The Revised Eyfs

[AnonyMouse_13453]

I suppose there's nothing to stop us continuing to use the 'progress statements' if we want to, to assess provision, as long as our key document is the statutory one

[AnonyMouse_37885]

Have spent quite a lot of the day reading the document and then having a really good rant in the consultation.

 

The whole thing is so simplistic that it has ripped the heart out of what in so many ways was such a landmark in developing professional and high quality Early Education.

 

Have these people never given any regard to quality research into learning in the Early Years?

 

My back was up as soon as I read School Readiness.

 

There seems to be little logic applied to the suggestion of a summative assessment at age 24-36 months when many children are not in a setting at this stage.

 

Where is the mention of outdoor play?

 

One of the fundamental principles of the EYFS is THE UNIQUE CHILD. This document, as far as I am concerned, has nothing to do with the Unique Child and everything to do with what the government thinks all children should be doing at a particular arbitary time regardless of their gender, style of learning or individual character and learning style. This too was one of the fundamental problems of the existing ELGs and Profile,and one of the down sides of the EYFS. This new one seems to have kept all the bad, making it worse and lost most of the good.

 

I hope many practitioners respond to the consultation before they are finally driven to pack their bags and leave the profession that they love, but which is so undervalued and patronised.

 

[Guest]

Hi, don't hate me but after reading the document I actually quite like it!

 

I think any move towards less paperwork can only be seen as a good move so we can spend more time with the children

 

I work in a preschool and to be honest the clue is in the name, it is pre school and should be helping to get them ready to be in a social environment learning through a mix of play, and activities both adult and child led. We are supposed to be working with children and parents on transition to school at the moment under the current EYFS and I see it as an enhancement to this.

I have a teacher friend who works in year 1 and she has herself said because the EYFS is so child led through play up until end of reception there is a huge problem when children start year 1 and suddenly have to start doing more structured activities and work because they don't understand where all the 'play' has gone and why it has been replaced with working and learning. She has had numerous problems with children because of this and welcomes school readiness and a focus onto adult led activities before they start year 1 to help with a smoother transition.

 

The report is an addition to what we currently do but would be willing to do it as the other paperwork should lessen and it will help to be in partnership with parents from early age.

 

It is also important to bear in mind that most children should be between emerging and the expected category by time they leave to go to reception year and that the expected and exceeding category should be what is being attained by the end of the reception year. When I looked at these I did think where has the birth to two bit gone but the emerging section is very similiar to what we observe now for development matters.

 

As I say please don't shout at me, I may have overseen something that you have picked up on and it is just my opinion.

[AnonyMouse_30147]

just to say all opinions are valued so no shouting here

[AnonyMouse_29641]

Well...I've read it now, and I feel calm - not panic-stricken as I still sometimes do with the existing EYFS. I feel this is manageable and it appeals to my simple, lineal brain.

 

Starting, as it does, at 24months, does make me a little sceptical that it may be a vehicle for driving Registered Childminders out of DfE and back into the care sector (even though it says not). Then again I'm not sure that would affect my business - just my pride.

 

I didn't find the 'Readiness for school' language challenging. It seemed to me that she was bending over backwards to accentuate that the skills learned in early years give the grounding for success throughout the whole of the child's life....while... remembering who paid her.

 

I don't really feel I have the experience to comment formally on the Review, but then again, my inexperience welcomes this simplification.

 

Honey

[AnonyMouse_37784]

My understanding (hope!) was that the pre in preschool, refers to 'before school' and not pre as in 'prepare for' ?

 

I haven't read all the consultation yet so can't comment until I have.

Edited July 10, 2011 by liberty

[AnonyMouse_3307]

My perspective on the "readiness" thing is mixed. I think we are all responsible for the child as they pass through on their education journey from EYFS provision to GCSEs. Everything we do is in readiness for what the child needs to do next. Although children learn through play we are, by definition, educators whatever other title we may have and whatever age we work with. It's our responsibility to enable the child's learning. There are milestones for everyone along the way. It's the job to know those milestones so that we can support children to reach them, so they are able to tackle the next stage successfully. This means giving them the skills for learning as much as social, emotional etc.

 

However I worry that the language of "greater formality" won't mean building up through the year but will be interpreted as Reception from start to end. All the ground gained will be lost. And if as suspected Ofsted take the EYFS out of the section 5 as a discrete focus then it will have no protection whatsoever.

