Independent Consultant Margaret Edgington

"In the newly published OFSTED Supplementary Guidance for inspectors of early-years settings, it is alarming that children are clearly now being expected to have reached all of certain (please note) non-statutory statements on the highly contentious Development Matters grids (see p. 14). This directly contradicts the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) practice guidance booklet, where it states quite unambiguously that the development grids are 'not exhaustive' and 'should not be used as a checklist' (page 11). It is of major concern that non-statutory grids are now being used to judge children both as individuals and as groups, and that OFSTED is now giving official guidance of this kind. One can only presume that they are 'delivering' what they know is the DCSF's real intention, notwithstanding the reassuring rhetoric in the guidance booklet.
 
This ominous development confirms the Open EYE Campaign's worst fears about the learning and development requirements of the EYFS framework, and the way in which they are actually being used as a developmentally 'normalising' device for very young children, thus directly contradicting the EYFS's increasingly disingenuous looking claim that the framework also honours 'The Unique Child'.

We have heard from several nursery teachers who are having pressure placed on them by head teachers because the children in their classes are judged to have made insufficient progress, and they therefore need 'to push them harder'. These children have commonly been in nursery class for just 1½ terms, are still only 3, are often learning English as an additional language, and still lack the confidence to speak to adults or join in with activities. Pushing such children will merely generate further anxiety, leading these children to withdraw even more. In short, OFSTED inspectors using this new guidance may only make matters worse for such children.
 
I see the distress on the faces of many of the practitioners I work with: I find it hard to believe that we have come to such a state of affairs, and I fear that neither of the major political parties will do what is necessary to rectify this situation. However, practitioners are increasingly beginning to question the statutory learning goals and the development-matters statements, with the reality of their impact on the ground really beginning to hit home. To be clear, Open EYE is not, and never has been, 'anti EYFS' per se; but we are strongly against highly damaging age-related expectations and targets being set for such young children."

University lecturer and Steiner teacher Dr Richard House and Montessori nursery owner Kim Simpson
 
"We have major concerns about the way in which the subtleties and complex qualities of children's unique developmental paths are being summarised in crude quantitative 'scores', which are then used as the basis for practitioner 'interventions' and policy-making. This is tantamount to a normalising 'audit culture' mentality surreptitiously colonising the lives and very psyches of our youngest children, and in this regard it is chilling to read in the new Ofsted guidance that 'The important comparison is whether children... have a scale score of six or more on each scale.' A truly 'toxic cocktail' is then created, with this audit-driven ideology combining with the widespread and understandable focus on early-years settings obtaining an 'Outstanding' grading from Ofsted. This in turn is having a strong impact on practice, with  practitioners' unquestioningly complying with what Ofsted is expecting, and the associated pedagogical practices. With so much in the EYFS being centrally stipulated in 'grids' and 'scale points', there is an insidious lack of basic trust in professionals' competence that so easily generates such unthinking compliance, and which cannot but be dis-empowering and de-professionalising.

A reformed EYFS framework needs unambiguously to emphasise the importance of 'following the child' and enabling children to develop healthy dispositions and attitudes as a first principle, and in a way that is not then directly contradicted by other aspects of the statutory framework.

More generally, it is becoming increasingly clear that there are effectively two quite distinct EYFS's that are misleadingly being conflated into one - namely, one which offers 'guidance', and one which imposes 'statutory goals'. Much of the extant positive rhetoric about 'the EYFS' non-discriminatingly refers to it as if it were one unified framework, when in reality it manifestly isn't. For whilst in reality, many practitioners would say they are in favour of the EYFS guidance, at the same time those same people have major difficulties with the statutory framework. Thus, for the DCSF to proclaim the alleged success of 'the EYFS' is grossly misleading, and amounts to cherry-picking just those 'mom 'n apple pie' aspects of the framework with which no-one would take exception.

We believe that the relentless assessment of children, target by target, is threatening to destroy children's deep sense of autonomy, at perhaps the only time in their young lives when they will have the opportunity to experience a profound sense of genuinely self-directed, relatively autonomous learning."

One of our conference speakers, Dr Sebastian Suggate, made Letter of the Week in Nursery World.

25 March 2010

LETTER OF THE WEEK



READING READINESS

I read with interest the letter from Debbie Chambers (4 March) in response to 'No grounds for learning to read at five, says researcher' (News, 14 January), reporting research conducted by myself and others. I am pleased that the points in her letter have been raised because three assertions in her letter are well worth considering.

