Richard House re drafted letter

[Penny1959]

Guessing a few of us have had this - but for those who haven't here it is


Dear Penny,



Here is our fundamental re-drafting of the proposed NW letter. I'd really welcome your feedback, and whether you think there's anything in it that could damage your campaign, and childminders more generally, as we're determined to avoid that at all costs.



Many thanks for helping us get this right!



All the best



Richard











Dear Letters Editor,



We wish to comment on the response to MP Elizabeth Truss’s recent intervention into the child-minding field (Nursery World, 14–27 May; see also Letters, 28 May–10 June, and the associated petition challenging the deregulation of child-minding). Eva Lloyd and Penny Webb are absolutely right in their letters to NW to subject Ms Truss’s proposals to searching examination, not least for their possible unintended side-effects on childminders. The status of childminders has undoubtedly risen in the sector since 2008, which is something to be universally welcomed and not put at risk in any way.



Yet those of us who have consistently challenged aspects of the EYFS and the role of the Ofsted inspectorate are placed in a very difficult position; for whilst we might agree in principle with any government decision to look again at the current early childhood regulatory regime, we are also clear that this must not be done in such a way that either the remuneration levels or status of childminders is in any way threatened. We are all agreed that the work childminders do is enormously important for the future wellbeing of society, and we believe that there needs to be a major cultural and political shift such that those doing this important work are remunerated at a level that is fully commensurate with its importance.



So what is the solution for those of us who are supportive of the government looking again at the EYFS and Ofsted dimension of the regulatory system? The obvious answer is that Elizabeth Truss perhaps needs to widen her vision, to question the regulatory regime for the whole sector, not just for childminders; and that rather than having a ‘one-size-fits-all’ EYFS and Ofsted regime imposed on the whole sector, willy-nilly, we need regulation which is both appropriate to the kind of work and care done with provided for young children, especially with regard to their welfare and, more crucially still, flexible and responsive to the rich diversity that exists across the sector. Surely it is parents’ prerogative to decide on the kind of learning and developmental care they expect from childminders, rather than the government making this decision for them, such as with the EYFS learning goals.



There are now reports that outstanding and good early years settings in the independent sector may well be able to achieve blanket exemptions from the EYFS; and if the DfE is prepared to consider such flexibility for the independent sector, there is no reason why such flexibility shouldn’t apply across the whole sector – and most crucially of all, without putting at risk in any way the hard-won professionalism and status that childminders have at last begun to achieve.

Thoughts please not replied yet - one thing is a bonus - I am learning how things work on this phone

Penny

[AgentTink]

On first reading of this my impression is that he is sticking up for the work we do as childminders, and I like the fact that he is talking about us as just as important, if not more so, as every other Early Years provider.

My only slight niggle is this line
"we need regulation which is both appropriate to the kind of work and care done with provided for young children, especially with regard to their welfare and, more crucially still, flexible and responsive to the rich diversity that exists across the sector."
as I think the argument back would be, that this is actually what Elizabeth Truss is suggesting, that childminders do different type of work and care, and as such we should be regulated differently.

Overall it is a positive letter, however I still feel that it is discussing two seperate issues which are childminder deregulation and the EYFS. As a childminder I want to be on par with other Early Year settings, so if they have to do EYFS then i want to too, and vise versa if they dont then i dont. The whole reason for talk of deregulation of childminders is due to cost's, and nothing to do with the EYFS. As far as i am aware the plans for deregulation do not necessary mean that we will be exempt from the EYFS.

Anyway I digress, these are just my thoughts and overall I appreciate his positivity about the valued work that childminder do.

[uf353432]

I agree that was my only niggle when I received his email. Will email your feedback to him.

[Penny1959]

I have to admit that although agree an improvement on his first letter, there are a few bits that I am not that comfortable with. I have drafted a response by means of changing some of his wording but keeping the context of his views. Found it hard as know can not change to much as would then not be his words. Hope though he would take on board my thoughts and ensure was his words in final version. I have sent to Sarah for her thoughts and comments - in case over stepped my role. Will post my response once ready to send to him.:):)

Penny

[sarah707]

I think your response is measured Penny - however I am a bit concerned by his letter as it stands.

I keep re-reading it to make sure I am getting it right because I am shattered tonight.

From what I can see it has gone from a ranting missive about the evils of the EYFS / Ofsted to a praise of childminders with a proviso that we really do not need the EYFS to do our jobs.

However if we don't have the EYFS then we are back to where we were before... no EYFS = no longer on an equal footing with other early years providers.

Ho hum I might look again in the morning :D

[Bridey]

I don't feel that I want to add my name to this letter either. I'm starting to wonder that, as the issue of EYFS is a separate one from the deregulation of childminders, if he is just getting involved in an argument that really doesn't affect his cause and he's better off keeping out of it altogether.

