Eyfs - What It Really Means

[Guest]

I put this comment in another post, but then thought it may get lost, so started a new topic.

 

I believe that we are moving towards statutory / compulsory schooling for children aged from 3 yrs.

 

At the present time we only have to deliver the curriculum if we want to receive the education grant. We can still be registered with Ofsted under the care standards alone if we wish.

 

Look at the new EYFS and the legislation that encompasses it. The EYFS now incorporates the National Standards, therefore to be registered with Ofsted it will be compulsory for all providers, including childminders, to deliver the new curriculum. So if parents want childcare, they have no choice but to send their children to 'educational establishments', nothing else will be available for them. Is this really parental choice?

 

Scary isn't it.

 

What do you think? or have I misunderstood the implications of national standards being imbedded within the EYFS?

 

Peggy

[AnonyMouse_4544]

One of our mums who is a childminder has already been criticised by OFSTED for not delivering the curriculum because she allows the children to play after school while she prepares tea.

[AnonyMouse_2846]

I agree peggy the fact that only graduates will beable to run a daycare setting says to me that the most important factor is being seen as an educational setting.

I like everybody on here am dedicated to providing good quality childcare and i can do that by giving the children lots and lots of opportunity to PLAY in a safe rich environment we all prove that year after year as we send happy,well balanced competent 4 year olds to school.All my staff are qaulified we all go on up to date courses to help us provide the children with the very best.We go through the stress of ofsted and come out on top but it still isnt good enough and by incorporating b 2 3 with the foundation stage surely that is following a currucilum.

However iknow that as a practioner we have wonderful opportunities to further our education and by reading all the wonderful enthusiastic post on here those doing it are enjoying it immensly but if they get their way the fact the ratio will be 1.13 in our daycare settings between 8 and 4.30 is wrong and may mean having to get rid of staff!its of saying we have a choice but how are they going to pay you a teachers wage otherwise?subsidised from the government?I somehow dont have much faith. no we will continue to do the work for less money or move into schools and childcare centres!OMG WHERE DID ALL THAT COME FROM?I feel much better for that can continue my day now thanks

[AnonyMouse_3139]

I didnt read the document as indepthly as I might have but I saw the introduction of QTS or level 6's as reducing the of ratios for the children, settings becoming more 'educational' and the loss of experienced and well qualified staff as settings stretch their often tight budgets to pay QT's. I dont think the introduction of higher level qualifications will necessarily benefit the children if it means there are less adults in the room and I hope it's a concern that will be looked at during the consulation period. I have nothing against QT's but I dont think they have a role necessarily in early years, especially with under 3's. We have all been around long enough to know that with our mostly level 3's we havent done too bad a job under an ever changing system, we have satisfied Ofsted, and our local early years departments and achieved more than even we thought we would especially at the start of the FSC, when we had to rethink a lot of what we were previoulsy led to believe was the 'right way' It's the system that has failed some of todays young people, not a lack of teachers in early years. My oldest son's common sense has had to take a back seat to learning how to pass exams and tests rather than helping him to think for himself. I saw my youngest son lose his enthusiasm for science because Y5 was spent practicing for SAT's rather than providing opportunities for learning about it. Teachers are struggling to deliever a curriculum that leaves little room for following childrens leads from what I can see so I can only see a downturn if under 3's are to be 'taught'. It's like taking a step back to when I started school, one teacher and 30 children, all sitting a desks because that way we could be kept under control. We didnt suffer too badly because we had no game consoles, videos/dvd's, multi channel tv's, so we still had chance to play and explore once we left the building. Todays children have sedadatory lives so the need is for more adults in their nursery settings not less so they can be allowed to fully explore and meet any challanges.

 

Course, I could be wrong

[Guest]

i think its being taken very literally

and it shouldnt

 

under three's are not subject to an education curriculum but they are expected to have quality expereinces that will enhance their development

 

some of it is about development and some about education

 

and as for after school then this is not (as I understand it) a learning time, its leisure so should be filled with quality leisure activities.

[Guest]

One of our mums who is a childminder has already been criticised by OFSTED for not delivering the curriculum because she allows the children to play after school while she prepares tea.

