The manual for the Early Years SENCO is a great example of a practical book, pitched at just the right level for a new Special Educational Needs Coordinator (SENCO) or someone who needs extra support in this vital role within a nursery.

The Chapters take you through getting organised (locked filing cabinets and calendars), SEN policies, the SENCOs role in a fully supportive team and onto supporting children in the setting.

There are many examples given of the type of support different children may require, as well as how to record these in Early Years Action, Action Plus and Statutory Assessment.

Working effectively with parents and other agencies is covered in the last two Chapters.

There are 2 outstanding elements to this book:
Firstly that the advice is practical and clear. All the information for a first time SENCO is detailed in a logical and methodical order. The significant difference between integration and inclusion is clearly outlined. Writing an SEN policy is explained, with example of long and short policies included.

The format of the paperwork is explained, from Individual Education Plans (IEPs) to different types of observation forms.

Secondly the CD ROM which accompanies the book has 3 power point presentations which can be used immediately for staff training. This is invaluable and really underlines the role of the SENCO as coordinator rather than the misguided notion, that so many managers have, that the SENCO should be doing everything herself or himself.

In addition the CD ROM has blank forms which can be printed off, examples of SEN policies and case studies.

For the undergraduate student there are some academic references which can be followed up, but this is really for the SENCO on the ‘front line’, doing the job every day in a nursery or setting.

I also feel it has a lot to commend it if you are an experienced SENCO, particularly the power point presentations and case studies, which would be valuable for full staff training or training SENCOs to be.

I sincerely wish I’d had this book when I’d started out as a SENCO!

Drifte, C. (2010)(2nd Ed) The Manual for the Early Years SENCO London: SAGESimilar Posts:

• Cultivating creativity in babies, toddlers and young children by Tina Bruce
• Involving Parents in their Children’s Learning 2nd Ed by Margy Whalley
• Extending Thought in Young Children by Chris Athey
• Where’s Wally? And why it’s important
• Book Review: Early Childhood Education by Nutbrown, Clough and Selbie

The Manual for the Early Years SENCO by Collette Drifte is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

The EPPE report (Sylva et al. 2004) concluded that the best quality settings had a graduate led workforce.

The Graduate Leader Fund (or Transformation Fund) was set up in 2006 to support settings in achieving this aim. The idea was that settings could ‘home grow’ a graduate, by supporting their studies at University, whilst still working in the setting, or to assist a setting to recruit a graduate.

This would then enable graduates to go on achieve to the Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) – the gold standard.

But has spending all this money (£555 million) achieved anything in the last 5 years?

In July 2011, the Department for Education (DfE) released the Evaluation of the Graduate Leader Fund, researched by an eminent team and supported by the CWDC, Oxford University and the National Centre for Social Research.

Because the EYPS is still in its infancy (although there are now 7,500 EYPs), the research has used EYPs who have achieved the Status for 6 to 24 months. The two main questions to be investigated were:

• Does having an Early Years Professional improve quality?
• If so, which aspects of practice (and of quality) are most closely associated with EYP status?

(Evaluation of the Graduate Leader Fund p. 16)

I’ve done a couple of small scale research projects to explore the same questions and have found it incredibly difficult to unravel the Status from the person (see ‘Value your EYP’ on this website).

Similarly it is impossible to ignore the environment in which the EYPs work, physical and emotional. If there is already an ethos of implementing improvements, an openness to changes and a strong team, then the EYP stands a much better chance of making a positive contribution.

In the Evaluation of the Graduate Leader Fund, Mathers et al. have chosen to use the ITERS-R, ECERS-E and ECERS-R Environmental assessment tools (available from Amazon) which neatly side steps some of the issues.

These are a method of quantifying the quality of the setting and one that I always recommend to settings who know that there is something not ‘quite right’ but can’t put their finger on it. These audit tools enable practitioners to put a fine tooth comb through their practice and environment to identify which parts are functioning well and which need closer monitoring.

There are a myriad of findings and analysis from all the information gathered over the two year life of the project, which have been categorised into – The impact of gaining EYPS; Other predictors of quality; Improving practice in settings; Factors affecting improvements and Parents’ views of improvements, qualifications and their involvement in their child’s learning.

