We wish to highlight once more one of OpenEYE's core concerns, which we now have even more grounds for believing has major unintended negative consequences for children as young as five and under; that is, the unjustified and unnecessary imposition in the EYFS of a Statutory Framework for Learning & Development.

As clearly stated in our original Downing Street petition which received 10,000 signatures in support, we would like the framework changed to one of guidance only. Not least, it is an unproven assumption that such a framework will help the more disadvantaged children in society whom, of course, we all wish to support - thus, there is no evidence-base whatsoever to support this aspect of early-years policy, and a wealth of anecdotal and circumstantial evidence that strongly contradicts it.

There are many, far more appropriate and effective ways in which socially disadvantaged children can be supported through enlightened public policy interventions, which do not remotely resemble the compulsory, standardising early 'learning goals' and outcomes of the EYFS; for the latter, in themselves, have the potential to create even more disadvantage to these children by invoking 'early failure'.

Many of the items that we highlight in our newsletter speak strongly to this core issue, and we feel strongly that it is simply unacceptable for these concerns - which resonate with practitioners right across the sector - to be ignored by Government any longer.

OpenEYE has made several constructive approaches to the new Early Years minister, Dawn Primarolo, asking for a meeting to discuss our concerns, and we have yet to receive a response. We feel that this is symptomatic of the current government's lack of openness to authentic dialogue. The Early Years are simply too important to play 'political games' with and we remain committed to challenging policies that are potentially damaging to young children, from whatever political quarter or party they might emanate.

With the anniversary of the introduction of the EYFS we thought that we should take the opportunity to clarify our other concerns:

(1) It is still far too early to say whether, taken as a whole, the EYFS has been successful or not. Not least, we will need to see a substantial number of post-implementation Ofsted reports to find out whether settings are being appropriately assessed and advised by Ofsted inspectors in relation to their interpretation of the EYFS.

(2)  There are severe doubts as to whether practitioners are prioritising the quality of their settings in relation to children's real developmental needs, rather than prioritising how many 'brownie points' they can earn from Ofsted. Whilst the two are not necessarily unrelated, choosing the latter over the former is likely to have dire consequences for children's development.

(3)  The issue of the literacy goals has not been addressed at all, despite continuing complaints and representations from across the early years field (including a recent public admission by strong EYFS supporter, Bernadette Duffy, that the literacy requirements have no research base), and the Rose Review's missed opportunity to recommend that these controversial goals be held back for at least a year - when all the evidence and informed opinion points to it being the correct and appropriate change to make. For example, the recent 'Early Education' (EE) questionnaire results, based on the QCA's EYFS survey, has thrown up significant disquiet about the literacy requirements of the EYFS. In addition, the EYFS recommendations made in the recent Select Committee's report underline these concerns - viz:'we draw the Department's attention to the near universal support for the reconsideration of the Early Learning Goals directly concerned with reading, writing and punctuation'. This further belies the current claims about the alleged 'universal embracing' of the EYFS.

(4) We are also very concerned, however, that as many as 7 in 10 of respondents to the EE questionnaire did not question the EYFS literacy goals. This suggests that there may well have been a kind of compliant, uncritical acquiescence to the state's imposed but misguided model by many early years staff - a possibility that has concerned Open EYE all along.

(5) There has been a woeful lack of precision about what the term "EYFS" is actually referring to in virtually all public discussions about the framework, and it has increasingly become a non-discriminating generic term (rather like 'hoovers' for 'vacuum cleaners'). There is much in the practice guidance which, as a framework, can be a useful resource as long as the age-related grids are not taken too literally. However, this usefulness should not be used as an expedient smokescreen for obscuring those politicised aspects of the compulsory framework which are highly contentious, have no evidence base, and which many practitioners and academics are continuing to challenge strongly.

(6)  The recent QCA's EYFS questionnaire survey is inadequate and methodologically flawed, with questions that are non-sensical, and leaving little if any space for critical comments about the EYFS to be made by practitioners. Any results it produces must therefore be treated with extreme caution.

