Penny1959
11-09-2011, 06:49 AM
Just to let you know we Playmate and I (along with about 30 others) had a very useful meeting with the DfE.
Most of those present agreed with the points we were raising and the man from the DfE was listening and was making lots of notes.
One thing he kept repeating was 'What can the DfE do to improve this (whatever our concern was)?
He has promised us some feedback next week and I will get together with Playmate next weekend to sort out our official feedback to you all.
But as a taster
Everyone agreed the document needs to provide clarity and not use terms that can lead to personal interpretation
No one liked the fact that was no development statements for under 2's
No one liked the wide age ranges
Everyone said IF there is to be a 24 - 36 m assessment - it needs to be narrowed down as that age range is too wide
Concern was expressed about cm's not have the knowledge, the confidence or the willingness to say they had concerns at this age. There was talk about partnership with Health visitors (this is being discussed with HV representatives)
Everyone was worried the cm's would not be listened to and that wording needed to be changed from should to must so that cm's would have some authority and be on a equal professional standing as others
No like the the 'ready for school' statements
Everyone thought that Ofsted need clear guidelines on what the minimum requirements are - even to the point of a list of things - it was also suggested that the document should have a 'checklist' for practitioners to be able to check they had everything in place (as easy to miss something when have to read all the document and work out which bits are for all and which bits are not requirements for cm's)
A lot of concerns were raised about inconsistencies in the wording in the document.
A lot expressed disappointment that the opportunity was not taken to to up the training requirements - with many saying that a level 3 is needed - or at least some requirement for a child development based qualification / training.
Everyone agreed that funding for somethings should from central government as otherwise LA would continue to make own decisions about what funds and there would be differences in level of support and training offered.
There was a lot more discussions - but the ones mentioned are the the ones everyone was agreeing about - and to honest the ones I remember as it was a long day (left home at 6.05 and got back home at 21.55)
Penny :)
Most of those present agreed with the points we were raising and the man from the DfE was listening and was making lots of notes.
One thing he kept repeating was 'What can the DfE do to improve this (whatever our concern was)?
He has promised us some feedback next week and I will get together with Playmate next weekend to sort out our official feedback to you all.
But as a taster
Everyone agreed the document needs to provide clarity and not use terms that can lead to personal interpretation
No one liked the fact that was no development statements for under 2's
No one liked the wide age ranges
Everyone said IF there is to be a 24 - 36 m assessment - it needs to be narrowed down as that age range is too wide
Concern was expressed about cm's not have the knowledge, the confidence or the willingness to say they had concerns at this age. There was talk about partnership with Health visitors (this is being discussed with HV representatives)
Everyone was worried the cm's would not be listened to and that wording needed to be changed from should to must so that cm's would have some authority and be on a equal professional standing as others
No like the the 'ready for school' statements
Everyone thought that Ofsted need clear guidelines on what the minimum requirements are - even to the point of a list of things - it was also suggested that the document should have a 'checklist' for practitioners to be able to check they had everything in place (as easy to miss something when have to read all the document and work out which bits are for all and which bits are not requirements for cm's)
A lot of concerns were raised about inconsistencies in the wording in the document.
A lot expressed disappointment that the opportunity was not taken to to up the training requirements - with many saying that a level 3 is needed - or at least some requirement for a child development based qualification / training.
Everyone agreed that funding for somethings should from central government as otherwise LA would continue to make own decisions about what funds and there would be differences in level of support and training offered.
There was a lot more discussions - but the ones mentioned are the the ones everyone was agreeing about - and to honest the ones I remember as it was a long day (left home at 6.05 and got back home at 21.55)
Penny :)