I was particularly drawn to the impact of gaining the EYP Status, the key findings of which were that:

• Gains were seen in overall quality
• EYPS provided ‘added value’ over and above gaining a graduate in terms of overall quality
• Improvements related most strongly to direct work with children, such as support for learning, communication and individual needs
• EYPs were more influential on the quality of practice in their own rooms than on quality across the whole setting.
• There was little evidence that EYPs improved the quality of provision for younger children (birth to 30 months)

(pages 6 and 7 – Executive Summary)

In addition, it was found that few EYPs were working in baby rooms, which mirrors my own experiences with EYPs. It seems to be felt that EYPs are best used in pre-school. Maybe because they will be expected to talk to teachers, write leaving reports or liaise with multi-professional teams?

I would suggest this is an area ripe for research and discussion with settings. If this can be analysed successfully then EYPs may be used more effectively and efficiently in settings.

EYP networks have plenty of support in the Report: “EYPs valued having access to continuing professional development opportunities through EYP networks established within LAs. These networks provided the opportunity … to share best practice. Networks also provided additional training, for example on specific elements of provision.” (page 99) and “Local networks were seen as a valuable resource for training and for keeping up to date with new developments” (page 100) and “EYPs identified both CPD and the role of EYP networks as key facilitators for ongoing development.” (page 106).

This is very encouraging. Currently networks are struggling for funding and EYPs are having to justify their time away from the settings. This research clearly shows how valuable the benefits are.

In conclusion, I would strongly recommend anyone in childcare to access the report on the DfE website because I have only picked out a very few of the findings and their possible implications here. The report is thorough, interesting and very relevant – just as you would expect from these authors.

Now let’s hope the Coalition Government take the time to read and understand it.

References

Sylva, K. Melhuish, E. Sammons, P. Siraj-Blatchford, I. and Taggard, B. (2004) The Effective Provision of Pre-School Education (EPPE) Project: Final Report A Longitudinal Study Funded by the DfES 1997-2004

Mathers, S. Ranns, H, Karemaker, A. Moody, A, Sylva, K, Graham, J, and Siraj-Blatchford I. (2011) Evaluation of the Graduate Leader Fund Final report. Research Report DFE-RR144

Image by JennySimilar Posts:

• Value your EYP
• Reflective Practice and the EYP
• EYPs – what’s next for Continued Professional Development?
• A Teacher by Any Other Name
• What is the purpose of an EYP network?

A Glimmer of Hope for EYPs is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

Having just completed the EYFS consultation document at the DfE website. I have serious concerns about some of the document.

1. The qualifications required are the bare minimum – Level 3 for managers and half of the rest at Level 2 – despite all the research (EPPE, REPEY, Tickell Review) confirming again and again that a graduate led workforce results in better outcomes for children.

2. “School Readiness”. Apparently the Early Years is all about ensuring the 5 year olds of England are “ready” for Key Stage 1. This has replaced play and emotional development as being key for children. In addition the Literacy Early Learning Goals have been altered.

The original EYFS required children to “Link sounds to letters, naming and sounding the letters of the alphabet. Use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words.” (EYFS, P.53) and “Attempt writing for different purposes, using features of different forms such as lists, stories and instructions… begin to form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation.” (EYFS p. 60).

However, the new EYFS requires children to “read and understand simple sentences in stories and information books, using phonic knowledge to decode regular words and read them aloud accurately… children write their own … simple stories which can be read by themselves and others.” (EYFS Consultation document, p. 9). This is a significant difference. Is the hope that by asking 4 year olds to write their own stories that the level of literacy will be raised?

A brief look at the research from around the world ( unicef vexen) shows that starting children’s literacy earlier doesn’t mean better results at age 11. In fact the later children start formal training, the better the long term outcomes for literacy. You would think the Year 6 teachers would be screaming for less literacy in the Foundation Stage.

3. Babies seem not to get a mention, except to say they must be segregated from other children. This is a massive shame. There is lots of research from many years to show that there are a range of benefits to mixed age groupings, including keeping siblings together, social development, nurturing, peer learning and emotional development (Cohen, 2002, Derscheid, 1997, Di Santo, 2000, Gmitrovaa et al. 2004, Goldman, 1981)

I know it wouldn’t be suitable for every setting, but to require that there is segregation removes all the learning opportunities which may be available for children in mixed groups.

