, or how big our learning journey documentation needs to be. I think it is we as practitioners who get caught up in the "if I don't write it down then no learning is happening" syndrome.

 

We as early years professionals (whether we have EYPS or not!) need to be very confident in what we do and stand up for our beliefs. If we can devise a system that has minimal amounts of paperwork but is effective then we can easily justify our approaches. I don't think that the people who wrote the EYFS set out to make a framework that places more emphasis on monitoring than it does on skilled and knowledgeable practitioners playing and learning together with children. I think for a variety of reasons, we have just interpreted it that way.

 

Am quite prepared to be challenged on this view, however!

 

Maz

Oh Observations don't have to be written down - but how else do you prove to OFSTED that you do them if you don't write them down!!!

[AnonyMouse_13453]

remember this? In particular the paragraph that starts "The only statutory requirement.... "