 

Well, no doubt the children should be 'preparing their own tea"

 

Here is an extract from my recent Ofsted Inspection Report;

 

It is to me a bit contradictory, ie:

"educational content is sometimes lost because the emphasis is on what they enjoy, rather than what they learn. "

However within the same paragraph- "children are often engrossed in their play; they are encouraged to be curious and spontaneous which undoubtedly broadens their knowledge"

 

BUT THIS IS NOT ENOUGH

 

" The reading area is not particularly comfortable" - so much so that it goes on to say "but children visit it regularly"...........and..........."the range of books encourage the children to read for pleasure and to improve knowledge"

 

Sponteneity, Enjoyment, curiostity, working purposefully, being busy and having fun, IE;PLAYING, it appears, does not = Learning.

 

I also wonder how settings such as Montessori or Steiner will be able to maintain their individual ethos whilst also following the new EYFS, just a thought

 

Peggy

 

i think its being taken very literally

and it shouldnt

 

under three's are not subject to an education curriculum but they are expected to have quality expereinces that will enhance their development

 

some of it is about development and some about education

 

and as for after school then this is not (as I understand it) a learning time, its leisure so should be filled with quality leisure activities.

 

 

I understand what you are saying about how the EYFS should be interpretated. My concern is that if I wanted to have an early years setting that chose not to follow the EYFS, then this would not be possible because I would not be able to get registration from ofsted.

This is where I see that choice for parents on what type of setting they send their child to, is lost.

 

Peggy

Ofsted_extract.doc

[Guest]

Wow!! Thank Goodness I am a member of this forum to be able to have such a current insight to the thinking and be able to form opinions of all that is happening in early years, it is mind-blowing!

I feel privileged to be part of this ongoing debate and be privy to the expertise and views on these proposed controversial changes - one glass of wine and I can't type, will leave it at that for tonight and return tomorrow!!

[AnonyMouse_4544]

Well, no doubt the children should be 'preparing their own tea"

 

 

However within the same paragraph- "children are often engrossed in their play; they are encouraged to be curious and spontaneous which undoubtedly broadens their knowledge"

 

BUT THIS IS NOT ENOUGH

 

 

Sponteneity, Enjoyment, curiostity, working purposefully, being busy and having fun, IE;PLAYING, it appears, does not = Learning.

 

 

 

 

 

Peggy

 

 

I couldn't agree more Peggy

From what I understand talking to the mum in question she'd given the boys a choice of what to do and it being a lovely hot sunny afternoon they had chosen to go outdoors in the garden and kick a ball and splash in a paddling pool and this was seen as 'fun' and not helping their development. The rest of her report is very good but understandably she was upset by this one negative comment. I know she provides lots of valuable experiences at her own expense and the children are happy and well cared for. The parents are looking for 'childcare' NOT after school education!

Edited August 13, 2006 by Marion

[Guest]

I believe that we are moving towards statutory / compulsory schooling for children aged from 3 yrs. (Peggy)

I completely agree with you Peggy and most of the other comments here

Rosina

[Guest cathy m]

I also have many concerns about the proposed EYFS and the following comments are just a few of them!

 

I am concerned that it appears too prescriptive and some practitioners may be overwhelmed by the ‘curriculum’ and therefore neglect spontaneous learning opportunities, which are crucial to a child’s holistic development. I would like to know;

• How much additional paperwork is required?

• Who will fund additional training requirements?

• Why has the additional information about childminders not yet been made available?

• Will Ofsted inspectors be any more consistent in their approach and individual interpretations of inspections?

• What will happen if the Childcare Bill does not achieve Royal Assent, will EYFS then be abandoned?

 

A framework is a guide to good practice but many settings will view this as a formal curriculum. It is totally unnecessary for under 3’s to meet government targets and actually can be damaging, leading to disaffection with formal education.

 

The joys of caring for young children are in danger of being forgotten by the obsessive drive for academic achievements, tick lists and charts. Although the document states that EYFS children must not be tested this is ambiguous as assessments are used as a strategy for testing progress!

 

 

Children deserve our time, patience and involvement in their play. Part of our enjoyment is having fun, exploring new activities and learning with the children. I am not willing to surrender this if I believe the requirements to follow the framework will be detrimental to the care of the children. The framework can not guarantee that all children will achieve the 5 outcomes and the rationale that it will enable practitioners to know what is expected of them is debatable. It will not provide a level playing field because individual settings interpret information differently.

