A CHILDMINDER NOT WANTING TO DO EYFS

[wendywu]

The thing i would like is some hard and fast outlines of what Ofsted want and how much they want.

I like to do things to the best of my ability and do it right. I always feel that whatever i do it is never quite enough for Ofsted.

I did the B23 and do the EYFS. It does take up some time at weekends and evenings and i am quite proud of my Learning Journals. But as there is no set format how can i be sure what i am doing is correct.

[Pipsqueak]

The thing i would like is some hard and fast outlines of what Ofsted want and how much they want.

I like to do things to the best of my ability and do it right. I always feel that whatever i do it is never quite enough for Ofsted.

I did the B23 and do the EYFS. It does take up some time at weekends and evenings and i am quite proud of my Learning Journals. But as there is no set format how can i be sure what i am doing is correct.

Yes but my theory is.... if there is no prescribed method then so long as you can explain/justify how or what you are doing (and it shows that you are meeting the requirements that are set down) then no -one can tell you its wrong.
Will be quite happy to argue the toss with Mrs Ofsted

[ORKSIE]

Yes but my theory is.... if there is no prescribed method then so long as you can explain/justify how or what you are doing (and it shows that you are meeting the requirements that are set down) then no -one can tell you its wrong.
Will be quite happy to argue the toss with Mrs Ofsted

Well said

[Pipsqueak]

Well said

Thank you - am feeling quite brave tonight!!! lol Have won one battle today and its made me quite bolshie

[Arthur]

Hello Everyone

I am the husband of the CM whose application for exemption was rejected. I thought it might be helpful to explain why my wife, with my full backing, decided to apply for exemption.

My wife has been a CM for 21 years and has cared for nearly 50 children in that time. We are still in contact with many of the families who she has worked for and some of the children she cared for still come and visit her (the eldest is now in his early 20s). Many of the children she cares for arrive as a baby and are still coming when they are in junior school. She has never had to advertise, doesn't have her name on the Surestart lists yet she has a steady flow of children because most of her work comes through the recommendation of families she has worked for in the past. She would, therefore, appear to be providing exactly the sort of service that parents want. Many of the people she has worked for are professional people and have included doctors, a solicitor, a nurse and many teachers as well as lots of other people.

We both have strong views about the way education has been politicised in the last 20 years or so and are concerned about the way that this is now permeating into the pre-school arena. We are both admirers of the Scandinavian educational model and believe that a later start to formal teaching is in the best interests of children and, therefore, society as a
whole. We are strong supporters of the OpenEYE group, who are the main opposition to the EYFS in its present form. The OpenEYE group are actually quite happy with large parts of the EYFS. The sections they are unhappy with are (i) the statutory nature of the learning and development (L&D) goals, (ii) the age range at which the L&D goals are targeted, (iii) some of the L&D goals themselves, (iv) the uncritical embracing of Information Communication Technology (ICT) for children whose brains are not yet sufficiently developed to cope with it and (v) the complex nature of the exemption process.

Taking each of those points in turn:

(i) There is not, as yet, a universally agreed model of how we should help young children to learn. It is wrong, therefore, to make the L&D goals of the EYFS statutory and, effectively, outlaw other learning models. Steiner and Montessori schools who both don't start formal learning until a child is about 7 now find their way of doing things is against the law and are having to apply for exemption to continue their way of working.

(ii) Many of the L&D goals are developmentally inappropriate and should be aimed at children in the year they are 6 rather than the year they are 5. The UK is one of the few countries who send their children to school at 5 and the government have now accepted large parts of The Rose Report into primary education and decided to drop this down to 4. For children this was already happening as schools increasingly opted for a single intake per year so that summer born children were starting school when they had just had their 4th
birthday. In many countries, formal schooling starts at 6, while in many Scandinavian countries it is 7. In education, though, more is not necessarily better. Finland, with the lowest number of hours spent in school, is at the top of educational league tables, while Poland, where children start school at 7, has now overtaken England at reading in the literacy tables. The Cambridge Primary Review has also shown there is no clear link between quantity and quality of education.

(iii) Two of the most challenging of the literacy goals are that children should “use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words” and “write their own names and other things such as labels and captions, and begin to form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation” have been widely criticised. The Children, Schools and Families parliamentary committee even held a special
evidence gathering meeting to consider just how appropriate they are. At this meeting it was revealed that the government's own experts advised against their inclusion, but that they were ignored. Unfortunately, it has been announced that no changes will be made until 2010 when the EYFS will be reviewed, although The Rose Report has recommended that the wording for those 2 goals be changed to 'aspirations'. Beverley Hughes herself is on record as saying that the six areas of development are 'equally important', yet there is no evidence to support this. In fact, evidence does exist to show that physical and social development are of much greater importance than any of the cognitive areas of development during a child's early years. Sadly, you won't find anything about this in any of the EYFS documentation or on any of the EYFS courses that childminders are expected to attend.

