|
Letter to the
minister re: EYFS
Click here to download a pdf of this
letter to print
Click here for the reply
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
<<< back to news |
Education