The first assertion is that children who do not read, when they could have learned to, 'will miss out on a lot of constructive language development, social confidence and maturity and years of pleasure'. It is highly unlikely that children's language is improved by reading, until they are in their fourth or fifth year of school, simply because the richness of language found in books that young children read is inferior to what they could obtain from oral discourse. Social confidence and pleasure can be gained in many ways during childhood - without touching a book. If social confidence is undermined by not reading early, then that must be the fault of the educators and parents more than the child.

Second, willingness is not the same as readiness. Children are highly imitative creatures and I wonder whether this is often forgotten. Although a child may show willingness for an activity (for example, slicing pumpkin), this does not mean that the time is right to do so. Interestingly, there is a wealth of evidence suggesting that older children master reading skills more readily, thus calling into question whether one can describe younger children as 'ready'.

Finally, I suggest that reading is a skill that is not like walking or sitting. Reading involves translating inner and outer experiences into abstract symbols (that is, letters), which rely on the intellect to be deciphered. The question then is whether this earlier stimulation of the intellect really helps children's development. Interestingly, research from Professor Rebecca Marcon suggests that children in academically focused pre-school have initially slightly lesser development of motor, language and social skills, and even lesser academic achievement later on.

Dr Sebastian Suggate, researcher in psychology, University of Wuerzburg, Germany

Chris Woodhead responded to the following question in The Sunday Times in March. It seems that he shares some of OpenEYE's concerns.

QUESTION

My daughter is a registered childminder. She doesn't have any experience in teaching, but to be allowed to carry out her job, she has to stick to the early years foundation stage (EYFS) instructions issued by the government. These say that, by the age of five, children should be able to read and write a range of words, and use mathematical ideas to solve practical problems. This regime deprives children of rest and play time and puts excessive demands on their minders, which, together with poor pay, causes many carers to resign. Do you consider the demands on childminders to be reasonable?

ANSWER

No, I do not. The EYFS is a classic example of the government's desire to poke its bureaucratic nose into every aspect of a child's education. Define what has to be done, demand a paper trail of evidence to demonstrate compliance, and inspect.

Childminders should not have been subjected to these unnecessary demands. I am not at all surprised that so many have apparently decided that the job is no longer worth doing.

Kevin Avison, executive officer of the Steiner Waldorf Advisory Service,had this to say about the exemptions process in his letter to Nursery World:

EXEMPTION PUZZLE

QCDA are confused - aren't we all? David McVean's response (Letters, 4 March) to 'Exempt Steiner school outstanding' (News, 21 January) exemplifies the complexity of the exemptions process and the pitfalls built into policy regarding this part of the EYFS.

While the assertion 'No applications that have come through the QCDA have taken more than 20 weeks' is, I am sure, correct, Mr McVean fails to reckon with the total time for applications to be processed. Overburdened local authority departments have not infrequently sat on some applications and in some cases have admitted to puzzlement about their role.

The letter also fails to recognise the difficulty posed for inspection providers and settings receiving inspection. When an exemption request has been made on the grounds of educational philosophy and an inspection is due during the time this is being dealt with, Ofsted itself has taken a sensible and pragmatic approach. From the perspective of QCDA, this is untidy, but necessary given that the process of exemption, in seeking to be seen to be 'robust', succeeds so superbly in being unwieldy.

We certainly trust that Mr McVean, as the new Director of Curriculum Development, will prove equal to his words. Unfortunately, he has not been dealt a helpful hand of cards. The way the EYFS was introduced has created much unnecessary confusion, with a certain amount of back-tracking and ad-hoc solutions. The fact that independent schools with early childhood departments are registered with DCSF while free-standing early years settings have to register with Ofsted (which in this case makes them both registrar and overseer of regulation, a potentially compromising combination) is an example of the sort of the organisational incoherence that so often bedevils the work of practical educators.

A series of letters were published in the TES on the 19th of March under the title 'The early years are crucial - let's not accelerate children's learning'

Letters

To say reception teachers "have to deal with a lack of understanding among other teachers, headteachers, inspectors and advisers" is an understatement.

From 2005 until July 2009 I was a reception teacher in a small rural school. Our key stage 1 teacher had little knowledge of EYFS and refused to enlighten herself. On several occasions she persuaded the head to request that local authority advisers come into school to check I was teaching phonics and writing to an appropriate standard despite my sound results, my lessons judged as good and my targets met in terms of my performance management.
The final insult came when she published a list of complaints about the standards of children entering her class from reception, which she circulated to the head and all other teaching staff except myself.

I had no choice but to take advice from my union and my representative managed to extract an apology. I stayed another year at the school but my confidence and enthusiasm was damaged and I left teaching.

I accept my colleague was under pressure to reach her targets, but teachers need strong leadership to weather inconsistencies that have arisen in the early years recently.

Former reception teacher, Name and address supplied
 
Letters

The QCDA report on the conflict between government targets and developmental aspects of the early years foundation stage (EYFS) makes an obvious point.

In less advantaged areas of the country, it is impossible for schools to provide what children need to make long-term progress while satisfying the short-term demands of School Improvement Partners, based on the Government's literacy targets for five and seven-year-olds.

Children's natural development can be supported by good teaching, but it can't be accelerated. I meet teachers torn between these conflicting demands. Should they do what's best for the child and go into special measures, or satisfy Ofsted and damage their pupils' chances of success in the long term?

Please God, the next government recognises that it can't have it both ways.

Sue Palmer, Independent literacy specialist and author of 'Toxic Childhood'.

Letters

Your report on the new Qualifications and Curriculum Development Agency (QCDA) research into the impact of the early years foundation stage ("Foundation stage hits reception teachers hard", March 12) confirms many of the long-held concerns of critics.
No longer can the OpenEYE Campaign be accused of "scaremongering", when a QCDA survey discovers mounting paperwork, particular pressures to teach the 3Rs, major concerns about problem-solving, reasoning and numeracy, and with substantial numbers of reception teachers "not supporting the content or the demands" of the communication, language and literacy goals.

The error that is repeatedly made is in assuming it is developmentally appropriate for young children under five to begin quasi-formal literacy learning.

Dr Sebastian Suggate's research at Otago University, New Zealand, shows children gain little, if any, long-term educational advantage from early reading - a finding consistent with the Scandinavian experience, where later formal literacy does not stop these countries topping the international educational league tables. Those who start later avoid the negative side-effects (anxiety and reduced self-esteem due to early experiences of failure, a compromised love of learning, and so on).

How much more damning research will need to cross the schools minister's desk before pedagogical sanity prevails?

Dr Richard House and Kim Simpson, OpenEYE

 

This was a comment sent into us that came from a childminder

"There are very high overheads. For example, the Ofsted inspector who inspected me yesterday indicated that I should purchase a new computer for the children's free use in the playroom, in addition to our family one situated in the study, which they use at present. In addition childminders are expected to act as teachers in delivering the Early Years Foundation Stage, or the "nappy curriculum" as it has been dubbed. Assessing, planning, monitoring and developing care on 69 objectives set by Ofsted for children under the age of five."

Many media items covered the continuing problems of pre-school funding. The publication of the new Code of Practice confirmed many private and voluntary providers' worst nightmares with rules seemingly so restrictive that there is no longer any room to make up any funding shortfalls. Many are reported to feel that they are left with no choice but to pull out of offering funded places when the new Code comes into force in September.

Catherine Gaunt picked up the story in Nursery World:

"Leading from the front is a growing group of 12 nurseries and pre-schools in Buckinghamshire. But they are not alone in their fury. Nursery World has received angry e-mails from nurseries around the country. Many of them have written to the children's minister Dawn Primarolo and the DCSF about their concerns, but feel that no-one is listening and that no-one cares whether their businesses go under...

Many of those considering withdrawing from the scheme are good or outstanding providers, who employ well-qualified staff with high adult:child ratios, over and above the minimum requirements. Typically, they are experienced nursery operators of many years' standing.

What is clear is that, if substantial numbers pull out, the Government's laudable aim of universal early years provision for all three- and four-year-olds, with choice and flexibility for all parents, regardless of their background, will be hard to achieve."

And Nursery World Editor Liz Roberts added her own feelings about the issue:

"I found that I was still in the dark on various aspects after an admittedly fairly speedy run-through. And judging by the many phone calls and e-mails that we have received in the past week or so from anxious and/or angry providers, so are many others..

One problem is that something that seems quite clear in one section can then seem to be different or ambiguous in another. For example, the Code says, 'Local authorities should ensure that providers which they fund to deliver the free entitlement do not impose on parents conditions of access to which they must agree in order to take up their free hours, i.e. parents must not be obligated to purchase additional hours or pay lunchtime charges in order to secure free provision.'

Sounds fairly unequivocal, doesn't it. Yet later on there is much talk of partnership and negotiation between authority and each provider as to how they can 'contribute' to their local offer. And one large chain rang us to say they had had DCSF advice that they didn't have to offer just the free 15 hours to a parent.