This is why it is so important for everyone to complete the consultation form. These are my concerns and I’m pleased that I have the opportunity to voice them.

Make sure your voice is heard too.

The consultation ends on the 30th September 2011.

References

Cohen (2002). How the child’s mind develops. Hove: Routledge

Derscheid, L. (1997) Mixed-Age Grouped Preschoolers’ Moral Behavior and Understanding Journal of Research in Childhood Education Vol. I I. No. 2

Di Santo, A. (2000). Multi-age groupings in early childhood education: The affordances and opportunities of a multi-age child care model. Ottawa:National Library of Canada

Gmitrováa, V. and Gmitrovb, J. (2004) The primacy of child-directed pretend play on cognitive competence in a mixed-age environment: possible interpretations Early Child Development and Care Vol. 174(3), pp. 267–279

Goldman, J. (1981) Social Participation of Preschool children in same versus mixed-age groups Child Development Vol. 52 p. 644 – 650

McClellan, D. and Kinsey, S. (1999) Children’s Social Behavior in Relation to Participation in Mixed-Age or Same-Age Classrooms Early Childhood Research and Practice Spring 1999 Volume 1 Number 1

Image by sabianmaggySimilar Posts:

• Frank Fields’ Poverty Review
• The EYFS Review – part two – The Impossible Curriculum
• Value your EYP
• Book Review: Early Childhood Education by Nutbrown, Clough and Selbie
• What does Assessment mean?

EYFS Consultation document is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

With Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) in the news again for good reasons (supported by the Tickell Review) and not so good reasons (Providers lose their licence), the debate has once again opened on the value of the Status and its role in Early Childhood Education.

Early Years Professional Status was conceived after the Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) research found that a ‘graduate led workforce’ gave demonstrably better outcomes for children in preschool settings. However, since then the authors of the EPPE research have produced a book (Early Childhood Matters, evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education project, 2010 Sylva et al.) which clearly states that they had intended the Early Years to be led by qualified teachers (pages 19/20). They declare the current situation a ‘muddle in provision’ being followed by a ‘muddle in training’.

This leaves the dilemma of what role does an EYP fulfil?

Over the last 3 years or so I have met many EYPs. The vast majority are dedicated, passionate, enthusiastic and inspiring professionals. It is hard to say whether these people would be like this anyway, or if it is as a result of becoming EYPs.

But in most cases this is irrelevant.

The Status has given them the validation of being a Professional. Something to prove their dedication to Early Years to parents, Ofsted and other professionals. Although at the beginning EYPS was heralded as being equivalent to teacher status, (a strong contender for the ‘most regretted phrased ever used by the CWDC’ award) the terms and conditions and pay have never been equivalent and could never hope to be in a sector dominated by private and voluntary companies.

The Status has given them a way of combining the theoretical element of a Degree with proof that they can apply this to practice. This is to the benefit of the children and their families.

The Status has given them a way to identify and meet like minded Professionals. The EYP networks, Forum sites such as www.eyps.info and EYP Conferences enable EYPs to support each other, driving good practice forward.

There are now over 7,000 EYPs in England, implementing, encouraging and supporting good practice in every sort of Early Years setting. The Tickell review has clearly endorsed the ‘higher level qualifications such as EYPS’ (Tickell Review, p. 45), but it also suggests that further consultations are required on qualifications.

Does this mean that the 7,000 current EYPs would need to re-train again? If so, who is going to provide the training? Or maybe this will just be for graduates with non Early Years qualifications, as the New Leader course?

Whilst we wait to see which Universities will be awarded the licence for providing EYPS, and whilst the public consultation for the EYFS is still underway, let’s enjoy the calm, take a minute and value the great work that our EYPs do.Similar Posts:

• EYPs – what’s next for Continued Professional Development?
• A Glimmer of Hope for EYPs
• What is the purpose of an EYP network?
• Reflective Practice and the EYP
• A Teacher by Any Other Name

Value your EYP is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

I’ve just seen the most marvellous quote tweeted:

“All adults who come in to contact with children contribute to children’s education and are teachers whether or not they are called by that name.” Tweeted by Linda R at Beyondplaydough.