 

Just my thoughts but I recognise all of your concerns Peggy

 

Cathy

[Guest]

Very valid points Cathy.

 

How much additional paperwork is required?

How long is a piece of string? I have always found that paperwork is for the purpose of evidencing our ability, rather than for the benefit of the children

 

Who will fund additional training requirements?

Transformation Fund? I have always found that any training I have attended ie BTTM doesn't teach me anything new about children that I don't already know, just how to interpret the jargon.

 

Why has the additional information about childminders not yet been made available?

Your guess is as good as mine. Again, in the past it always appears that childminders are an afterthought. :wacko:

 

Will Ofsted inspectors be any more consistent in their approach and individual interpretations of inspections?

No, because believe it or not, they are human and therefore subjective. Maybe if they spent more time observing the practitioners interactions and talking / playing with the children to discover what they know, instead of reading the practitioners paperwork, they may get a better idea of the reality and the quality of the Early Years practitioners' practice in action.

 

What will happen if the Childcare Bill does not achieve Royal Assent, will EYFS then be abandoned?

It seems to have got to the stage of no return, but hey, wouldn't it be interesting to see the reasons why, if it didn't make it and to see what would be put in it's place.

All I want is for children to be able to get their childhood back. How dare the government take it away from them.

(My main frustration is not knowing how, or being able to to stop them)

 

Peggy

[Guest MaryEMac]

Hear Hear for that last comment Peggy.

Have these people in high places forgotten that these pre- schoolers are still babies !!

At our school this summer they had a 3 week visit from a swiss teacher. She popped into the playgroup and was horrified at what the children were expected to do and achieve. I believe that in Switzerland, they don't start anything formal until they are 6 yrs old. perhaps we should take a leaf from their book?

 

Mary

[AnonyMouse_3139]

I think there was a government funded look at that Mary but it appears they chose to ignore their own findings. Was it Ofsted that did it? Foggy memory I'm afraid

[AnonyMouse_4544]

Think this might be the study Rea mentioned

http://www.inca.org.uk/pdf/early_years.pdf

[Guest]

Think this might be the study Rea mentioned

http://www.inca.org.uk/pdf/early_years.pdf

 

 

ooh, you are so well researched Marion, thanks for sharing. When my alcohol induced brain is functioning I shall give that link a look. I was fortunate to spend a 2 week visit to sweden in 1998 ish, to see their educational system, and yes it was very inspiring. ( I have commented, more than once, in previous topics).

There is a also lot of information from research from Tricia David on this subject.

One important fact is that most of the early years practitioners are graduate qualified and have the same cudos as qualified teachers. The early years training is much broader than ours ( not confined to such an academic focus) it covers the arts and the development from age 0-99yrs.

 

Children start school aged 6/7yrs, and even then it is play / holistic based ethos. They are very commited to children experiencing the natural world, the outdoors and active learning.

 

Even though schooling doesn't start until later, most pupils remain in higher education to at least age 21 years. ( maybe they are not burnt out and still have a thirst for learning).

 

I do believe that the research shows that childrens reading and writing is more advanced than our children who start 'learning' it earlier. They have much more experience of learning within their own contexts compared to the british teaching style.

 

unfortunately, as you have said, this has been ignored, maybe because results aren't shown within a short term 'political' term, but more so shown to be of benefit in the long term.

 

Peggy

[AnonyMouse_3139]

Thanks Marion, I didnt know it was from my own fair city. Will definitly read it.

[AnonyMouse_6361]

I would love to know how between Sept 07 to Aug 08 are they going to retrain all childcare practitioners to use the new EYFS, well consdinering I have only just received my training for B23 having been out for nearly 3 years!!!

 

 

Does the govenment think lots of paperwork helps us practitioners thus spending less time with the children, I have seen this in practice in the last few years.

[AnonyMouse_4544]

I think there was a government funded look at that Mary but it appears they chose to ignore their own findings. Was it Ofsted that did it? Foggy memory I'm afraid

 

 

http://www.nfer.ac.uk/publications/other-p...nt-research.cfm