 

Cx

[AnonyMouse_5664]

"And if as suspected Ofsted take the EYFS out of the section 5 as a discrete focus then it will have no protection whatsoever.".......

 

Catma, what do you mean by this? It sounds important!

[AnonyMouse_3307]

The revised school section 5 Ofsted. One of the consultation Qs was should a discrete EYFS focus come out of the inspection and be part of the whole school report - ie leadership of EYFs would be commented on as part of leadership across the whole schools. There was a copy of the draft new schedule at work the other day but I didn't get it so haven't read it yet.

 

It could be a disaster in my opinion. So much has changed in the attitude of our SLTs because I could say - "Ofsted requires you to have it if you want to be outstanding"!!!

 

Cx

[AnonyMouse_32166]

my worry is that we have worked so hard to get year 1 to understand that gettting children ready for the National curriculum is a two way thing and that though we in reception have to do our bit for transition they have to do their bit for transition i.e. are current year 1 do EYFS for the first half term and transfere over slowly but the words in the document about school readiness and more formalitiy makes me think people will miss interpret it and expect us in recpetion to make them totally ready for a formal sit down education :-( whats wrong with play as a tool for learning throughout the whole primary Curriculum! why suddenly get rid of it and outdoor play is such a valiable tool oh well its all down to interpredation which will be different everywhere like it is now.

[AnonyMouse_73]

Now that Ive had a few days to read and reflect, there are a few things I would raise:

 

School readiness. Hmm, this is a double edged sword, and my biggest beef about this one is that it doesn't define clearly what it means by this, or by when. There is much school readiness research especially done in the US, and it refers to chidlren at 6, which is when they start school there. However, because this isn't stated explicitly, As Catma said earlier, its quite wooly about when it refers to starting school and how many people will read this as 'at the start of reception', rather than at the 'end of the EYFS' There needs to be clear clarification of what age is referred to and what school readiness looks like, otherwise we run the risk of many settings feeling pressured into feeling that means they have to teach reading and writing to get them ready for reception.

 

The paragraph 1:1 particularly bothers me, especially that last sentence:

 

Each area of learning and development must be delivered through planned, purposeful play and through both adult-led and child-initiated activity. There should be a fluid interchange between activities initiated by children, and activities led or guided by adults. This will move increasingly towards adult-led learning as children start to prepare for reception class. (my emphasis)

 

Does this imply that by the start of reception, most learning should be adult led?

 

Play! Well, where has that gone. We have to wait until page 6 for a first mention of play, and the only in the context of 'expressive art and design'. Play occurs just a few times in the whole document, with nothing suggesting its importance. Are we heading back to times of ...ohh they are just playing, and what will this do to improve the status of early years within the wider community? In addition child-initiated is mentioned just once, in the paragraph quoted above.

 

Ratios: no change there then, still no consideration given to the crazy 30: 1 ratio in reception, and nothing about good practice being to include a TA either.

 

0-2. As others have said, are we looking back towards a separate framework for 0-2s? Clarity needed on this.

 

Problem solving: where did that go? Although on the plus side, I am glad to see counting on and back in addition and subtraction and also comparisons across the whole range including time and capacity etc.

 

Im glad to see CLL split into communication and literacy..I think this is my one major 'positive'. CLL for too long focused on just reading and writing whilst ignoring the skills on which they are built.

 

WEll all I have to consider now is how to make these points effectively in the consultation response.

[AnonyMouse_5892]

Sorry to slightly change the subject on this, but I'd like to respond to this comment:

 

I have a teacher friend who works in year 1 and she has herself said because the EYFS is so child led through play up until end of reception there is a huge problem when children start year 1 and suddenly have to start doing more structured activities and work because they don't understand where all the 'play' has gone and why it has been replaced with working and learning. She has had numerous problems with children because of this and welcomes school readiness and a focus onto adult led activities before they start year 1 to help with a smoother transition.

 

I think your teacher friend has a 'huge problem' with the EYFS because of her own practice.

I have worked in early years for 12 years, in pre-schools, a school nursery and now a reception class.

For my teacher training I had to spend a whole term in year 1. There is no reason why children in year 1 should have to do 'work' to learn.

The current National Curriculum (NC) can be taught in a creative way, it just takes a little bit of 'early years thinking' to do it. I managed to teach adding coins through shop role play, literacy through drama and writing through real-life activities and each activity I had planned covered not just one but many subjects of the NC.