Coincidentally, I commented today on a forum about Teachers and Early Years Professional Status (EYPS), so this was already on my mind. The discussion had meandered into the treacherous waters of EYPS versus teachers. Teacher status is well recognised by parents and carers. They understand that teachers have usually gone to University and have had specialist training in effective teaching. Few parents and carers understand that the EYP Status is also post graduate and covers the full age range Birth to 5 years.

The reason for this could be that the EYP Status is still new, particularly compared to teaching.

It could be that EYPS hasn’t been advertised well enough by the government and CWDC.

It could be that parents and carers just want their young child to be happy and cared for by someone who loves and cherishes their child, as they would do themselves, whatever their qualification or Status.

And really that is the reason why the tweet made me smile. From the child’s point of view, they don’t care. Children are natural learners, investigators, scientists and explorers. That’s why babies love peek-a-boo games, why toddlers love to hear the same story over and over again and why pre-schoolers are fascinated with mini-beasts. Children just enjoy having adults who are interested in them, who are willing to engage whole heartedly in their play and have new experiences to share with enthusiasm.

The important thing for the adults is that they are aware that they are being teachers – like it or not! When a practitioner refuses to touch a worm, when the adults wont go out in the rain, when the children aren’t allowed to choose their favourite story – what is that ‘teaching’ the children?

On the other hand, there are those adults who will spend hours picking up the toy and putting it back on baby’s high chair, crawl into a den to read the story or spend time hearing both sides of the dispute between friends.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big, big advocate of EYPS and a graduate led early years workforce, whether that is called Teacher, Pedagogue or Directoress.

However, I’m also a big fan of young children being surrounded by interested, loving, caring, enthusiastic ‘teachers’, whatever their name is.

What do you think? Leave a comment below to share your view.
———-
Image by Pinkstock photos Similar Posts:

• A Glimmer of Hope for EYPs
• Value your EYP
• More men in childcare
• Are you a Sparkly Thinker?
• EYPs – what’s next for Continued Professional Development?

A Teacher by Any Other Name is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

Schemas are one of those things that divide practitioners, like fairies at the bottom of the garden. You either believe in them and are in absolute awe at how amazing they are, or you just don’t believe they exist. It’s really interesting when you discuss this with people and it’s extra exciting when a ‘non-believer’ suddenly says “That describes my key child exactly!!”

But first of all, let’s explore what a schema is. Athey (2007) defines schema as ‘patterns of behaviour and thinking in children that exist underneath the surface feature of various contents, contexts and specific experience’ (page 5). Nutbrown (2006) extends this to patterns of ‘action and behaviour’ (page 10). Schema are the repeated actions of children exhibited during their play, drawings, 3D modelling, movement and speech.

For example, for a child with a transporting schema, carrying (transporting) objects is the most important or engaging part of their play. Typically, a ‘transporter’ will pack everything into bags, prams or buckets and carry them around the setting. Sand play may consist of carrying the sand to the water tray. The bikes outdoors will be used to transport toys.

There are many different identified schema. Athey (2007) describes 10 graphic, 11 space and 9 dynamic schema (page 62) which vary from transporter to going through a boundary. She identified these through prolonged and in depth research of children over a period of 5 years, with a skilled team of researchers. So far, so good.

But why hasn’t everybody else spotted these and made the connections? As Athey comments (page 7) this hasn’t arisen from ‘common sense’, it is the result of research and pedagogy. These are the sort of things that you need to learn about and understand so you can see them hidden in the children’s play. Often during courses, as I am explaining the sorts of things a child with a strong schema may do, a practitioner or parent says, in surprise, “But that’s exactly what my child does! We’ve never really understood why” or “that has never made sense before, but now it seems so obvious!”

Once identified, the practitioner can use that knowledge to select activities and experiences which will engage the child. For example, if a practitioner wishes to engage a ‘transporter’ in some mathematical development, then counting toys into a pram, pushing them to the other side of the room and counting the toys out again is likely to be an engaging game. A child with a rotational schema will be intrigued by bike wheels, windmills and spirographs. By really tuning into the types of things that highly motivate a child, the most suitable sort of experiences, which support the child’s development, can be provided. A very practical book to use for activity ideas is Again! Again! by Sally Featherstone (2008), which gives lots of ideas for schematic play in each of the areas in a setting, such as water, sand, outdoors etc.