(iv) Many pieces of evidence exist to show that early exposure to ICT may hinder or be harmful to children, yet the EYFS expects that children should "find out about and identify the uses of everyday technology and use information and communication technology and programmable toys to support their learning". Part of a paper by Dr Aric Sigman, a fellow of both the British Psychological Society and the Royal Society of Medicine, states: "The frontal lobe is the brain’s executive control system, responsible for planning, organising and sequencing behaviour for self-control, moral judgment and attention. The frontal lobe continues to develop until the age of about 20. It is imperative that children and young adults do things, which thicken the fibres connecting neurons in this part of the brain, and the more the person is stimulated, the more the fibres will thicken. The study reported by The World Federation of Neurology expresses great concern over the way visual electronic media is affecting children by ‘...halting the process of frontal lobe development and affecting their ability to control potentially antisocial elements of their behaviour...the implications are very serious...children should also be encouraged to play outside with other children, interact and communicate with others as much as possible’. It is suggested that the more work done to thicken the fibres connecting the neurons in this part of the brain, the better the child’s ability will be to control their behaviour (Kawashima et al, 2001)". While the EYFS does encourage play, interaction and communication, it also encourages use of ICT equipment, which is perhaps a little short sighted. Ever wondered why so many young people have difficulty controlling their emotions these days? Perhaps this is your answer.

(v) Just before the summer recess of parliament last year and with less than three months before the EYFS became law, the DCSF announced the EYFS exemption procedure. Originally, there wasn't going to be such a thing, but the government were advised that without it, the EYFS may have been seen to be contravening human rights legislation. The exemption procedure has been posted on the EYFS section of the DCSF web site, but to say it is not very easy to find from either the DCSF or the Ofsted front page is an understatement. The exemption process also seems to have been designed to be as cumbersome as possible. Parents need to make separate requests for each child and also for each section of the EYFS they are unhappy with. Then, if exemption is granted, the exemption will only last for 12 months after which the whole process must be repeated, thus ensuring that only the most determined of parents will see the process through to the bitter end. Gaining exemption as a provider is a similarly complex process, requiring written requests, local authority interviews, a formal ballot of the parents and applications to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to be made for each application with the additional threat of the loss of local authority grants to the provider should exemption be granted. Private schools and parents who choose home schooling for their children do not have to follow the national curriculum because they are private institutions. All childminders and many nurseries are private institutions, yet they have to adhere to the EYFS unless they successfully gain exemption. Why do the government have a different set of standards for the national curriculum and the EYFS?

Both my wife and myself strongly support these objections. My wife is also fully supported in these objections by the parents she currently works for (2 teachers, a careers officer and a sales manager).

So, as you can see, it isn't just the observations and paperwork that my wife objects to. We are fully aware, by the way, that CMs are not required to write everything down and that the early years profile is likely to be done by the child's reception teacher, but that doesn't go anywhere near resolving her objections. Why should someone who is working on their own, caring for 5 children or less, be writing notes to themselves to tell them what they will be doing next week. Incidentally, will writing everything down make the children any cleverer or cause them to do something that little bit earlier? Of course not. My wife has also said that she doesn't want either herself or the children she cares for to be part of an experiment in social control from a government that believes in a centralist, top-down way of controlling people. The Scandinavian system is based on trust with no formal testing of children until they are 7 (with the exception of looking for disabilities). The English system is based on mistrust and requires a small army of inspectors to ensure that all CMs are adhering to the latest set of rules. They also don't tell you exactly what they want so that they always have an ace up their sleeve with which to trip up the unwary CM.

Even in the British Isles, there is no agreement about the EYFS because it is only England that has implemented such a dictatorial set of rules. Political parties can't agree either. The Conservatives have said they will amend the EYFS so that it is 'light touch' for smaller childcare providers and will therefore be 'less cumbersome', while the Lib Dems want to focus their attention on the children who completely miss childcare due to family circumstances. Labour, on the other hand, have set themselves targets to reduce child poverty and see the EYFS as the tool to do this for them. That is why you are asked about what you are doing to increase the outcomes of the children in your care on your self evaluation form.

I should also say that the decision to apply for exemption wasn't taken lightly. We knew it was going to be difficult and we also thought that the outcome was probably pre-determined, but we still decided to go ahead. There is also no right of appeal against the QCA's decision, but my wife can make another application which she will be doing once she has received written comments from the parents about the QCA decision.

[Winnie]

Absolutely - this lady should be appaulded for taking a stand and going down the right route. It would be interesting to see how many people or other settings have obtained an exemption and on what grounds.

I don't think anyone is labelling anyone sub-standard just because they disagree with EYFS and I certainly don't think anyone on here is that narrow-minded or even discourteous but I do think it WILL go a long way to weeding out those who are sub-standard.

In doing my FD, it meant a lot of research into the theory, current and past and it really opened my eyes to EYFS and I can see WHY it is in place.

I do wonder about the children who are not in a Setting though - are they disadvantaged as someone says??


ps am loving this polite, well mannered, adult debate, it is making for interesting reading. I actually feel safe posting my views and thats what is so good about this forum

Debate is good & i would not call anyone on here narrow minded- apologies if it came across like that
I wanted to comment on your comment about children not in settings. As you know the home environment is a perfectly good place to nurture young children, its the adult input that is important. The misconception when other people talk about children not in settings is of children stuck indoors without access to toy libraries, book librarys, health visitors and toddler groups. I've met plenty of, Mums, Grandparents and nanny's at baby singing groups and story time at the library etc, those children are in no way disadvantaged.
The EYFS is not the only way to do things- but it is the only way to do things in formal care.
We need to remember that school is not compulsory- education is- there are thousands of children not in school but still learning and growing.

[ORKSIE]

Thank you - am feeling quite brave tonight!!! lol Have won one battle today and its made me quite bolshie

Your Welcome

[sarah707]

Hello Everyone

I am the husband of the CM whose application for exemption was rejected. I thought it might be helpful to explain why my wife, with my full backing, decided to apply for exemption.