I don't understand the complete u-turn of his views. I find him very patronising still and I am very suspicious that he is using deregulation to enlist us to fight HIS battle rather than lending his voice to OUR battle.

To me its just an exercise to get his name in the press and that is not my concern. His cause has gone way down in my opinion since all this.

[Penny1959]

Thanks for your comments on my reply Sarah. Thanks also everyone else who has commented.

I agree it is a difficult call and I am sure Richard is far more interested in his own campaign that in ours. However he is going to comment with or without our input or approval, therefore I am grateful for the opportunity to try to make his wording less damaging to us - and in that respect we have come along way since the wording in his first letter.

I am trying to get the message across that whatever changes are made they must be for all settings, so if EYFS and Ofsted are replaced they are replaced for all settings.

Anyway here is my response and the covering email. I am not putting my name to his letter because as it says in the email - I would like to see his final version

Dear Richard

Thank you for bothering to ask myself and my colleagues to take a look at your re drafted letter.

On the whole I am very encouraged by the changes you have made and it is much clearer about your support for childminders whilst at the same tome expressing your continued concerns about EYGS and Ofstead.

I do personally have some concerns about some of the wording and so have made some suggestions (as below). Of course up to you if you use them or not - and I guess my colleagues will make their own comments and so you will have more than one viewpoint to consider.

I would be interested in seeing your final version of your letter, before making any commitment to the content

Penny

Dear Letters Editor,
We wish to comment on the response to MP Elizabeth Truss’s recent intervention into the child-minding field (Nursery World, 14–27 May; see also Letters, 28 May–10 June, and the associated petition challenging the deregulation of child-minding). Eva Lloyd and Penny Webb are absolutely right in their letters to NW to subject Ms Truss’s proposals to searching examination, not least for their possible unintended side-effects on childminders. The status of childminders has undoubtedly risen in the sector since 2008, which is something to be universally welcomed.
Yet those of us who have consistently challenged aspects of the EYFS and the role of the Ofsted inspectorate are placed in a very difficult position; for whilst we might agree in principle with any government decision to look again at the current early childhood regulatory regime, we are also clear that this must not be done in such a way that either the remuneration levels or status of childminders is in any way threatened. We are all agreed that the work childminders do is enormously important for the future wellbeing of society.
We believe that there needs to be a major cultural and political shift so that all early years practitioners are remunerated at a level that is fully commensurate with its importance.
So what is the solution for those of us who are supportive of the government looking again at the EYFS and Ofsted dimension of the regulatory system? The obvious answer is that Elizabeth Truss perhaps needs to widen her vision, to question the regulatory regime for the whole sector, not just for childminders. We need regulation which is both appropriate to the care provided for young children, especially with regard to their welfare and, more crucially still, flexible and responsive to the rich diversity that exists across the sector.
Surely every child should be able to access early years settings where parents and practitioners work together and agree on the play based experiences and outcomes for each individual child based on interests and developmental abilities, rather than pre set 'goals'.
There are now reports that outstanding and good early years settings in the independent sector may well be able to achieve blanket exemptions from the EYFS; and if the DfE is prepared to consider such flexibility for the independent sector, there is no reason why such flexibility within a framework of regulated care shouldn’t apply across the whole sector – whilst most crucially of all, without putting at risk in any way the hard-won professionalism and status that childminders have achieved.

[sarah707]

I am feeling quite gloomy about it to be honest.

I do not think I can fully support the campaign any more based on what has happened.

Here is my reply for what it's worth :)


Hi Richard thank you for copying me in to the updated letter.

I am still struggling a little to see where you are coming from – supporting childminders one minute and suggesting we are removed from the EYFS framework and therefore treated differently the next.

However I do appreciate that you have taken on board much of what has been shared with you by childminders and I think you are genuinely trying to support us in your own way.

I just wish you would leave childminders out of the equation totally and let us continue our fight to retain our current status in the early years field - Ofsted, the EYFS and all - as necessary evils within that fight.

All the best, etc.

[Penny1959]

It is interesting that Sarah and I have read Richards reply in the same way on some points and in different ways on other points.

I have taken it that Richard is trying to say that we should be treated the same as all other early years settings - and that it is Ofsted and EYFS that are the issue.

I agree with him on this as it is my personal opinion that children should not become part of the education system at birth and should be able to be children who engage in play without any outcomes in mind. They should not have to engage in structured activities or activities designed to ensure they experience so many different learning opportunities.

And yes I know this is possible within the EYFS and is what I personally do • but how many children experience a planned curriculum?

It is my belief that children do not need planned activities, do not need to be assessed in such detail, or enter school having already experienced most of the school curriculum before they are 5.

In this country we expect our children to do too much too soon, when they start school they just do more of the same type of activities - where is the excitement of doing something new and different?