However, it should be noted that not every child has strong schemas, some children may only display schematic play for a short period of time before moving onto another schema or some children may never display schematic play. Which is where the non-believers come in. If you have never had a key child with a strong schema then it is quite far fetched to believe that, for example, a very young child can make ‘rotational’ connections in his or her drawings, movement outside and preferred toys. But once you have worked with such a child you start to see schema everywhere. In fact, you can start to see it in adults too!

Just like fairies at the bottom of the garden, once there is proof there in front of you, it is difficult to deny. Unlike the fairies, schemas definitely exist and are incredibly useful for supporting child development.

References
Athey, C (2007) Extending Thought in Young Children (2nd Ed) London: PCP
Featherstone, S. (2008) Again! Again! Understanding schema in young children Featherstone Education
Nutbrown, C. (2006) Threads of Thinking London: SageSimilar Posts:

• Extending Thought in Young Children by Chris Athey
• Treasure Baskets
• What does Assessment mean?
• Heuristic Play: a simple guide
• Are you a Sparkly Thinker?

Schema and Fairies is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

This is part two of the posts about the Tickell, or Early Years Foundation Stage, Review. In part one I have looked at the quantitative and qualitative data which was gathered during the consultation phase. Here in part two I’ve considered the 46 recommendations in detail and how these might affect practice in the Early Years. The report can be found here.

Arguably the biggest change recommended is “that personal, social and emotional development, communication and language and physical development are identified as prime areas of learning in the EYFS.” (page 21). Note that CLL has lost Literacy, which would appear as one of the “four specific areas in which the prime skills are applied: literacy, mathematics, expressive arts and design, and understanding the world.” (page 27). Problem solving, reasoning and numeracy has been re-replaced with mathematics. I feel this is a shame. To most people “mathematics” inevitably means numerical calculations rather than the much broader areas of spatial awareness, patterns and shapes.

Three characteristics of effective teaching and learning are recommended: “playing and exploring, active learning, and creating and thinking critically” (page 27) This is so children’s learning can be supported effectively by all practitioners, whether that is a play worker or childminder. This highlights one of the most thorny issues of the EYFS. It is a generalised curriculum trying to be ‘one size fits all’ which is very difficult. Make it too woolly and it will be open to misinterpretation (intentionally or otherwise). Make it too prescriptive and risk excluding sections of the childcare community. Whether defining characteristics of effective teaching and learning will solve this remains to be seen.

In part one I highlighted the fact that the EYFS doesn’t call for extra paperwork – it’s a perception that ‘everyone else’ has, from Local Authorities to Ofsted representatives. This is recognised on page 28 and on page 31 it is recommended that the paperwork should be “kept to an absolute minimum”. Who will be brave enough to be the first to buck the trend and ditch meaningless forms which don’t inform practice or support the child?

It has been recommended that the number of early learning goals (against which a child is assessed at the end of Reception Year) be reduced from 69 to 17. These are to be judged using a “simple scale” (page 31) of emerging, expecting and exceeding and link more closely to the National Curriculum. These do seem to contain a lot of statements for one early learning goal (page 72), but they have been grouped together in a sensitive and sensible manner.

Another very sensible decision is to allow mobile phones to still be used in settings (page 39). The vast majority of settings already have policies about mobile phones. After all, it is the way in which they are used which is the problem, not the phone itself.

The second recommendation (page 13) is that the framework remains statutory across the early years. The argument being that if it isn’t statutory then the areas of greatest deprivation, and therefore greatest need, will suffer the most. Having worked with a number of children’s centres around the country I would whole heartedly agree and think this is a thoroughly laudable recommendation.

Interestingly, when referring to independent schools opting out, Dame Tickell has suggested that they should not be exempted, and that the argument that all independent provision is superior to other provision is still to be proven (page 14).

