Updated info from Ofsted - Nov 2013 - VERY IMPORTANT

[Cinnamon Sugar]

Shriek!!! More changes :-(

[Tazmin68]

Shriek!!! More changes :-(

Not very different to the EY grid that I do I have just amended it to reflect the outcomes. I use these and highlight in different colours every few months to see how a child is moving on. Not sure how to attach them to show anyone them

[Simona]

I have made a few enquiries about this DM and EYO confusion

It appears that inspectors have had DM taken out of their inspection 'instruction' ...whatever that means....and replaced with EYO....that 'could' be how Gregory is referring to the outcomes having replaced the DM and says inspectors must be aware of ...she did not say providers need to be aware of!!!is it merely something to do with words???

Can we sit here and speculate, worry and go round in circles until driven mad....not in my view...so I am off to write another letter...I will be back later

[Bambini2]

Pacey have just got hard copies of EYO to purchase as a stand alone document or in a bundle with other documents. Ideal for those who don't want to spend all day printing.

[vals]

What concerns me is that how do they feed this information to childminders. If I didn't read it on here would I ever find out. How many childminders don't go on forums and therefore have no clue about all the recent changes.

[Simona]

It is good to hear that Pacey have produced a document on EYO...wow that is quick indeed when the EYO can be printed on its own free of charge

Both DM and EYO are non statutory guidance and we can use both or neither
I said previously the associations need to address this...not aLL cms belong to one and, in fact, many belong to nothing at all....it goes without saying we need info from them who have access to DfE and Ofsted meetings and know what is being developed as policy

In all the recent changes nurseries and preschools know exactly where they stand while Cms have to look at short statements hidden in news few access.

[Cinnamon Sugar]

Thank you Sarah, I printed it off this morning :-)

[loocyloo]

I was told this evening that we now shouldn't have characteristics of learning as part of anything we do? It should not be part of anything we comment on in obs or summatives or 2 yr check as not mentioned in EYO.
Any thoughts ?

[Simona]

I was told this evening that we now shouldn't have characteristics of learning as part of anything we do? It should not be part of anything we comment on in obs or summatives or 2 yr check as not mentioned in EYO.
Any thoughts ?

This is now getting out of control and going to cause a great deal of anxiety where none is required.

I contacted Ofsted yesterday and received a reply from the Principle Officer within minutes...providers can use both or neither when it comes to DM or EYO...nothing has replaced anything as both documents are still available and NON-STATUTORY...continue using whatever or both documents ...up to you.

I suggest if cms are confused to call Ofsted 0300 123 1231 and get a reply directly from them and if the inspectors tell providers they are using the wrong document ..that is wrong and inspectors will not tell anyone to do anything not required according toi new inspection guidance.

It is suggested below Pacey have published an EYO with other documents??..can anyone share about this or is it just for Pacey members?
can it be posted in the Pacey section of the forum?

I have also spoken to PLA who are seeking clarification on this and when that is received it will be published for the benefit of ALL Cms not just its members.

Hope this helps and please do not listen to speculation...ring Ofsted and find out!

[Bambini2]

It is available to members and non-members, as a stand alone document or with a couple of other items. Beware that on their latest members newsletter it gives the impression that it can only be purchased in a bundle. If you click on the dedicated section NOT the banner headline "This product is available in the EYFS Framework pack." You can find it as a separate item.

[Simona]

It is available to members and non-members, as a stand alone document or with a couple of other items. Beware that on their latest members newsletter it gives the impression that it can only be purchased in a bundle. If you click on the dedicated section NOT the banner headline "This product is available in the EYFS Framework pack." You can find it as a separate item.

Thank you I will try to locate it ...as I am not a member I will possibly not be able to find it but will give it a go.

No worry I will continue to get this clarified elsewhere

[sarah707]

Further clarification has been received from Nursery World magazine about the change from Development Matters to Early Years Outcomes in an article written by Lena Engel called 'Next Steps'.

The article confirms that this is a deliberate move by DfE to 'reduce the workload for practitioners'.

So we should be grateful all our DM guidance has been taken away because giving us a simple checklist to use is reducing our workload

[Simona]

Further clarification has been received from Nursery World magazine about the change from Development Matters to Early Years Outcomes in an article written by Lena Engel called 'Next Steps'.

The article confirms that this is a deliberate move by DfE to 'reduce the workload for practitioners'.

So we should be grateful all our DM guidance has been taken away because giving us a simple checklist to use is reducing our workload

The day DM disappears from the EYFS will be a very sad day indeed for children who are slowly being denied the right to play and now the right for practitioners to understand 'how children learn' in their development by following a simple guidance.