My wife has been a CM for 21 years and has cared for nearly 50 children in that time. We are still in contact with many of the families who she has worked for and some of the children she cared for still come and visit her (the eldest is now in his early 20s). Many of the children she cares for arrive as a baby and are still coming when they are in junior school. She has never had to advertise, doesn't have her name on the Surestart lists yet she has a steady flow of children because most of her work comes through the recommendation of families she has worked for in the past. She would, therefore, appear to be providing exactly the sort of service that parents want. Many of the people she has worked for are professional people and have included doctors, a solicitor, a nurse and many teachers as well as lots of other people.

We both have strong views about the way education has been politicised in the last 20 years or so and are concerned about the way that this is now permeating into the pre-school arena. We are both admirers of the Scandinavian educational model and believe that a later start to formal teaching is in the best interests of children and, therefore, society as a
whole. We are strong supporters of the OpenEYE group, who are the main opposition to the EYFS in its present form. The OpenEYE group are actually quite happy with large parts of the EYFS. The sections they are unhappy with are (i) the statutory nature of the learning and development (L&D) goals, (ii) the age range at which the L&D goals are targeted, (iii) some of the L&D goals themselves, (iv) the uncritical embracing of Information Communication Technology (ICT) for children whose brains are not yet sufficiently developed to cope with it and (v) the complex nature of the exemption process.

Taking each of those points in turn:

(i) There is not, as yet, a universally agreed model of how we should help young children to learn. It is wrong, therefore, to make the L&D goals of the EYFS statutory and, effectively, outlaw other learning models. Steiner and Montessori schools who both don't start formal learning until a child is about 7 now find their way of doing things is against the law and are having to apply for exemption to continue their way of working.

(ii) Many of the L&D goals are developmentally inappropriate and should be aimed at children in the year they are 6 rather than the year they are 5. The UK is one of the few countries who send their children to school at 5 and the government have now accepted large parts of The Rose Report into primary education and decided to drop this down to 4. For children this was already happening as schools increasingly opted for a single intake per year so that summer born children were starting school when they had just had their 4th
birthday. In many countries, formal schooling starts at 6, while in many Scandinavian countries it is 7. In education, though, more is not necessarily better. Finland, with the lowest number of hours spent in school, is at the top of educational league tables, while Poland, where children start school at 7, has now overtaken England at reading in the literacy tables. The Cambridge Primary Review has also shown there is no clear link between quantity and quality of education.

(iii) Two of the most challenging of the literacy goals are that children should “use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words” and “write their own names and other things such as labels and captions, and begin to form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation” have been widely criticised. The Children, Schools and Families parliamentary committee even held a special
evidence gathering meeting to consider just how appropriate they are. At this meeting it was revealed that the government's own experts advised against their inclusion, but that they were ignored. Unfortunately, it has been announced that no changes will be made until 2010 when the EYFS will be reviewed, although The Rose Report has recommended that the wording for those 2 goals be changed to 'aspirations'. Beverley Hughes herself is on record as saying that the six areas of development are 'equally important', yet there is no evidence to support this. In fact, evidence does exist to show that physical and social development are of much greater importance than any of the cognitive areas of development during a child's early years. Sadly, you won't find anything about this in any of the EYFS documentation or on any of the EYFS courses that childminders are expected to attend.

(iv) Many pieces of evidence exist to show that early exposure to ICT may hinder or be harmful to children, yet the EYFS expects that children should "find out about and identify the uses of everyday technology and use information and communication technology and programmable toys to support their learning". Part of a paper by Dr Aric Sigman, a fellow of both the British Psychological Society and the Royal Society of Medicine, states: "The frontal lobe is the brain’s executive control system, responsible for planning, organising and sequencing behaviour for self-control, moral judgment and attention. The frontal lobe continues to develop until the age of about 20. It is imperative that children and young adults do things, which thicken the fibres connecting neurons in this part of the brain, and the more the person is stimulated, the more the fibres will thicken. The study reported by The World Federation of Neurology expresses great concern over the way visual electronic media is affecting children by ‘...halting the process of frontal lobe development and affecting their ability to control potentially antisocial elements of their behaviour...the implications are very serious...children should also be encouraged to play outside with other children, interact and communicate with others as much as possible’. It is suggested that the more work done to thicken the fibres connecting the neurons in this part of the brain, the better the child’s ability will be to control their behaviour (Kawashima et al, 2001)". While the EYFS does encourage play, interaction and communication, it also encourages use of ICT equipment, which is perhaps a little short sighted. Ever wondered why so many young people have difficulty controlling their emotions these days? Perhaps this is your answer.

(v) Just before the summer recess of parliament last year and with less than three months before the EYFS became law, the DCSF announced the EYFS exemption procedure. Originally, there wasn't going to be such a thing, but the government were advised that without it, the EYFS may have been seen to be contravening human rights legislation. The exemption procedure has been posted on the EYFS section of the DCSF web site, but to say it is not very easy to find from either the DCSF or the Ofsted front page is an understatement. The exemption process also seems to have been designed to be as cumbersome as possible. Parents need to make separate requests for each child and also for each section of the EYFS they are unhappy with. Then, if exemption is granted, the exemption will only last for 12 months after which the whole process must be repeated, thus ensuring that only the most determined of parents will see the process through to the bitter end. Gaining exemption as a provider is a similarly complex process, requiring written requests, local authority interviews, a formal ballot of the parents and applications to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to be made for each application with the additional threat of the loss of local authority grants to the provider should exemption be granted. Private schools and parents who choose home schooling for their children do not have to follow the national curriculum because they are private institutions. All childminders and many nurseries are private institutions, yet they have to adhere to the EYFS unless they successfully gain exemption. Why do the government have a different set of standards for the national curriculum and the EYFS?