Hopefully the recommendation on page 17, that the EYFS is available in more formats, more easily, will mean that we can get paper copies again. I sincerely hope so! My final copy of the EYFS separated from its spine during training on Saturday.

It is very encouraging to see parents and carers getting special mention (page 18). When Dr Margy Whalley spoke at the North West EYP Conference in March this year, she had plenty of good reasons for why this is good practice. Dr Whalley enthusiastically encourages home visits and has multiple examples of their benefits. At the moment I am reading Kate Wall’s book ‘Special Educational Needs and Early Years’ where she emphases the ‘partnership’ being a joint decision making one, including planning and assessment, if it is going to be truly beneficial.

However, I feel a little sad that there has to be a specific recommendation to give parents an overview of the EYFS when they start (page 18). I had imagined that this was good practice and would be happening as a matter of course in most settings.

The recommendation for a 24 – 36 month summary of a child’s development – written in conjunction with the Health visitor – screams “extra statutory assessment” and ” more paperwork”. In addition there is the question of access to health visitors and how parents will view this, particularly if they already have some concerns, but don’t want their child ‘labelled’. The hope that the practitioners will be allowed to exercise some judgement in this matter is optimistic. Adding an extra page to the ‘Red Book’ is a good idea, but this set of recommendations are best suited to parents who are engaged with their children’s learning and development already. Are they going to reach those families who are difficult to engage already and are sometimes the most disadvantaged?

Although the praises of the children’s centres and their work is truly sung on pages 25 and 26, the Review falls short of actually giving any recommendations, which is an opportunity missed.

It is recommended that written risk assessments be removed (page 41) – is this too much other way? This appears to be in response to childminders concerns that they are under the same regime as large childcare companies (see part one of EYFS review) and doing written risk assessments every day is clearly too onerous. Hopefully this wont tempt settings ‘not to bother’ with risk assessments, because they only have to be produced if asked for.

The 1:30 teacher to child ratio in reception classes is to be re-reviewed (page 30) because there is not enough ‘clear evidence’ to say this ratio is too high. Is the lack of evidence a demonstration of the hard work teachers have put in to ensure children aren’t penalised? For children to go from a ration of 1:8 to 1:30 in a matter of weeks, as well as coping with a change of setting, change of key person, change of routine and going from being the ‘big boys and girls’ to being the smallest in the setting again must be incredibly difficult. Maybe this should be reviewed from the child’s perspective first?

Overall the Dame Tickell appears to have listened carefully to the practitioners and educators who have been involved in the Review of the EYFS. There are lots of common sense recommendations and I can certainly recognise some of the dilemmas, such as Ofsted requirements sometimes being at odds with the EYFS. The bigger challenge may be that producing one curriculum for such a diverse set of child care situations – and pleasing everyone – may be impossible.

The summary of the recommendations start on page 56 of the Review report.

Similar Posts:

• The EYFS review – part one – much ado about nothing?
• Reflective Practice and the EYP
• EYPs – what’s next for Continued Professional Development?
• Involving Parents in their Children’s Learning 2nd Ed by Margy Whalley
• Extending Thought in Young Children by Chris Athey

The EYFS Review – part two – The Impossible Curriculum is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

So, the long awaited EYFS Review is out and being pored over by one and all. I thought it might be interesting to see what line of attack the media had on this one. Supportive? Derisive? Outraged?

The TES decided to go front page here and then misunderstood Dame Tickell’s view on phonics here. The Times went for the “nappy curriculum”, as did the Guardian, who focused on the exclusion of independent schools here. The Sunday Times (News Review, page 9) has a reasonably balanced overview, although I’m not sure that prior to the EYFS all “little ones would stay at home, having stories read to them, being taken to the playground and having friends over to play”.

Certainly in the media there have not been many objections or calls for a petition to stop the Review. So all in all, has it been Much Ado About Nothing?

I’m going to approach this by looking at the two aspects separately. First the statistics and information from the online questionnaire, literature review and qualitative study. The next post will look at the recommendations that have been made from these. This is because I think its important to understand where the recommendations have come from and the sort of things that practitioners (whether that is a play worker, teacher, childminder or early years practitioner) have asked for.

The EYFS Report on the Evidence (2011) can be found here and the Tickell review (2011) can be found here.

