EYFS regulatory changes consultation

[AnonyMouse_73]

The consultation on proposed changes to the statutory framework is now open until July  26th. 

There's a really handy summary on the consultation page. Many refer to changes for childminders  version of the EYFS but some affect group settings as well such as reducing the 50% requirement for staff to be level 2 qualified, and experience routes to be included in ratios.

I always say if you have a view, have a voice.

What are thoughts once you've had a look?

 

EYFS consultation

(Please delete if the topic has already been started)

[Helen]

Thanks for the link, Mundia. Just completed it. I had a problem with a couple of the questions:

Do you agree with the proposal to reduce the requirement for ‘at least half of all other staff’ to be level 2 staff per ratios'?

Dumbing down the sector helps nobody. At a time when we are encouraging respect for a sector that is crucial in helping children to learn and develop, we are simultaneously saying that the staff who do this, don't need to be highly qualified, nor well paid.
We need to raise the status of working with our youngest children by demanding staff are well-qualified and well-paid as a result. The two must go
together. I know there is a recruitment crisis but trying to solve it by reducing the requirements for certain qualifications isn't the answer. 

The other one was:

The EYFS currently states that ‘When assessing whether an individual child is at the expected level of development, practitioners should draw on their knowledge of the child and their own expert professional judgement and should not be required to prove this through collection of physical evidence’ (2.2).DfE intends to change language from “should not be required to prove this through collection of physical evidence […]” "to are not required […]” in both versions of the framework.The aim of this change is to strengthen the Department’s position that we do not require the collection of physical evidence for assessment purposes or for partnership working with parents and carers, and to emphasise this time would be better spent focussing on quality interactions with children.

Do you agree with the proposed language change around the collection of physical evidence?

I really don't!

Telling staff that they should not make any written records at all, nor share anything written with parents, is contradictory to the best early years practice
in the world; that in New Zealand and in Italy's Reggio Emilia.
No member of staff can keep everything in their heads about all their children. The best practitioners make a low number of observations, sometimes
with photos or videos, to share with parents and colleagues- to discuss their progress and make plans to take their learning further. I see no reason to say
explicitly that this isn't required. The worst settings will drop observations as a result of being told this, thereby leading to poorer practice and
relationships with parents.
Keeping records of children's learning should be a decision for each setting. I know things got really out of hand in previous years, with unmanageable demands for evidence-collecting, but the best settings didn't do this; they collected the appropriate amount of information they needed to plan for each child's learning and to share his/her development with parents and carers. Many strong early years leaders were able to see the benefits without taking staff away from interacting with the children. That is still the case, I believe.
Children with SEND, or who are suspected of having SEND, need detailed records for LA purposes and to seek further help and support from
multi-agency professionals. Video evidence is crucial to demonstrate the abilities and difficulties of a child with significant learning needs. Telling settings they are not required to do this, helps nobody.
Finally, the best settings use observations of children in supporting staff with their professional development- to determine whether the child is
developing well, or in need of challenge or support (as in Te Whaariki, Reggio, etc). Telling settings that they should not keep records anymore will make this task impossible. Given we are trying to upskill the workforce, standards will inevitable fall.

[AnonyMouse_13453]

I completely agree!   

[AnonyMouse_73]

I agree with everything you've said, Helen and its starting to feel like a further step towards a more unregulated sector, bit by bit.

Regarding documentation, its already become much more difficult when settings apply for funding for children with SEND, and they submit applications with no supporting documents. This is sadly, already happening. 

My concern as well is the including of apprentices etc being included in ratio at the level immediately below. Yes it adds the condition if the provider considers them capable. But it theoretically means that a setting could have only the manager qualified and the 30/40 % of the rest are apprentices who can be counted at level 2.  This actually means they are unqualified.  I can't see this easing the recruitment crisis, or improving overall quality. ( all assuming I've read this correctly!). 

What are others thinking? Please do respond to the consultation, whatever you think.

 

[AnonyMouse_109932]

Agree & disagree

Observation & evidence collecting is necessary for all the reasons given. But not if it’s to the detriment of the children you are caring for.

Children first paperwork second! 

NO to level 2 being counted as staffing levels.

We need highly qualified, well paid, motivated staff-not a race to the bottom. 

Many European countries have been at higher levels of education for staff for a long time.

Why not in the UK?

Because childcare is not valued as a career, those who stay at home have No status & questions that ask your job still Have HOUSEWIFE as the only option for caring in the home.

And no-one bats an eyelid about this-It’s 2023 not 1943!

Its discriminating, demeaning, degrading and downright disgusting-

ALL OF IT

I am tired of justifying my career choices and status when I shouldn’t have to

We are worth Status, Pay and recognition the same as Teachers,Nurses, Carers and all the other professions who work hard-without us does society function or die?

V.Angry experienced childcare professional.

 

 

 

[BenTapestrySupport]

I think the point about collecting evidence goes back to the fact that many people were spending too much time assessing every little thing - which takes you away from the children. A quick observation to remind you about something when planning, or when talking about a child's development, is almost vital as not many people would be able to remember how every child accessed the provision and where their next steps would be for their own development - in all the areas of learning. Building up those partnerships with families at home is also so important, and to make it worth their while investing their time in giving things from home, they need to see the benefit. If all they get back from the setting are very few observations a year, then why would they think what they add matters? 

Observations should not be time consuming but they should be informative. A picture or video can say so much.