So while I will work within the frameworks of Ofsted inspection and the EYFS, I for one would like the government to consider other forms of regulation / inspection that provides a framework to safeguard children and guidance on development stages - provided it is implemented for all settings.

Penny:)

[sarah707]

Richard answered my email asking me to clarify my comment "...and therefore treated differently the next" so I have tried.

Penny it is great to read your take on it as well.

If any of you think I am way off beam please do tell me! :D


Hi Richard, as the focus in the opening paragraphs is on how wonderful childminders are this section seems odd to me -

Surely it is parents’ prerogative to decide on the kind of learning and developmental care they expect from childminders, rather than the government making this decision for them, such as with the EYFS learning goals.

There are now reports that outstanding and good early years settings in the independent sector may well be able to achieve blanket exemptions from the EYFS; and if the DfE is prepared to consider such flexibility for the independent sector, there is no reason why such flexibility shouldn’t apply across the whole sector – and most crucially of all, without putting at risk in any way the hard-won professionalism and status that childminders have at last begun to achieve.

The whole thing is wrapped in positive childminder statements but does not suggest strongly enough (to me) that other parts of the early years workforce might also leave the EYFS behind. What we want to avoid at all costs is a childminder workforce which is treated differently from the rest of the early years workforce – we are already underpaid and undervalued by many, lets not be seen as different in the early years experiences we offer children as well!

I suppose you are presenting a balance between parental choice and DfE requirements... as a childminder who has worked with children for most of my life I am not sure parents always know best! Yes of course I agree with you that a nanny state is equally scary, that’s not what I am saying.

It’s a very complex area isn’t it? It’s partly about what parents want from childminders - many parents tell me all they want is a happy child who enjoys playing at my house. They do not want their child to learn here because the child can do that at school. These are highly motivated and well educated parents who see no value in mud or water play and little benefit from early mark making until children can sit down and fill in a worksheet, tracing lines accurately and writing their names...

I spend a lot of my time and effort gently guiding parents to value their children’s early experiences as setting them up for life long learning and I know a huge amount of childminders who do the same. I would hate to see a childminder workforce of the future who were not trained to deliver this kind of early learning experience for children or education for parents because they were being told to take on more and more children for less £ per head with no regulations to keep them focussed on doing what is best for the children.

We could now get into a discussion about ‘what is best for children’ and I don’t want to go there... the EYFS is currently the best we have got so let’s try and work with it and draw the best from it rather than presenting a world without it and no useful replacement which will guide practitioners to support children’s early experiences.

All the best,

Sarah

www.knutsfordchildminding.co.uk

[Penny1959]

Thanks for posting your reply to Richard, Sarah. It is good to consider others view points and to reflect on ones own views.
I agree totally with what you are saying about EYFS being the nest we have at the moment
Your last sentence I think joins your thinking and mine - we do need a replacement before we get rid of EYFS - and this is what the government to do - completely re think early years regulation about curriculum - not the bits that ensure we are individually inspected, checked and all safeguarding measures in place.

Penny:)

[Penny1959]

Oh - and it is interesting to note that Richard has not responded to my suggestions for changes to his letter.

Penny:)

[Smiley]

I agree with him on this as it is my personal opinion that children should not become part of the education system at birth and should be able to be children who engage in play without any outcomes in mind. They should not have to engage in structured activities or activities designed to ensure they experience so many different learning opportunities.

Penny:)[/QUOTE]

Well said Penny, I absolutely agree with you that children should be able to play without outcomes in mind. I know so many practitioners who have become so obsessed with observations and development matters statements that they overlook the fun and high levels of involvement that children can have from everyday real life experiences

[uf353432]

I'm not ignoring this debate - but I need time to consider my feelings on this before I respond to the good Doctor.

Like Sarah I don't find I am constrained by EYFS - and let us not forget that EYFS is a whole lot more than just the early learning goals - its an outline of good practice that encourages working in partnership with other settings, parents, confidentiality, professional conduct to name but a few things - to simply focus on one part of the EYFS is unhealthy (for want of a better word), when I work I play for the child, I extend their learning, I back away when needed, I participate when needed, I provide learning opportunities through a range of resources and observe children in deep play and react to extend that if I am needed, if I see something of note, I record it and link it later to EYFS - I am not sat there with a tick sheet looking for specific evidence. I know the gaps in all the kids learning and I facilitate opportunities to help them practice those skills when they are ready, in accordance with their own interests.

On one hand I am delighted he wants to change his stance on his letter, on the other hand I am disgusted that he's back tracked so significantly from his original, on another hand I think he's should butt out, on another hand I welcome his support - the irony doesn't escape me. I do beleive in what we are doing passionately, I think our campaign is significant and important, i'm not sure at this stage if his input adds value to continues to muddy the waters. Meh! its late, i'm tired.