 

As for the EYFS being child-led through play up until the end of reception, this does not mean that we let children do as they please all day.....we simply provide a balance of well-planned adult focused and child initiated activities based on children's interests. This has always been part of early years practice, since 2000, when the first FS curriculum was introduced.

The children in my class will not get a surprise when they go to year 1, because they are quite used to participating in phonics sessions, guided reading sessions and small group focus activities with and without an adult.

When they go to year 1, their teachers will also provide similar activities to what I do but based on the NC. They still get to 'play' with the dough, and when they do they are learning: Art and design: 2a: investigate the possibilities of a range of materials and processes and Science: Sc3: 2a To know that objects made by some materials can be changed in shape by processes including squashing, bending, twisting and stretching.

 

So a smoother transition from reception to year 1 does not mean that children in reception should be made to 'work' in preparation for year 1. Teachers in both year groups should have almost identical provision during the transition process, and there should be no excuses that it does not fit in with the curriculum, both curriculums can be taught in both a structured and creative way. It is just the way that some teacher's interpretate them (or want to interpretate them to suit their own way of teaching).

 

I apologise for this outburst, but I spent a long time researching the transition from reception to year 1 for my BA dissertation and can see no excuse for a year 1 teacher to claim that 5 and 6 year olds should have to work to learn.

Edited July 10, 2011 by millhill

[Guest]

I agree entirely with what you are saying but the worry is that with this formal language and little explanation, it will be taken completely differently by (some) Headteachers, other staff in school, OfSTED and inexperienced Reception teachers. I feel that the experienced among us can work with what we are given and read between the lines - having said that...I WILL be submitting my views on this document immediately!!!!!!!!!!!

[AnonyMouse_3139]

I know some people who will read 'school readiness' as a reason to get all the worksheets out again.

[AnonyMouse_13789]

Just read the proposal and completed my consultation form, job done! Bring back labour!

[AnonyMouse_37885]

Hear Hear Rufus!

[Guest]

As I said on the other thread, went to a 4children seminar (amazing how this organisation has managed to hoover up so much govenment money) and the dfe rep there was very clear. Nothing is set in stone. They really do want to knwo what the profession thinks. If you want to retain development matters or at least to 0 -22 months then say so quite clearly. If you think the profile proposals are actually an increase in workload and more complicated that what we already have then say so. If enough of us say the same things they will actually listen.

 

If you think the two year old assessment cannot take place unless the child is already in a setting then strongly point this out because i really don't think they realised what they were proposing - they say the point of this consultation is to point all these errors out.

 

Be clear what is in that document is the proposed new framework. A completely truncated development matters and 150 assessment points for the profile. No real reduction in paperwork and no real simplification.

 

All that has happened is that 69 early learning goals have been bundled together into the 17 headings but there are still around 50 things to assess. Tell them clearly what your objections are, make constructive suggestions as to what you do actually want to see and it might actually happen.

 

remember the government originally wanted to scrap the whole curriculum and had to back down in the light of our collective responses -one of the best ever responses to consultations. The number of our repsonses carries huge weight with a government which doesn't clearly know what it wants in detail. They do want to destroy local authorities but they are not set on anything in particular in this document as long as they can trumpet that it has the support of parents and practitioners and promotes 'Early Intervention'.

 

So clearly make the case for what you want and some of it at least might just happen.

[AnonyMouse_31752]

Hi

 

I agree this is a time to stand up and be counted! After hearing me rant a family member suggested we also contact our local MP's with what we believe to be right and what is wrong with the proposals, what do you all think?

 

I am seriously considering it, the Liberals wanted a chance to make a difference and represent us, well maybe this is their chance! :-)

[AnonyMouse_12805]

I hvae this little nagging question at the back of my mind. Why was this sent out in July to end in September? A time when so many of us aren't around.

I cant comment on what is proposed as I really haven't had time to read properly and absorb yet

[AnonyMouse_12960]

I have already posted about my concerns for the vague 2 year check and how this is just not helpful in practice, but just wanted to add one further point.

Why will we have such a short lead time into the revised EYFS.