Both my wife and myself strongly support these objections. My wife is also fully supported in these objections by the parents she currently works for (2 teachers, a careers officer and a sales manager).

So, as you can see, it isn't just the observations and paperwork that my wife objects to. We are fully aware, by the way, that CMs are not required to write everything down and that the early years profile is likely to be done by the child's reception teacher, but that doesn't go anywhere near resolving her objections. Why should someone who is working on their own, caring for 5 children or less, be writing notes to themselves to tell them what they will be doing next week. Incidentally, will writing everything down make the children any cleverer or cause them to do something that little bit earlier? Of course not. My wife has also said that she doesn't want either herself or the children she cares for to be part of an experiment in social control from a government that believes in a centralist, top-down way of controlling people. The Scandinavian system is based on trust with no formal testing of children until they are 7 (with the exception of looking for disabilities). The English system is based on mistrust and requires a small army of inspectors to ensure that all CMs are adhering to the latest set of rules. They also don't tell you exactly what they want so that they always have an ace up their sleeve with which to trip up the unwary CM.

Even in the British Isles, there is no agreement about the EYFS because it is only England that has implemented such a dictatorial set of rules. Political parties can't agree either. The Conservatives have said they will amend the EYFS so that it is 'light touch' for smaller childcare providers and will therefore be 'less cumbersome', while the Lib Dems want to focus their attention on the children who completely miss childcare due to family circumstances. Labour, on the other hand, have set themselves targets to reduce child poverty and see the EYFS as the tool to do this for them. That is why you are asked about what you are doing to increase the outcomes of the children in your care on your self evaluation form.

I should also say that the decision to apply for exemption wasn't taken lightly. We knew it was going to be difficult and we also thought that the outcome was probably pre-determined, but we still decided to go ahead. There is also no right of appeal against the QCA's decision, but my wife can make another application which she will be doing once she has received written comments from the parents about the QCA decision.

Hello Arthur and your wife - sorry I do not know your name!

Welcome to the Childminding Forum.

Thank you very much for bringing your reasoned argument to our members' attention.

I am sure it will give everyone food for thought.

I think you will find most childminders are like me... broadly supportive of what you have said in your post...

However, for me it is with the proviso that at the end of the day I just want to get on with the business of looking after the children and if that means following a slightly flawed document then so be it...

I hope we will see you posting more now you have found us!

[Mouse]

I think you maybe missing the point.

Winnie, back to your first reply, I don't think we were missing the point. The whole debate sprang up from me saying that I didn't think EYFS was suitable, or wanted, by everyone and that there should be an alternative for those who wanted to opt out.
Despite personally liking it & adopting it, I don't think everyone should have to. There should be some sort of choice for childminders & parents.

[Mouse]

Debate is good I wanted to comment on your comment about children not in settings. As you know the home environment is a perfectly good place to nurture young children, its the adult input that is important. The misconception when other people talk about children not in settings is of children stuck indoors without access to toy libraries, book librarys, health visitors and toddler groups. I've met plenty of, Mums, Grandparents and nanny's at baby singing groups and story time at the library etc, those children are in no way disadvantaged.
The EYFS is not the only way to do things- but it is the only way to do things in formal care.
We need to remember that school is not compulsory- education is- there are thousands of children not in school but still learning and growing.

And this was another one of my points. We're being told that children in early years settings have to follow EYFS if they are to do well. But what about children who stay at home? In the majority of cases they are in no way disadvantaged by not following EYFS. If children manage at home without EYFS, why can't they manage with a childminder who doesn't follow it? I asked a couple of times if people thought children staying at home were disadvantaged by not following EYFS. The answer is no, so what is the overall benefit of it?

I still think it's a way of standardising us all, so that we're easier to monitor & grade - a bit like SATS in schools...and look what's happening there!

This has been a very interesting discussion.

[angeldelight]

Hello Everyone

I am the husband of the CM whose application for exemption was rejected. I thought it might be helpful to explain why my wife, with my full backing, decided to apply for exemption.

My wife has been a CM for 21 years and has cared for nearly 50 children in that time. We are still in contact with many of the families who she has worked for and some of the children she cared for still come and visit her (the eldest is now in his early 20s). Many of the children she cares for arrive as a baby and are still coming when they are in junior school. She has never had to advertise, doesn't have her name on the Surestart lists yet she has a steady flow of children because most of her work comes through the recommendation of families she has worked for in the past. She would, therefore, appear to be providing exactly the sort of service that parents want. Many of the people she has worked for are professional people and have included doctors, a solicitor, a nurse and many teachers as well as lots of other people.

We both have strong views about the way education has been politicised in the last 20 years or so and are concerned about the way that this is now permeating into the pre-school arena. We are both admirers of the Scandinavian educational model and believe that a later start to formal teaching is in the best interests of children and, therefore, society as a
whole. We are strong supporters of the OpenEYE group, who are the main opposition to the EYFS in its present form. The OpenEYE group are actually quite happy with large parts of the EYFS. The sections they are unhappy with are (i) the statutory nature of the learning and development (L&D) goals, (ii) the age range at which the L&D goals are targeted, (iii) some of the L&D goals themselves, (iv) the uncritical embracing of Information Communication Technology (ICT) for children whose brains are not yet sufficiently developed to cope with it and (v) the complex nature of the exemption process.

Taking each of those points in turn:

(i) There is not, as yet, a universally agreed model of how we should help young children to learn. It is wrong, therefore, to make the L&D goals of the EYFS statutory and, effectively, outlaw other learning models. Steiner and Montessori schools who both don't start formal learning until a child is about 7 now find their way of doing things is against the law and are having to apply for exemption to continue their way of working.

(ii) Many of the L&D goals are developmentally inappropriate and should be aimed at children in the year they are 6 rather than the year they are 5. The UK is one of the few countries who send their children to school at 5 and the government have now accepted large parts of The Rose Report into primary education and decided to drop this down to 4. For children this was already happening as schools increasingly opted for a single intake per year so that summer born children were starting school when they had just had their 4th
birthday. In many countries, formal schooling starts at 6, while in many Scandinavian countries it is 7. In education, though, more is not necessarily better. Finland, with the lowest number of hours spent in school, is at the top of educational league tables, while Poland, where children start school at 7, has now overtaken England at reading in the literacy tables. The Cambridge Primary Review has also shown there is no clear link between quantity and quality of education.

(iii) Two of the most challenging of the literacy goals are that children should “use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words” and “write their own names and other things such as labels and captions, and begin to form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation” have been widely criticised. The Children, Schools and Families parliamentary committee even held a special
evidence gathering meeting to consider just how appropriate they are. At this meeting it was revealed that the government's own experts advised against their inclusion, but that they were ignored. Unfortunately, it has been announced that no changes will be made until 2010 when the EYFS will be reviewed, although The Rose Report has recommended that the wording for those 2 goals be changed to 'aspirations'. Beverley Hughes herself is on record as saying that the six areas of development are 'equally important', yet there is no evidence to support this. In fact, evidence does exist to show that physical and social development are of much greater importance than any of the cognitive areas of development during a child's early years. Sadly, you won't find anything about this in any of the EYFS documentation or on any of the EYFS courses that childminders are expected to attend.

(iv) Many pieces of evidence exist to show that early exposure to ICT may hinder or be harmful to children, yet the EYFS expects that children should "find out about and identify the uses of everyday technology and use information and communication technology and programmable toys to support their learning". Part of a paper by Dr Aric Sigman, a fellow of both the British Psychological Society and the Royal Society of Medicine, states: "The frontal lobe is the brain’s executive control system, responsible for planning, organising and sequencing behaviour for self-control, moral judgment and attention. The frontal lobe continues to develop until the age of about 20. It is imperative that children and young adults do things, which thicken the fibres connecting neurons in this part of the brain, and the more the person is stimulated, the more the fibres will thicken. The study reported by The World Federation of Neurology expresses great concern over the way visual electronic media is affecting children by ‘...halting the process of frontal lobe development and affecting their ability to control potentially antisocial elements of their behaviour...the implications are very serious...children should also be encouraged to play outside with other children, interact and communicate with others as much as possible’. It is suggested that the more work done to thicken the fibres connecting the neurons in this part of the brain, the better the child’s ability will be to control their behaviour (Kawashima et al, 2001)". While the EYFS does encourage play, interaction and communication, it also encourages use of ICT equipment, which is perhaps a little short sighted. Ever wondered why so many young people have difficulty controlling their emotions these days? Perhaps this is your answer.

(v) Just before the summer recess of parliament last year and with less than three months before the EYFS became law, the DCSF announced the EYFS exemption procedure. Originally, there wasn't going to be such a thing, but the government were advised that without it, the EYFS may have been seen to be contravening human rights legislation. The exemption procedure has been posted on the EYFS section of the DCSF web site, but to say it is not very easy to find from either the DCSF or the Ofsted front page is an understatement. The exemption process also seems to have been designed to be as cumbersome as possible. Parents need to make separate requests for each child and also for each section of the EYFS they are unhappy with. Then, if exemption is granted, the exemption will only last for 12 months after which the whole process must be repeated, thus ensuring that only the most determined of parents will see the process through to the bitter end. Gaining exemption as a provider is a similarly complex process, requiring written requests, local authority interviews, a formal ballot of the parents and applications to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to be made for each application with the additional threat of the loss of local authority grants to the provider should exemption be granted. Private schools and parents who choose home schooling for their children do not have to follow the national curriculum because they are private institutions. All childminders and many nurseries are private institutions, yet they have to adhere to the EYFS unless they successfully gain exemption. Why do the government have a different set of standards for the national curriculum and the EYFS?

Both my wife and myself strongly support these objections. My wife is also fully supported in these objections by the parents she currently works for (2 teachers, a careers officer and a sales manager).

So, as you can see, it isn't just the observations and paperwork that my wife objects to. We are fully aware, by the way, that CMs are not required to write everything down and that the early years profile is likely to be done by the child's reception teacher, but that doesn't go anywhere near resolving her objections. Why should someone who is working on their own, caring for 5 children or less, be writing notes to themselves to tell them what they will be doing next week. Incidentally, will writing everything down make the children any cleverer or cause them to do something that little bit earlier? Of course not. My wife has also said that she doesn't want either herself or the children she cares for to be part of an experiment in social control from a government that believes in a centralist, top-down way of controlling people. The Scandinavian system is based on trust with no formal testing of children until they are 7 (with the exception of looking for disabilities). The English system is based on mistrust and requires a small army of inspectors to ensure that all CMs are adhering to the latest set of rules. They also don't tell you exactly what they want so that they always have an ace up their sleeve with which to trip up the unwary CM.

Even in the British Isles, there is no agreement about the EYFS because it is only England that has implemented such a dictatorial set of rules. Political parties can't agree either. The Conservatives have said they will amend the EYFS so that it is 'light touch' for smaller childcare providers and will therefore be 'less cumbersome', while the Lib Dems want to focus their attention on the children who completely miss childcare due to family circumstances. Labour, on the other hand, have set themselves targets to reduce child poverty and see the EYFS as the tool to do this for them. That is why you are asked about what you are doing to increase the outcomes of the children in your care on your self evaluation form.

I should also say that the decision to apply for exemption wasn't taken lightly. We knew it was going to be difficult and we also thought that the outcome was probably pre-determined, but we still decided to go ahead. There is also no right of appeal against the QCA's decision, but my wife can make another application which she will be doing once she has received written comments from the parents about the QCA decision.

Welcome to the forum

It was very very interesting to hear your views

Thank you for explaining

Keep us posted on what happens in the future with your wife

Angel xx

[Arthur]

Sorry, everyone, I should have said that my wife's name is Pat.

Here are a couple of links to some videos that go some way to illustrating the points I was making.

The first is a 10 minute clip from the OpenEYE group called 'Too Much, Too Soon'. It is introduced by Dr Penelope Leach who was, up until a few months ago, the president of the NCMA and who is a supporter of the OpenEYE group.

The second is a 30 minute programme from Teacher's TV called How Do They Do It In Sweden? This one is really worth watching so, if we get a wet Bank Holiday weekend, reserve yourself half an hour with a cup or a glass of whatever you like to drink and sit back and watch in envy.

[Winnie]

Winnie, back to your first reply, I don't think we were missing the point. The whole debate sprang up from me saying that I didn't think EYFS was suitable, or wanted, by everyone and that there should be an alternative for those who wanted to opt out.
Despite personally liking it & adopting it, I don't think everyone should have to. There should be some sort of choice for childminders & parents.

Mouse i've re-read your posts and we seem to be in agreement

I agree with Sarah when she says she wants "to get on with the business of looking after the children and if that means following a slightly flawed document then so be it..." i certainly will do it to the best of my ability. I think Aurthur & Mrs Arthur have put foward a very good arguement- many of the points i agree with wholeheartedly. I have personnally been very concerned about how this government have used Sure Start, CC and now the EYFS to their own ends- reducing benefit, control etc, but that is probably for another debate another time You hit one nail on the head Mouse when you said it is a way of standardising us- cloning childcare i call it
I have a headach & must stop as i'm having trouble stringing words together
otherwise i would love to continue this debate.

[bex8282]

I am a newbie to all of this and did not realise until now that the EYFS was only produced last september!!

Think that whoever registered form sept last year should do the EYFS and people before that who have been doing it for 20 years should stick to what they know best and it obviously works.

Think some people do not like the change when they have been doing it for so so many years.

[Pipsqueak]

Hello Everyone

I am the husband of the CM whose application for exemption was rejected. I thought it might be helpful to explain why my wife, with my full backing, decided to apply for exemption.

My wife has been a CM for 21 years and has cared for nearly 50 children in that time. We are still in contact with many of the families who she has worked for and some of the children she cared for still come and visit her (the eldest is now in his early 20s). Many of the children she cares for arrive as a baby and are still coming when they are in junior school. She has never had to advertise, doesn't have her name on the Surestart lists yet she has a steady flow of children because most of her work comes through the recommendation of families she has worked for in the past. She would, therefore, appear to be providing exactly the sort of service that parents want. Many of the people she has worked for are professional people and have included doctors, a solicitor, a nurse and many teachers as well as lots of other people.

We both have strong views about the way education has been politicised in the last 20 years or so and are concerned about the way that this is now permeating into the pre-school arena. We are both admirers of the Scandinavian educational model and believe that a later start to formal teaching is in the best interests of children and, therefore, society as a
whole. We are strong supporters of the OpenEYE group, who are the main opposition to the EYFS in its present form. The OpenEYE group are actually quite happy with large parts of the EYFS. The sections they are unhappy with are (i) the statutory nature of the learning and development (L&D) goals, (ii) the age range at which the L&D goals are targeted, (iii) some of the L&D goals themselves, (iv) the uncritical embracing of Information Communication Technology (ICT) for children whose brains are not yet sufficiently developed to cope with it and (v) the complex nature of the exemption process.

Taking each of those points in turn:

(i) There is not, as yet, a universally agreed model of how we should help young children to learn. It is wrong, therefore, to make the L&D goals of the EYFS statutory and, effectively, outlaw other learning models. Steiner and Montessori schools who both don't start formal learning until a child is about 7 now find their way of doing things is against the law and are having to apply for exemption to continue their way of working.

(ii) Many of the L&D goals are developmentally inappropriate and should be aimed at children in the year they are 6 rather than the year they are 5. The UK is one of the few countries who send their children to school at 5 and the government have now accepted large parts of The Rose Report into primary education and decided to drop this down to 4. For children this was already happening as schools increasingly opted for a single intake per year so that summer born children were starting school when they had just had their 4th
birthday. In many countries, formal schooling starts at 6, while in many Scandinavian countries it is 7. In education, though, more is not necessarily better. Finland, with the lowest number of hours spent in school, is at the top of educational league tables, while Poland, where children start school at 7, has now overtaken England at reading in the literacy tables. The Cambridge Primary Review has also shown there is no clear link between quantity and quality of education.

(iii) Two of the most challenging of the literacy goals are that children should “use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words” and “write their own names and other things such as labels and captions, and begin to form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation” have been widely criticised. The Children, Schools and Families parliamentary committee even held a special
evidence gathering meeting to consider just how appropriate they are. At this meeting it was revealed that the government's own experts advised against their inclusion, but that they were ignored. Unfortunately, it has been announced that no changes will be made until 2010 when the EYFS will be reviewed, although The Rose Report has recommended that the wording for those 2 goals be changed to 'aspirations'. Beverley Hughes herself is on record as saying that the six areas of development are 'equally important', yet there is no evidence to support this. In fact, evidence does exist to show that physical and social development are of much greater importance than any of the cognitive areas of development during a child's early years. Sadly, you won't find anything about this in any of the EYFS documentation or on any of the EYFS courses that childminders are expected to attend.

(iv) Many pieces of evidence exist to show that early exposure to ICT may hinder or be harmful to children, yet the EYFS expects that children should "find out about and identify the uses of everyday technology and use information and communication technology and programmable toys to support their learning". Part of a paper by Dr Aric Sigman, a fellow of both the British Psychological Society and the Royal Society of Medicine, states: "The frontal lobe is the brain’s executive control system, responsible for planning, organising and sequencing behaviour for self-control, moral judgment and attention. The frontal lobe continues to develop until the age of about 20. It is imperative that children and young adults do things, which thicken the fibres connecting neurons in this part of the brain, and the more the person is stimulated, the more the fibres will thicken. The study reported by The World Federation of Neurology expresses great concern over the way visual electronic media is affecting children by ‘...halting the process of frontal lobe development and affecting their ability to control potentially antisocial elements of their behaviour...the implications are very serious...children should also be encouraged to play outside with other children, interact and communicate with others as much as possible’. It is suggested that the more work done to thicken the fibres connecting the neurons in this part of the brain, the better the child’s ability will be to control their behaviour (Kawashima et al, 2001)". While the EYFS does encourage play, interaction and communication, it also encourages use of ICT equipment, which is perhaps a little short sighted. Ever wondered why so many young people have difficulty controlling their emotions these days? Perhaps this is your answer.

(v) Just before the summer recess of parliament last year and with less than three months before the EYFS became law, the DCSF announced the EYFS exemption procedure. Originally, there wasn't going to be such a thing, but the government were advised that without it, the EYFS may have been seen to be contravening human rights legislation. The exemption procedure has been posted on the EYFS section of the DCSF web site, but to say it is not very easy to find from either the DCSF or the Ofsted front page is an understatement. The exemption process also seems to have been designed to be as cumbersome as possible. Parents need to make separate requests for each child and also for each section of the EYFS they are unhappy with. Then, if exemption is granted, the exemption will only last for 12 months after which the whole process must be repeated, thus ensuring that only the most determined of parents will see the process through to the bitter end. Gaining exemption as a provider is a similarly complex process, requiring written requests, local authority interviews, a formal ballot of the parents and applications to the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA) to be made for each application with the additional threat of the loss of local authority grants to the provider should exemption be granted. Private schools and parents who choose home schooling for their children do not have to follow the national curriculum because they are private institutions. All childminders and many nurseries are private institutions, yet they have to adhere to the EYFS unless they successfully gain exemption. Why do the government have a different set of standards for the national curriculum and the EYFS?

Both my wife and myself strongly support these objections. My wife is also fully supported in these objections by the parents she currently works for (2 teachers, a careers officer and a sales manager).

So, as you can see, it isn't just the observations and paperwork that my wife objects to. We are fully aware, by the way, that CMs are not required to write everything down and that the early years profile is likely to be done by the child's reception teacher, but that doesn't go anywhere near resolving her objections. Why should someone who is working on their own, caring for 5 children or less, be writing notes to themselves to tell them what they will be doing next week. Incidentally, will writing everything down make the children any cleverer or cause them to do something that little bit earlier? Of course not. My wife has also said that she doesn't want either herself or the children she cares for to be part of an experiment in social control from a government that believes in a centralist, top-down way of controlling people. The Scandinavian system is based on trust with no formal testing of children until they are 7 (with the exception of looking for disabilities). The English system is based on mistrust and requires a small army of inspectors to ensure that all CMs are adhering to the latest set of rules. They also don't tell you exactly what they want so that they always have an ace up their sleeve with which to trip up the unwary CM.

Even in the British Isles, there is no agreement about the EYFS because it is only England that has implemented such a dictatorial set of rules. Political parties can't agree either. The Conservatives have said they will amend the EYFS so that it is 'light touch' for smaller childcare providers and will therefore be 'less cumbersome', while the Lib Dems want to focus their attention on the children who completely miss childcare due to family circumstances. Labour, on the other hand, have set themselves targets to reduce child poverty and see the EYFS as the tool to do this for them. That is why you are asked about what you are doing to increase the outcomes of the children in your care on your self evaluation form.

I should also say that the decision to apply for exemption wasn't taken lightly. We knew it was going to be difficult and we also thought that the outcome was probably pre-determined, but we still decided to go ahead. There is also no right of appeal against the QCA's decision, but my wife can make another application which she will be doing once she has received written comments from the parents about the QCA decision.

Hi Arthur, welcome. That is a really well thought out and delivered argument and opposition, well done. And well done to Pat (and you) for standing up for what you belive in - it can't have been easy.
Is Pat going to carry on childminding?