One of the impressive things is that over 3,300 people responded to the online questionnaire. That is a lot of people. However, it is still only 0.7% of the total workforce (DfE, 2010). Not even 1% of the early years childcare staff have had their voice heard.

Chapter one gives a brief overview of the situation so far. Chapter two deals with the welfare (mandatory) requirements of the EYFS and how these have already affected practitioners. The views reported here are diverse and many ‘depend upon the situation’. So, for example, doing a risk assessment for a setting which has an annual trip is very different to a risk assessment for a childminder who is out every day. But both situations are governed by the same piece of legislation.

The thorny issue of transition is dealt with at the end of chapter 3, highlighting the sorts of ‘top down’ pressure that many reception classes feel.

On page 35 (Chapter 4), 4.18 the biggest myth of the EYFS is laid bare. The EYFS does not call for extra ‘paperwork’. It asks for observation based assessments and planning. According to the review, the demand for paper comes ‘other sources’, for example the inspectorate or Local Authority. This is something which I have challenged practitioners on many times. “Where does it say in the EYFS that you have to fill out A4 folders of observations every week?” and, more importantly, “How does the child benefit from this?” Thank goodness this issue has been explicitly stated in the review.

The EYFS Profile is criticised by practitioners for being too bulky and time consuming. It is suggested that the results are not used by the Year 1 teachers (although, in my personal experience this is an educational law – “no educator will trust the summative reports of the previous key stage”) and that only a third of parents receive them. Combine this with the “highly subjective” and “wide variation” (page 37) that headteachers report and you can see why this has been targeted for change.

The key person, which was controversially included as a mandatory requirement, has been accepted by practitioners and parents alike. Although, understandably, teachers who have 30 key children are not so keen!

Chapter 6 deals with training and development of the workforce. The good news is that training levels are rising and more nurseries have level 6 (degree qualified) practitioners. Even better is the finding that Early Years Professionals (EYPs) are improving the quality of care and education that children are receiving. The biggest complaint was that training was patchy and not of a high enough quality. In many ways this is really good news. It means that practitioners are demanding more in depth, challenging courses and are really recognising the benefits that these courses bring.

What does this tell us about the sorts of things that practitioners have asked for? The underlying theme appears to be that, in general, the EYFS is well used and well respected. The additional ‘paperwork’ is more a demand from other sources than a requirement of the EYFS. There are some accepted good practices, such as key person. Levels of qualified practitioners has risen and is continuing to rise. The EYPS has been shown to improve outcomes for children.

What has been asked for is clarification in some areas, such as the EYFS Profile and smooth transition between settings.

In general this is a balanced Review, albeit based on the views of practitioners who had internet access and felt strongly enough, one way or the other, to respond. So maybe not ‘Much Ado About Nothing’, more ‘As You Like it’.

References:

DfE (2010) Childcare and early years providers survey 2009. London: DfE

Brooker, L., Rogers, S., Ellis, D., Hallet, E. & Robert-Holmes, G. (2010) Practitioners’ experiences of the EYFS. London: DfE.Similar Posts:

• Value your EYP
• Unicef Report on Childhood
• The EYFS Review – part two – The Impossible Curriculum
• Paying for summer holiday care
• A Glimmer of Hope for EYPs

The EYFS review – part one – much ado about nothing? is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

Yesterday I was at the most amazing training session. It was the last session on a course which I have thoroughly enjoyed leading and am proud to be a part of – the Early Years SENCO, run by Stockport Local Authority and certified by Manchester Metropolitan University. All ten sessions have been really informative and very enjoyable. However, the reason for particularly singling out yesterday’s session is that I now know why my husband can’t find Wally!

Let me explain. My youngest son and I often ‘read’ a Where’s Wally in the evening in lieu of a bedtime story. It sometimes gets a bit competitive, but is great fun. One night my husband was stand in for the bedtime routine and caused much amusement by not being able to find any of the characters. I did suspect at the time that he was doing this so he would be excused doing bedtime again, but no! The Occupational Therapists (OTs) running yesterday’s course explained that he may have visual perception problems.

