Click here to download a pdf of this letter to print

Click here for the reply

Letter to the minister re: EYFS

Rt. Hon. Beverley Hughes MP.,
Minister of State for Children, Young People and Families,
Department for Children, Schools and Families,
Sanctuary Buildings,
Great Smith Street,
SW1P 3DT

3 March 2008

Dear Minister,

As we approach the date for the implementation of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) we considered it was timely to update you on the views of the British Association for Early Childhood Education (Early Education.)  We have also identified those aspects that received greatest support from members and those which still give concern. We believe these need to be addressed if the EYFS is to achieve its objective of improving outcomes for all children and especially the most disadvantaged.

At the launch of EYFS in March 2007, Early Education expressed support for the new framework. We appreciated that many of the concerns expressed during the consultation period had been addressed. The Association urges further developments in key aspects of the framework. For example to extend the EYFS ratios to reception classes, clarify the roles of QTS and EYP and to strengthen the requirement to access to high quality outside provision.

Our March 2007 position continues. We believe in the need for a statutory framework to ensure that all children have an entitlement to quality development and learning   opportunities. The EYFS is a statutory commitment to play-based, developmentally appropriate care and education for children between birth and five years of age. The EYFS recommendations for practice are broad and well balanced.

We strongly believe that developmentally appropriate means with proper appreciation of what a child brings to collaborative learning.  A lack of awareness by practitioners can betray this. Infancy research shows that we need to build on or grow from motives for discovery and telling with others that are evident in playful activity from birth. These motives have a primary place in all discovery and learning.

Feedback from members of Early Education since March shows that they welcome the introduction of the EYFS framework. Moreover, they would like to see the framework extended into Key Stage One. At our Annual General Meeting in November 2007 the EYFS was discussed and members passed the following resolution ‘Early Education will lobby for the continuation of the Early Years Foundation Stage to the end of Key Stage 1 and failing that, lobby for changes to the Early Learning Goals, which evidence from four years of Foundation Stage profile outcomes show are set developmentally too high.’

The British Association for Early Childhood Education, established in 1923, has always considered the age range birth to 8 as a phase of education. We therefore are delighted that in announcing a review of the primary curriculum  the Secretary of State, Ed Balls has asked Sir Jim Rose to advise him on whether some aspects of the EYFS should be extended into the primary curriculum………widening the curriculum opportunities for child initiated and play-based activity.   We have been approached to talk with the team working on the review and will take every opportunity to express the views of our members. 

We recommend that the DCSF

• continues the Early Years Foundation Stage to the end of Key Stage 1

• continues to use every opportunity to stress that the EYFS is based on experiential and active play-based practices and to separate the document from other non-statutory initiatives such as synthetic phonics which is leading to negative publicity for the EYFS.

Documentation

The EYFS integrates the earlier Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage (2000) and Birth to Three Matters (2003) both of which were developed by experienced early years academics and practitioners, and were enthusiastically implemented by practitioners from all sectors across the country. Uniting the current documents into a single framework has been welcomed. As one respondent to a recent Early Education questionnaire commented ‘’Good to have education and care in one framework, some very exciting resources’’ Another member said ‘’ we like the fact that everything is in one document.” We have recently been involved in training local authority advisers, early years practitioners and Ofsted childcare inspectors. In this training there has been much enthusiasm for the resource section on the CD ROM. This has been particularly welcomed by participants involved in studying for further qualifications. It will be an excellent support as we attempt to improve the qualification levels of the workforce.

We do however have concerns about the quality of the video extracts which are at times superficial and often do not exemplify good practice. There are some good quality videos which have been produced by the department which could have been used. Celebrating Young Children, Birth to 3 Matters and Continuing the Learning Journey are examples of video material which has impacted on practice.

We know our membership’s views through the many training events, conferences and branch meetings we run across the country. In addition we collected more detailed evidence through a membership survey. The majority of those who responded welcomed the principles and commitments. Members believe that these are at the heart of EYFS. They emphasise that the curriculum is much more than six areas of learning but is about responding to the individuality of each child in the context of loving and secure relationships. It is about creating a stimulating and enabling environment that will promote appropriate experiences for development and learning.

The majority of respondents welcomed the Development and Learning grids but the feedback from members also shows concern that the principles of the EYFS will be undermined by inappropriate use of the grids. Throughout the EYFS there is an emphasis on the ‘unique’ child who makes progress at his or her own individual rate and whom the educator needs to assess through sensitive observation. While it is not intended that the grids are used as sequential, linear steps of development with each child being expected to start at the first statement and progress through each regardless of individual differences, there is concern that without appropriate training however this is how some practitioners may use them. We have already seen examples of the Development matters section being used as a checklist for children’s progress.

We recommend that training, initial and continuing profession development, needs to put a stronger emphasis on a thorough understanding of child development  to ensure that the grids are used as intended – as a resource for practitioners to draw on as they wish and not a rigid programme they must implement.

The Early Learning Goals

The consistent evidence from the outcomes of the national Foundation Stage Profile is that some of the Early Learning Goals have been set developmentally too high. Two literacy goals out of the 69 early learning goals have proved over time to be purely aspirational for most children. The national data for previous years has been telling us that these goals are not pitched appropriately. Many reception teachers are demoralised by their lack of success in getting children to attain these and they are aware that this situation helps to develop a culture of deficiency for young children – identifying what they can’t do. The continued enforcement of these goals is leading to inappropriate pressures on young children to acquire certain formal skills too soon which could affect their current wellbeing and their future motivation.

We recommend that given these literacy goals are overly ambitious for most children, they should be removed or allocated to Key Stage One.

The Welfare Requirements

Just over half of our questionnaire respondents welcomed the Welfare Requirements as they currently stand. Members commented ‘Participated in the consultation and pleased with the final draft, however ratio and outside area should have been addressed;’ ‘While I think there is a great deal to welcome concerned that the welfare requirement are not clear;’ ‘Lots of elements of Birth to 3 Matters and the Foundation Stage but there are some missed opportunities such as outdoor play as desirable not mandatory;’ ‘The statutory requirements are weakened by reception ratios and outdoor areas.’

Qualifications

There is strong evidence that having early years graduates, especially teachers, working directly with young children leads to improved outcomes. The introduction of Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) is well intentioned and we hope it leads to the improvements in practice but currently there is too much confusion surrounding it. It is still not clear how EYPS and Qualified Teacher Status (QTS) relate to each other and these needs to be resolved. While a majority of respondents to our questionnaire welcomed the introduction of EYPS the vast majority did so with reservation and did not believe it had the same status as QTS.

While having early years graduates leads to improved outcomes for young children, having graduates with QTS leads to even better outcomes. So it is essential that graduates with QTS are retained as part of the early years workforce. This does not mean that QTS could not be improved upon. We want to see a greater emphasis on child development, learning from birth, partnership with parents and multi agency working in initial and continuing teacher training.

We recommend that

• a clearer definition is made of the role of the EYP and its relationship to QTS.

• complementary roles are established for those with EYP and QTS

• QTS is revised to include training for Birth to 7

• systems are put in place for a more straightforward route for practitioners to move from one status to the other with appropriate remuneration.

Ratios

The lack of consistency in requirements for ratios across all children within the EYFS is discriminatory. The ratio welfare requirements leave the majority of four year old children at a disadvantage, since most are in reception classes. Many children are entering reception classes at the beginning of the year in which they become 5, which means that some are only just 4 when they start school. In any other setting these children would be supported by a ratio of at least 1:13 and often lower.

In reception classes they have no such protection. While appreciating that in some schools additional staff are allocated to reception classes to improve ratios, we believe that a reliance on heads’ and governors’ understanding the importance of good adult: child ratios is not good enough. Good schools

will already have made themselves aware of best practice and will strive to implement it. However other schools, some under financial pressure, will accept the minimum requirements. At a recent training course a teacher spoke of the challenges presented in her school where 3 reception classes have to share 1 teaching assistant.

The key person system, which is, quite rightly, a welfare requirement will be impossible to properly implement in reception classes if the ratios issue is not address. The EYFS cannot be adequately implemented, both indoors and out, without two qualified adults (one of whom is a qualified teacher) working together. In our response to the consultation we said that in nursery schools and reception classes in maintained schools, ratios should be 1:10. In a group of 30 children reception classes would be staffed by a teacher and 2 nursery nurses. We note that from 2008 children in Wales will enjoy a ratio of 1:8 across the 3-5 age groups in all sectors

We recommend that legislation should be introduced so that Reception classes across England are firmly placed in the Early Years Foundation Stage and have the same ratios as all other providers educating children age 4 and 5 years.

Outdoor areas

In the consultation we stated that no funded early years provision should be without its own dedicated, safe and secure outside area for learning. We have noted that the expectation of the EYFS is that all children should have opportunities to outdoor curriculum experiences on a daily basis. However we have not changed from our initial view.

We recommend that:

• an aspiration target be set which ensures that within a given time frame all funded Early Years Foundation Stage settings have an outside area with statutory requirements as to its size and how it is to be used

• from September 2008 no group settings (other than home based settings) are registered without an appropriate outdoor area.

The need for more information on key concepts

The use of the terms ‘key person approach’ and ‘sustained shared thinking’ are not described in sufficiently rigorous terms on the cards. Therefore practitioners without access to the CD Rom may not use the background papers to deepen their understanding. This could lead to a dilution of two important concepts of effective practice.

We recommend that the background papers are made more available to practitioners.

We are supportive of the EYFS as a framework for improving practice. However, any framework is only as good as the practitioners who are using it. By investing in and enhancing the qualifications, knowledge and skills of the people who work with young children, we stand the best chance of making the EYFS principles a reality. That is something we all want. Early Education will continue to lobby for changes to the elements of the EYFS that we believe do not work in the best interests of children and to support and encourage those elements that that do.

We look forward to your response to the points raised in this letter.

Yours sincerely,

Iram Siraj-Blatchford                          Bernadette Duffy                                Anne Nelson
.President                                            National Chair                                     Chief Executive