And there is the question of 'extra lessons or visits' that 'don't come under the EYFS'. The holistic nature of the EYFS means that this is hard to grasp - trips out seem clearly within the EYFS, ballet lessons arguably less so. Will certain children have to sit on the sidelines?

Communication is needed - and quickly!"

Read Catherine Gaunt's full article

Sarah Cassidy, in The Independent, looked at the rising costs of childcare.

"The spiralling cost of childcare in Britain is exposed today by figures which show it can now cost more to send a toddler to nursery than to one of the country's most prestigious private schools.

Soaring nursery fees mean that some parents are paying up to £22,100 a year in childcare costs per child - a rise of more than 40 per cent in seven years. This is more than the fees of private day schools such as Westminster School in London, regularly ranked the top school in the country, where fees are currently £19,626 a year.

The cost of a nursery place for a child aged over two in England rose by 5.1 per cent last year - almost double inflation despite the UK being in recession, according to a survey by the charity, the Daycare Trust. Meanwhile, the average cost of a childminder increased by 6.4 per cent for children under two and 9.2 per cent for older children.

According to the charity's ninth annual childcare costs survey, a full-time nursery place for a child under two costs an average of £218 a week in London. But some parents are paying £425 a week, or £22,100 a year.

Read the full article

Read the BBC News item

EFYS impact on playworkers

Melanie Defries explored the possible shortage of holiday childcare over Easter due to the difficulty of recruiting suitably qualified staff.

"Holiday club providers say that it is unrealistic for them to be able to comply with the EYFS requirements that 50 per cent of staff should hold a level two or three qualification, because the workforce relies heavily on students who work only during their holidays and who are often pursuing alternative careers."

Read the full article

And another letter in the same issue by Early Years Consultant Cath Arnold.

"I was disappointed by 'Writing drive targets boys' (News, 7 January). In 34 years of working with young children, I have often noticed that boys seems less interested than girls in mark-making at the ages of thee and four. However, they also seem more interested in using their whole bodies to explore movement. At around the age of five, many boys 'explode' with writing and drawings that are often complex and fully formed.

My point is that while children's developmental paths may vary, they are more likely to fulfil their individual potentials if they are not 'driven' and 'targeted'.

How much longer are women (in Government and in the field) going to judge boys as lacking purely because they develop differently to most girls (and women)? I expressed my view at a recent Pen Green Research Centre conference to cheers from the audience, so I'm not the only experienced early years educator holding this view.

Let's make early childhood education better for young children, especially boys, by feeding their interests and watching the results.
Then we can stop worrying about boys 'lagging' behind, because they'll be forging ahead."
 

The Tudor House Montessori group has three nurseries in Burgess Hill and two in Lindfield, West Sussex.

Owner Carole-Anne Benson said, 'I am very happy to have gained outstanding in all five of our settings. However, we are always looking at ways to improve things, make changes and build on our good reputation.'


Read the Nursery World article

Ofsted has confirmed the appointment of two companies to take over the inspection of childcare providers in England.

Prospects Services, an education consultancy that employs around 1,200 staff in 60 offices, has been named as the firm that will take over inspections in the Midlands and the north of England.

Last week the Tribal Group, which offers consultancy services to a wide range of public sector organisations, announced that it had won a £64m contract to take over inspections in the south of England (News, 25 February).

The five-year contracts are expected to begin on 1 September.

Read the full Nursery World article

 

Five years on from becoming the first state primary school to introduce Montessori teaching, Gorton Mount Primary School in Manchester is producing a 'how-to' guide for other state schools that are considering adopting Montessori methods. Last year the school's Early Years Foundation Stage Profile results went up by 20 per cent in all areas of learning.

More than half of the 456 children aged from three to 11 years at Gorton Mount have special educational needs, with 69 per cent of children on free school meals and 45 different languages spoken at the school.

Read Catherine Gaunt's Nursery World article

 

The results of a study carried out by the UK think tank Demos has found that the most important influence on children is the quality of parenting they receive.

The findings are a reminder that whatever the developments of the modern world, parental involvement, love and consistent discipline are essential to provide a secure framework for children's development.

The findings based on more than 9,000 households in the UK found that although children from the richest backgrounds were more than twice as likely to develop qualities such as application, self-regulation and empathy which make "a vital contribution to life chances, mobility and opportunity", parental style and confidence, warmth and discipline were the key factors in developing social skills and in narrowing the divide between rich and poor.

Read Sally Goddard-Blythe's full article in Schooldays Magazine