We will at best only have 1 term to read and prepare for the final document (if it is agreed and published on time) wheras we had 12 months or more to prepare for the previous version. I can't see that we are going to get much (if indeed any) help form our LEA in making the necessary changes, as they have no budget for anything anymore, and I will have as a minimum to:

1. update all policies and procedures

2. change all parents's eyfs information

3. re wite our child record sheets, planning sheets and observation sheets, reports etc (hideous almost endless task)

4. Change the signage in the setting

5. train staff on the changes

6. and lets not forget the old chestnut of updating the sef!!!!!

I am sure the list will get much much longer in reality, yet this is all to pare things down??? Not for me it would seem.

[Guest]

I hvae this little nagging question at the back of my mind. Why was this sent out in July to end in September? A time when so many of us aren't around.

I cant comment on what is proposed as I really haven't had time to read properly and absorb yet

Yes well that's just a standard civil service trick - at least we have until the end of September to respond - these things usually end the first week in September. Time to read and reflect over the summer and respond at the start of term. ideally respond as an individual and then as a setting. I recommend that you print off at least the revised ELG's and development matters and compare it to the current stuff and see what you think. Remember at the moment what is published is all there is going to be.

[AnonyMouse_3307]

That is a very good issue to write to your MP about too!!

 

From the LA perspective we have to liaise across different divisions in Children's Services and 1 term, especially the summer term is not the best time to be doing anything new. Nor do we have a budget anyway.

 

Cx

Edited July 14, 2011 by catma

[AnonyMouse_5013]

I have just scan read it and I have to say I am very disappointed. When the original review was done they said that the EYFS was working and gave the impression they were going to tweak it........well as far as I can see they have ripped the soul out of it. I work with SEN children who are barely accomodated for at all. They may come to us at 4 but are developmentally are fall into the birth- 10 months or 8- 20 months but it looks like its starting at 2 years of age. I hate the term 'school readiness.' To be honest it is bland, bland, bland

 

I will definately be responding......and hope that they do take our views on board.

[Guest littlemissblonde]

Hi I must be thick because I can find the part of the consultation I fill in to comment but no details of what I am commenting about. I have looked at the link but it contains no details. Will someone point me in the right direction please

[AnonyMouse_73]

Hello littlemissblonde

 

If you to the consultation website here you will see a list that starts with 'read the consultation document online'

Third one down on the list is 'consultation document Word'. That's the one you want which outlines the proposals.

 

Let us know if you find it OK, then you can join in then discussions.

[AnonyMouse_2776]

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

 

That is my fear as well! I was stunned with the same

[AnonyMouse_2776]

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?

 

The same problem as always... Reception being at the "end of the EYFS", but also being school based. The jam and cheese squeezed in between the sandwich breads

[AnonyMouse_26197]

I agreee totally with Millhill, we need more practitioners in school like you to educate old school teachers who produce too many worksheets and fixed lesson plans that does not support the individual child's learning needs and allow for differentiation. Learning through play based experiences is paramount. I wish England would take a leaf out of the sweedish way of doing things. Take a look its inspiring.

 

http://www.tes.co.uk/teaching-resource/Tea...Sweden-6038930/

 

 

As for 2 year old checks, currently the government have a pilot scheme called FEET - Free Early Years Entitlement for 2 year olds (currently disadvantaged). This is how the free early years entitlement came about for 3-4 year olds. Lets watch this space to see if by 2013 it is not rolled out for each and every 2 year old - allowing parents to go back to work part time. This is where the 2 year old check comes in!! But I could be wrong.

 

Although not all 2 year olds access pre-school some may go to childminders who will also have to undertake the 2 year check and submit to NHS.

[AnonyMouse_5892]

Thanks Beauvink.

I also watched the video on Sweden, it has such a powerful message I wish the government and Dame Tickel would have taken more notice of it when reviewing the EYFS.

Studies also found that Swedish children have the highest rates of well-being.....we in the UK are somewhere near the bottom of the 'well-being' ranks.

Yes, there are differences between our two countries, but the fact is the government in Sweden are putting their money where their mouth is. They are placing extreme importance on provision in the early years and they are funding it properly, you won't see a class of 30 5 year olds with 1 adult there!

Edited August 7, 2011 by millhill

[AnonyMouse_8135]

Hi everyone,

 

Am posting a response which a team of Early Years Consultants has collated. This may be a useful starter for people responding to the consultation. Confess I haven't read all the comments in this discussion, and it's certainly not perfect, but hopefully some key points are included. Good luck with your responses.

 

Helen

Consultation_on_a_Revised_Early_Years_Foundation_Stage_for_Forum.doc