(7) Re childminders: approaching 1,000 citizens have now signed the Downing Street petition asking that the EYFS be dis-applied in the case of childminders. The government has responded with extraordinary complacency to the precipitate decline in the number of registered childminders, at a time when it is arguing that we need a growing supply of childcare places. It seems that the government simply dare not admit the obvious - i.e. that the concerted decline in registered childminders since EYFS was introduced is directly linked to the inappropriate bureaucratisation and 'schoolification' of childminding that the EYFS introduces. Recent Ofsted documentation for childminders also explicitly states that childminders have a legal requirement to provide an 'educational programme' for their children. This represents yet another ratcheting-up of the insidious 'schoolification' of early childhood experience, which many authoritative commentators, including Open EYE, believe to be undermining the psychological foundations of a healthy childhood.

(8)  The one completed attempt to date to apply for a principled exemption from EYFS, by a childminder from Warrington, was summarily refused, and for reasons which are very difficult to understand. Whilst this is being pursued with the Department, it does confirm Open EYE's fears that the EYFS exemption process has been deliberately designed to make it virtually impossible for anyone to succeed in negotiating it successfully. Following the recent concession on exemptions for Steiner settings, as a matter of equity, it is essential that any other settings which object philosophically or pedagogically to the statutory EYFS learning requirements can also be granted exemption, for the Steiner movement's concern that the literacy, numeracy and ICT requirements are inappropriate is shared by many non-Steiner practitioners throughout the field. Open EYE would also hope to see a positive response to any exemption application made on the grounds of a deeply held personal conviction, whether of institutional or parental origin, as this would demonstrate a true commitment to diversity and parental choice in matters of education.

(9)  As predicted by Open EYE, the non-statutory, age-related development matters grids are being used to represent normal development - in spite of the fact that they are deeply flawed, and in some cases non-sensical.  Children are now being routinely assessed against these grids, and local authorities (through the LA outcomes duty) are making judgements about settings based on the numbers of children who appear to achieve well. Children and settings deemed to be failing are targeted for extra support. This 'audit culture' should have no place in early years, where children's development is naturally varied, and where any pressure is likely to cause anxiety and damage to self-esteem.
 
(10)  Finally, it is concerning that, far from encouraging the school starting age to remain at 5 and beyond, there is now a new policy arising out of Sir Jim Rose's recent primary review, to get children into school as soon as they are 4. This is highly regrettable, and there is certainly no research evidence to support such a policy shift. It also strongly suggests that the recommendation by the government's own Early Education Advisory Group, that the government should review school starting age and extend the EYFS to the end of year 1, is being ignored by the DCSF.

 

First Minister Rhodri Morgan hailed the start of the roll-out of the Foundation Phase in September as a landmark day for children in Wales.

"The Foundation Phase - Wales' ground-breaking learn through play-based curriculum - is being rolled out to 3 to 4 year olds in this academic year and will continue until 2011 when all children aged 3 to 7 will benefit from this new and exciting approach to learning. 

The focus of the Foundation Phase is on children learning through experience rather than more formal classroom-based lessons. It is designed to meet the developmental needs of all children, so that more formal teaching is introduced when the child is ready to benefit from it.

Albert Einstein once said 'It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education.' Our revolutionary initiative is a break with 125 years of British traditional formal "learn through learn" education. That is a major step for a small country like Wales to take on its own, in UK Terms. But I don't believe we will be on our own for long."

Jane Hutt added: "Having drawn on best international practice from countries such as Denmark, New Zealand and Italy in introducing the Foundation Phase we believe that the pay-off of this radical new way of learning will be long-term and its impact will be felt for many years to come."

OpenEYE fully supports the Welsh approach which acknowledges the dangers of imposing formal targets and outcomes on young learners.

Read the full press release

Read the Nursery World article

Aislinn Laing in the Daily Telegraph picked up on a research report showing that children who behave badly during their first few weeks of school run the risk of being judged and then treated differently as troublemakers, even if their behaviour then improves.

"Reputations can start to solidify within the first term," said Maggie MacLure, professor of education at Manchester Metropolitan University and co-author of the study, 'Classroom behaviour: why it's hard to be good', funded by the Economic and Social Research Council.

Siobhan Freegard, founder of the website Netmums, is quoted as having concerns that 'summer babies' born in July and August, particularly struggle as they are sometimes a whole year younger than their contemporaries.

OpenEYE agrees with Siobhan and thinks that this is when great damage can be done to young children's sense of confidence and worth. They can develop barriers to learning that can potentially impact on them for life.

The research was conducted in the reception classes of four schools in Greater Manchester.

Read the full Daily Telegraph article

Phil Beadle provided a very relevant article in The Guardian reflecting on his own three and a half year old son, Lou.

"When my son does go to nursery, I'd like him to do the stuff he's good at: playing, jumping, dancing". The Statutory Framework for the Early Years Foundation Stage Goals has me worried for poor Lou, though. I suspect that, according to the government's Early Learning Goals, he may already be a significant underachiever, and, when he finally gets to nursery, they will have him swiftly recorded on a register of children who are already deemed failures, and are at risk of becoming poly-drug-addicted crazies.

Of the 69 separate targets he is to be assessed on over the next year and a half, there are many that may be beyond him. He is to write "phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words", which, given that at the moment he thinks pens are good for sucking and poking, I think he may fail. He is "to write stories and instructions". "Dear Dad, get my dinner now (you bloody-hell-idiot)," all of which are to be punctuated, "with some consistency". In terms of numeracy, he is expected to be fluent in concepts of quantity, "more" or "less", "greater" or "smaller"; perhaps even going as far as mastering the "less" and "fewer" conundrum that remains resolutely beyond his poor innumerate dad.

He is also to use "information and communication technology, and programmable toys to support her/his learning", despite the fact that such technology, with its flashing lights and bright colours, is bound to divert him - from the books we keep shoving under his nose - in the direction of computer games that will ruin his attention span and teach him that shooting people who disagree with him is normal behaviour.

In all honesty, the framework comes from a good place. Its intent being to narrow the class-based disparity in achievement that appears so early and is never closed. It is admirable that the government is seeking to address this. However, in making the framework statutory, it puts early-years providers under the Ofsted-driven pressures that have so narrowed the learning on offer to year 6 and year 9 students.

The same curse that afflicts primary and secondary education will be visited on toddlers: providers will be forced to spend so much time proving that they are doing the job that it will reduce the time available to actually do it. Rather than teaching, looking after, keeping secure, giving kids a gentle introduction to formal organised environments, playing, running and jumping, nursery education will be provided by teachers with half an eye on the class and half an eye on a clipboard: a clipboard that will nag them into bouts of feverish ticking, when they could be dispensing with a kind word, a fantastic piece of papier-mache or a much-needed cuddle. And how much longer, I wonder, given our government's eagerness to ensure future generations are in a position to compete with emerging economies, before there is a pre-early years stage, where, with the use of a gynaecological version of an ear trumpet, midwives are required to take future school students through pre-natal phonics drills? Careful now."

Read the full article

We were sent a very interesting article from the Boston Globe that echoes OpenEYE's concerns. It talks about the fact that in the USA a new emphasis on testing and test preparation -- brought on by politicians, not early education experts -- is hurting the youngest students.

"This is kindergarten, the happy land of building blocks and singalongs. But increasingly in schools across Massachusetts and the United States, little children are being asked to perform academic tasks, including test taking, that early childhood researchers agree are developmentally inappropriate, even potentially damaging. If children don't meet certain requirements, they are deemed "not proficient." Frequently, children are screened for "kindergarten readiness" even before school begins, and some are labeled inadequate before they walk through the door."

From the emails that we receive it is clear that such issues are profound ones that go to the heart of what early learning should be all about and that resonate with experienced teachers and researchers throughout the world.

Read the full article here

In her Nursery World article Wendy Ellyatt suggests that while Britain's early years practice has benefited from investment and research, truly innovative thinking may be at risk of being stifled by overly rigid government-imposed frameworks.

"In the same way that all advances in science come from the ability to think beyond what is currently considered possible, advances in education need the same kind of freedom.

If we constrain all settings to adhere to too rigid a norm, we run the risk of stifling pedagogical creativity and innovation. For example, many parents in the UK send their children to Steiner or Montessori schools because they feel strongly about the underpinning philosophies, and yet both are compromised by the nature of a statutory framework.

Diversity brings a richness of provision and a level of parental choice that is highly valued elsewhere in the world. In the US, the charter school movement has been very successful, with nearly 3,000 new schools launched since state legislatures began passing charter legislation in the 1990s.

More than a decade ago, Sweden reversed its long history of centralised administration to allow parents to choose the type of schooling that best suited their children. The Frontier Centre for Public Policy said in May 2005:

'The beauty of the system is its opening up for diversity; a thousand flowers are allowed to bloom. Gone are the days when educational offerings flowed from one grand, conformist plan meant to fit all, but inevitably failing to do so. The current school diversity reflects the fact that children are moulded in quite different shapes. Religious schools, pedagogy-based schools and schools with different profiles have been started. Ideas that would not have otherwise been tested are now realities.'

It is wonderful that the early years are now seen to be of such importance. We need to be careful that in our pursuit of outcomes and standards, we do not create such rigid systems that we constrain the inspirational pedagogues of the future."

Read the full article

Following childminder Pat Adam's exemption refusal OpenEYE campaigner Dr Richard House issued a response in Early Years Educator Magazine.

'This is an unbelievable state of affairs - and not least because it places childminders in an intolerable position of 'professional dissonance'; for to follow the state's compulsory, non-negotiable diktat would, in their view, harm the children in their care. Little wonder that the number of registered childminders has been in steep decline since the imposition of the EYFS last September - with this rapidly tipping into a childcare crisis across the country.'

 
Read the full response here

A mother who has applied on behalf of her child for exemption from the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) in England is believed to be the first parent to challenge the legality of the framework since it was made statutory a year ago.

Frances Laing, 45, of Chester, has applied for exemption on behalf of her daughter, who recently turned four. She said she had applied to West Cheshire Council for the exemption last month because she believes the EYFS learning and development goals are harmful to such young children and go against her daughter's human rights.

On 23 June, Annette Brooke, Liberal Democrat Shadow Children's Minister, asked Dawn Primarolo, Children's Minister, for her definition of the term "philosophical convictions" contained in the Early Years Foundation Stage exemption document.

Ms Primarolo replied, "Parents may apply to their early years provider for an exemption in respect of their child, where they consider that the Early Years Foundation Stage learning and development requirements, or some element of them, cannot be reconciled with their religious or philosophical convictions. The term religious and philosophical convictions is a concept that is understood in legal terms and appears in case law, such as that on the European convention on human rights. It refers to a cogent and serious belief-set or conviction worthy of respect in a democratic society."

Mrs Laing said she does not know when she will be told if her appeal for exemption has been successful. She said, "We cannot afford to get education wrong even before our children have started in the system. 

She has set up a blog about her experiences on www.parentsguidetoeyfs.wordpress.com

Read the full article

Charlotte Goddard in Children & Young People Now talked about a recent joint report from The Taxpayer's Alliance and The Institute of Directors.

According to the report abolishing Sure Start would save £1,456m from 2010-11 onwards. It says that, while the programme's "intent is admirable", Sure Start is "failing to deliver on its promises". The rationale is shown as:

Sure Start is the centrepiece of the Government's plans to eradicate child poverty by 2020. It aims to integrate a range of services, including childcare, health and early education. Introduced in 1999, local Sure Start programmes have been set up in disadvantaged areas across the country, run (in the main) by local authorities. The intent is admirable. But despite the massive costs of this approach, Sure Start is failing to deliver on its promises:

Sure Start schemes have not appeared to be helping disadvantaged children do better in school and society. Consistently poor SATs results reveal a distressing lack of change: two out of five of this year's 11 year olds (a cohort who would have had at least some access to Sure Start schemes from age two) will go to secondary school this September without having reached a sufficient level of competency in all three core subjects. Illiteracy and innumeracy remain a stubborn feature of Sure Start area primary schools (those with a high percentage of children on free school meals): in 2003 the percentage of pupils on free school meals achieving the expected Level 2 (or above) at Key Stage 1 was 69 per cent; in 2008, that figure had not changed, remaining at 69 per cent.

Read the article here

See the Institute of Directors Press Release

Read Melanie Defries' Nursery World article

Unions unite to stop daycare closures



Catherine Gaunt's piece in Nursery World highlights the increasing problem of nursery closures within universities and colleges.

"Unison, the National Union of Students and the University and College Union, which represents academic staff, claim that nursery provision is seen as 'a soft target' and that most of the closures appear to be taking place with minimal or no consultation. The unions have produced an action pack to help staff and students fight closures."

Read the full article

We had no sooner had the news of the new Vetting and Barring Scheme when it was announced that parents looking after each other's children would have to register with Ofsted! Graeme Paton swiftly produced this in the Telegraph:

'The rules were set out in Labour's Childcare Act 2006 and, in a little-noticed move, regulations were adopted two years' later.

Adults must register with Ofsted if they look after children for more than two hours on any one day - even if that time is split between an hour in the morning and over an hour at night. It means officials can inspect their homes to vet standards of care and ensure premises are safe. Inspections are carried out every three to four years.

The watchdog said regulations covered any childcare carried out for "reward". "Reward is not just a case of money changing hands," a spokesman said. "The supply of services or goods and in some circumstances reciprocal arrangements can also constitute reward."

It could apply to neighbours regularly looking after their friend's children during the summer holidays or for several hours after school to allow parents to work.

Dr Richard House, senior lecturer in psychotherapy at Roehampton University, and a founder of the Open EYE campaign group, responded on our behalf, "It beggars belief that Ofsted is now telling parents that a private co-operative arrangement whereby friends choose to take care of each others' children is against the law. It appears that the stealthy nationalisation of childcare is now proceeding at full throttle."

Read the Telegraph article

The Reciprocal Childcare petition was set up in response to the proposed new Ofsted regulation. At the time of Graeme Paton's article there were 1000 signatories and it now has 20,052 signatories - the 7^th biggest petition out of 4,538 petitions on the Downing Street website. It has already elicited a Government response (see below), illustrating just how effective a well-supported petition can occasionally be.

This is the introduction to the petition shown on the site:

Imagine this:

Two women from the same company give birth at similar times. When their children reach one year old both women wish to return to work on a part time basis. They decide to job share and undertake reciprocal childcare in order to minimise their outgoings and enable themselves to return to work. The children are very good friends and have grown up together as sisters and the two women are very good friends and trust each other to look after their child.

However, after a visit from Ofsted they have now been stopped from doing this. The reason? Apparently due to the law concerning childcare, this is illegal due to the fact that they get a reward for looking after the child (i.e. reward = childcare when they go to work!)

They have now been forced to put their children into childcare meaning they can't work as they wished due to the elevated costs. In a day and age when the Government want women to return to work, why is it made so difficult for people?

We are asking the Prime Minister to review the meaning of reward in the Children's Act to money and gifts so reciprocal childcare would be allowed.

If you agree, please sign the petition to show your support.

Access the petition here

The Government's response:

"The Childcare Act 2006 requires anyone providing 'childcare for reward' to register with Ofsted, with the aim of ensuring every child in a commercial childcare service is safe and well cared for. Parents would expect no less. However, our intention has always been that friends and families caring for children through informal arrangements should be exempt from having to register and we believed that was what always happened. In the light of this recent case we are talking to Ofsted about how we can make sure there's a shared understanding with Ofsted, and with parents, of what the law means and how it should interpreted."

John Tranmer, chairman of the Independent Association of Prep Schools, has challenged Government interference in how children are taught in the fee-paying sector. Talking about the EYFS he said that it represented the "thin end of the wedge" and warned that fee-paying schools were increasingly at risk from "hostile" policymakers.