Whilst there are points I disagree with in the EYFS, I do believe the overall nature and principle of it is good. I do think more thought needs to go into it but tbh I am relishing the challenge. I do not implement the statements as they are written down but I do tweak them to my 'look, listen, note' obs - rightly or wrongly and I can show evidence that I am a) doing the my job correctly b)giving the children opportunities and learning within a good environment.

I am not big on ICT tbh and again in part I agree with you but there is evidence to say that use of ICT can and does help children. For example using everyday technology - (and this is where we as minders are perfect) - using the dishwasher, washing machine, pedestrian crossings etc etc). I know when people see the acronmyn ICT they automatically think computers - this is not the case.

I like the scandinavian models and also the New Zealand model.

Hope you like us enough to stop on the forum and join in with the rest of the stuff!

[Mouse]

Just going off on a slight tangent, but if I am delivering EYFS the same as a nursery (and often to a higher standard), why am I not allowed to receive funding for 3 year olds?

I know I could join my local network & become accredited to accept nursery vouchers, but why should I? Nurseries don't have to join a network.

If I am delivering the same education that nurseries do, I think I should be able to offer free places. There still seems to be the idea that nurseries are better and that's where children should be, but I know most of my parents would happily leave their children with me rather than send them to nursery, but few of them are going to turn down 5 free sessions a week.

I would be happy to see a scheme whereby childminders can chose whether or not to do EYFS. Those who chose to can claim the funding, those who chose not to can't. That way children could have the continuity of stopping with their childminder until they go to school.

I'd be interested to know what other people think. If such a scheme existed, would you still do EYFS or not?

[Pipsqueak]

Just going off on a slight tangent, but if I am delivering EYFS the same as a nursery (and often to a higher standard), why am I not allowed to receive funding for 3 year olds?

I know I could join my local network & become accredited to accept nursery vouchers, but why should I? Nurseries don't have to join a network.

If I am delivering the same education that nurseries do, I think I should be able to offer free places. There still seems to be the idea that nurseries are better and that's where children should be, but I know most of my parents would happily leave their children with me rather than send them to nursery, but few of them are going to turn down 5 free sessions a week.

I would be happy to see a scheme whereby childminders can chose whether or not to do EYFS. Those who chose to can claim the funding, those who chose not to can't. That way children could have the continuity of stopping with their childminder until they go to school.

I'd be interested to know what other people think. If such a scheme existed, would you still do EYFS or not?

We were talking about this the other night at our network meeting. I know that there is work behind the scenes to enable more funding for networks for childminders to be able to deliver this.
I understand exactly what you are saying, what I disagree with, there needs to be some sort of vetting and checking otherwise you are going to get those who aren't good/better/concientious saying they are delivering nursery education and the children are going to suffer.

I still don't think there should be an opt in or opt out system, effectively offering a two tier system.

[Roseolivia]

And this was another one of my points. We're being told that children in early years settings have to follow EYFS if they are to do well. But what about children who stay at home? In the majority of cases they are in no way disadvantaged by not following EYFS. If children manage at home without EYFS, why can't they manage with a childminder who doesn't follow it? I asked a couple of times if people thought children staying at home were disadvantaged by not following EYFS. The answer is no, so what is the overall benefit of it?

I still think it's a way of standardising us all, so that we're easier to monitor & grade - a bit like SATS in schools...and look what's happening there!

This has been a very interesting discussion.

I completley agree with this statement, years ago most children stayed at home with mother (i being one) and this didn't in any way at all make us less educated than others. I did well at school up until i found boys and alcohol, often getting top marks in some lessons. What about us minders who also have young children? we don't have to use the EYFS with them, what's the difference?
I think Arthur and his wife are very brave to stand up to the government and say they don't agree with what they want us to do. I agree some of the EYFS is useful (especially welfare requirements) as it makes sure all childminders are working to the same standards. But isn't there an argument that, like children all childminders are different and do things differently. i agree we should be inspected by someone to make sure we are keeping children safe and healthy because surely this is the main aim of a childminders role not making children reach 'targets'.

[PixiePetal]

And this was another one of my points. We're being told that children in early years settings have to follow EYFS if they are to do well. But what about children who stay at home? In the majority of cases they are in no way disadvantaged by not following EYFS. If children manage at home without EYFS, why can't they manage with a childminder who doesn't follow it? I asked a couple of times if people thought children staying at home were disadvantaged by not following EYFS. The answer is no, so what is the overall benefit of it?

I still think it's a way of standardising us all, so that we're easier to monitor & grade - a bit like SATS in schools...and look what's happening there!

This has been a very interesting discussion.

I agree with this bit. I was no way at a disdvantage once at school for staying at home with my mum pre school. Reading and writing early, well adjusted and happy. Started school without a backwards glance according to my mum. Quite shy, but that didn't change till much later

My own kids went to playgroup, when that was exactly what they did......play. With a folder of work to bring home at the end of terms.

The EYFS welfare bits I totally agree with, all children need to be safe from harm and neglect.

[Chatterbox Childcare]

I agree with this bit. I was no way at a disdvantage once at school for staying at home with my mum pre school. Reading and writing early, well adjusted and happy. Started school without a backwards glance according to my mum. Quite shy, but that didn't change till much later

My own kids went to playgroup, when that was exactly what they did......play. With a folder of work to bring home at the end of terms.

The EYFS welfare bits I totally agree with, all children need to be safe from harm and neglect.

Children play at nursery - this is what I do with mine.