I am totally in favour of reducing 'workload' and bureaucracy but I have never heard anyone say they found DM a workload....maybe if the DfE want to reduce our work they would simplify the EYFS in the first place and some of its requirements.

Let's wait for the article and see the reaction from the EY sector to that...

I will certainly not just accept that 'child development' can be removed to reduce the workload for those who maybe have not the right grasp of EYFS, experience or qualifications to understand what it entails to work with children so the DfE moves in their favour at great risk to children's progress!!

[sarah707]

The day DM disappears from the EYFS will be a very sad day indeed for children who are slowly being denied the right to play and now the right for practitioners to understand 'how children learn' in their development by following a simple guidance.

I am totally in favour of reducing 'workload' and bureaucracy but I have never heard anyone say they found DM a workload....maybe if the DfE want to reduce our work they would simplify the EYFS in the first place and some of its requirements.

Let's wait for the article and see the reaction from the EY sector to that...

I will certainly not just accept that 'child development' can be removed to reduce the workload for those who maybe have not the right grasp of EYFS, experience or qualifications to understand what it entails to work with children so the DfE moves in their favour at great risk to children's progress!!

I agree it is a very sad day Simona - I have the article in the current edition - I think it's probably copyrighted so I don't want to scan and put it on here - but it's there in black and white - DfE are apparently doing us a favour by reducing our workload...

xx

[Simona]

I agree it is a very sad day Simona - I have the article in the current edition - I think it's probably copyrighted so I don't want to scan and put it on here - but it's there in black and white - DfE are apparently doing us a favour by reducing our workload...

xx

I believe you Sarah...what makes me sad if that is so I wasted precious time emailing Ofsted in the last couple of days only to find I was not really told DM will be removed and there you have it so go away? I have also heard many experts say DM is here to stay...I wonder what they will do now? something is not quite right.

I hope other CMs will take time to comment on this 'reduction of workload' especially when CMs have for years been told we do not need policies...and why not? are we less able? ...to reduce our workload and yet I know of no CM who does not go to great length to write and update policies going beyond the requirements!

I read what CMs do in terms of paperwork in this forum and wonder how they can be so committed and yet we are so undervalued.
The only time I have heard the DfE refer to less paperwork is in reference to 'agencies' who will magically come in and produce their own...but not actually do it for those who join them?

I despair at Gove looking at the best in the world in terms of education and then reducing our EY to running practice without the basic requirement: a very basic and much reduced child development guidance from the original of 2008!

If this is to be true the only winners will be Truss et al...I wonder if they dare visit Reggio Emilia and tell those atelieristas that their 'documentation' can be done away with to reduce the burden of paperwork?

I wonder what the likes of Tina Bruce, Chris Athey, Piaget, Vygotsky etc etc would say?...would Malaguzzi suddenly turn around and say his '100 languages of children' are a bureaucratic burden ...lets burn all their books....I will have a great bonfire then should I be mad enough to do so.

What will the journalists in Nursery World and EYE write about in future? How will new registered cms observe, plan next steps and assess progress without any reference to development? who will they turn to for help and advice when unsure how to support a child that needs a bit more help?...someone is bound to make lots of money replacing DM and then selling it to providers.

it won't matter because the DfE has reduced their workload so the teachers will pick up the pieces when the kids go to school...but I forget the DfE wants them in school at 2 now so they will be strapped to chairs learning by rote to count and recite the alphabet while denied play and the right to develop at their full potential and by doing so they will be denied their rights under Articles 3, 12, 13, 28, 29, 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child.

I rest my case.

[sarah707]

I am right there alongside you Simona rocking in the corner

[Simona]

I am right there alongside you Simona rocking in the corner

Let's all rock together but not in a corner...I won't bow to this govt rubbish

[hectors house]

Reduce our workload! Well after spending far too long producing a 2 year check the child had his health visitor appointment yesterday only to be told by health visitor - "we never read the writing, just the age band on the bottom"!! The mother stood up for me and told the health visitor that it was a legal requirement that I complete it and so could she please read it, I had printed a copy for the health visitor to keep with the child's records and she REFUSED to take it - so the parent is going to keep it in child's red medical book.

[sarah707]

This is the Nursery World article which explains why DM has been replaced by EYO

Learning & Development: Development Matters - Next steps | Nursery World

[Simona]

This is the Nursery World article which explains why DM has been replaced by EYO

www.nurseryworld.co.uk/article/1219207/learning---development-development-matters---next-steps+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk]Learning & Development: Development Matters - Next steps | Nursery World[/url]

Read it...digested it...unsure...confused by what Engel is saying.
I wait to see the reaction of the sector when NWorld releases the article...will be back then.