In a speech to the IAPS annual conference in Jersey, Mr Tranmer said:

"It is fundamentally wrong that the government, or more accurately a collection of pseudo-educationalists and bureaucrats, dictate to us - to independent schools renowned for excellence - what we should be teaching.

We have the experience, the knowledge and the understanding to determine an appropriate curriculum for our pupils and it was a sorry day indeed when we lost that professional freedom. I think we are looking at the thin edge of a wedge and for that reason I shall use whatever influence and opportunity I have during this year to campaign to reverse the imposition of the EYFS."

Read the full article in the Telegraph

Childcare expert Penelope Leach has criticised MPs for making decisions on childcare and families when they do not fully understand the reality of life for today's parents.

'Speaking at the Edinburgh Book Festival Dr Leach said that problems with the options currently available to parents stemmed from the fact that policymakers have never experienced the same problems themselves. She said parents need more choice.'

Read the Nursery World article

 

Nursery World, 24 September 2009
 
LETTER OF THE WEEK - JOYS OF PLAYGROUPS
 
Almost 30 years ago, my chatty daughter started attending the local playgroup and told the leader that I was a Keep Fit teacher. Before I knew it, I was doing regular exercise classes there, then working every Monday, and eventually every day!
The playgroup thrived under an inspiring leader and wonderful staff team. There was a full register and long waiting list. The children started aged three and stayed until they were five - a whole two years.

We covered so much with them in that time. In the summer, they played in the little garden and in warm weather splashed in the paddling pools, with passers-by leaning over the fence to watch the fun - unthinkable nowadays, given all the concerns about health and safety and child protection.
There was no undue pressure on staff, just an annual visit from the local childcare person, to check all was well, and a termly visit from 'Nitty Norah' to check the children's heads - and ours!

We went on outings, with parents pitching in to help, had jumble sales, discos and the inevitable Nativity show at Christmas. None of this involved unnecessary paperwork or vetting, just parents volunteering their help. We didn't have to 'self-evaluate' ourselves - we knew our strengths and weaknesses without writing them down.

Then, 15 years ago, I took over the group when the leader moved away. All went well until local schools started opening their own nursery units. The children were taken from us far too soon, ill-equipped to cope with nursery life. Some 'brave' parents refused to send their children to school before they were ready, but numbers still fell.

After much soul-searching, I started taking children from two and a half years old. This change worked well initially, but soon the children were being moved ever earlier. Now we consider ourselves lucky if we keep them for a year.
The situation improved again when the Government introduced nursery funding for three- and four-year-olds, but now numbers have deteriorated so drastically that I have finally decided to close. For months we have been struggling financially, but I just couldn't bear to lose the playgroup, which has been so much part of my life. Imagine all the children, their siblings and indeed, even the children's children, who have passed through my hands.

I have been blessed with the most wonderful, dedicated and loyal team, who have become my extended family, and I have many stories to tell about the glorious mix of children that I like to think we have set on the road to a good future.
I have not agreed with many of the changes that have occurred over the years. I know life is different now, but I hark back to those early days, when our precious time was devoted to making the children happy, settled and sociable, rather than form-filling or following the latest policies and procedures.

I fear that playgroups will soon become a thing of the past. It will be a great loss - believe me, they are all doing a marvellous job and giving children a wonderful start in this difficult world. My best wishes to all of them!

Name and address supplied
 

As a small voluntary team it is nice for us to know that people at the grassroots really support what we are doing.

UNREALISTIC EYFS

Having worked with the EYFS since last September, I have become increasingly disillusioned with the new curriculum.
It requires me to drive children's learning journeys down a road that complies with the EYFS goals, many of which are unrealistic and fail to allow for the celebration of the many amazing individual things that children achieve naturally. Compliance with the EYFS goals undermines the foundations children need to build a successful personal and academic future.

When will the Government wake up and listen to the professionals? Research shows that children achieve more when they start formal education later. The solution is simple. If we want children to achieve and prosper, they need to start formal schooling and education later. The Open EYE campaign drives home this message and has a great video that explains this issue brilliantly. Have a look by following the link http://openeyecampaign.wordpress.com/video/. This campaign deserves our full support.

Name supplied. Read the item.