Visual perception is partially what we see but is also linked to what the brain does with the information that the eyes send it – how it interprets the incoming data. The OTs went on to show some really simple, effective things you can do to improve children’s visual perception, such as covering most of a photograph and asking the children to guess what the whole picture is. The picture is gradually revealed to see if the children are right. Similarly, using jigsaw pieces and asking the children to guess what that is a small piece of. Simple, easy activities which support such a vital skill.

There were lots of other great activities and information around sensory processing, but discussing visual processing reminded me about a conversation I’ve been having with Kathryn Albany-Ward about colour blindness. She has the best website at http://www.colourblindawareness.org/ which has examples of what it looks like to be colour blind. Did you know approximately 8% of men are colour blind? So how many children in your setting could be struggling with this right now? And how often do we use colour as an additional ‘clue’ to help children? We may, in fact, be asking them to do the impossible! Do check out the website and see how you can support your children more effectively.

But back to why it’s important to have good visual perception. Without this skill there are problems with 3D awareness (a circle can represent a sphere, for example) and also visual spatial awareness (think of Escher’s pictures – what is a ‘finger space’ if you have no concept of ‘space’?). In the course of the morning a whole new world was opened up to me. For example, where does simply not liking messy play end and sensory processing problems start? It really was an amazing morning and I sincerely thank the OTs for sharing such valuable information with us.

However, it still doesn’t explain how Husband can find the bottle opener in the melee of the cutlery drawer but not Wally…

Similar Posts:

• Speech and Language and TV – what is the evidence?
• EYFS Consultation document
• Letters and Sounds
• Cultivating creativity in babies, toddlers and young children by Tina Bruce
• What is the purpose of an EYP network?

Where’s Wally? And why it’s important is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

An interesting article caught my eye this week, based around a mother’s conversion to the EYFS.

There a few things which also raised an eyebrow – “every setting in the country” should be “the majority of settings England”, for example. But the sentence which really intrigued me was that children should be allowed to be children and not “endure a continuous stream of observations and assessments”. The word that was particularly discordant was “endure”. In my experience most young children thoroughly enjoy having an interested and motivated adult watching and taking part in their play. There are many adults who enjoy being a part of children’s lives, which naturally involves noting the children’s likes and dislikes.

So where does the “endure” or suffering come from? One explanation could be that the process of observations and assessment hasn’t been made clear. The dictionary tells us assessment is an evaluation or judgement. This doesn’t mean we restrict children’s freedom or play or natural inquisitiveness. A good practitioner will give the children all these opportunities and then take the lead from them to extend their interests – or evaluate, ‘assess’ their play.

The assessment is not about labelling or pigeon holing children. However, if a practitioner can spot schematic play (for example), then this can help support the child’s interests and learning in a way that is the best for the child. Or, put another way, really understands what makes that child tick. Who wouldn’t want that?

When first looking at the EYFS (2008) it may seem to be artificially contrived statements about children just doing what children do best – being themselves. But these have been crafted by skilled and respected educators in the childcare industry, based on some of the most in depth research in Europe (Effective Provision of Preschool Education, 2003). The strength of the document is that it takes the child’s incredibly complex patterns of learning and makes them accessible, makes it look easy, even. This ensures that the ‘assessments’ we make about children are relevant and accurate.

The EYFS (2008) does have many ‘categories’, against which assessments are made. (It will be interesting to see how the EYFS review, due out at the end of March 2011, will rearrange these.) But the fact remains that, somehow, you have to detail how children develop and learn. If you don’t, how do you know if their development is within ‘normal’ limits? How do you evidence Special Educational Needs, for example? Or gifted and talented? Without having this information you may not be providing the very best for the children in your care.

Assessment isn’t about sitting children down to be tested or labelled. It is about taking an interest in their development, and then using this to give them an enjoyable and challenging childhood.

References:
Early Years Foundation Stage, EYFS (2008) DCSF http://nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/earlyyears
EPPE (2003) http://eppe.ioe.ac.uk/

Similar Posts:

• The EYFS review – part one – much ado about nothing?
• The EYFS Review – part two – The Impossible Curriculum
• EYPs – what’s next for Continued Professional Development?
• Are you a Sparkly Thinker?
• The Trouble with Play. A thought provoking book

What does Assessment mean? is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals