Parliamentary petition to downgrade sixty-nine early years foundation stage learning and development targets

[mumoutandabout]

For those who have children new to early years education - the early years foundation stage sixty-nine compulsory targets have met with opposition from supporters of very varied educational philosophies.

As the mother of a four year old child, I am convinced these targets should be downgraded to recommendations only. I started a parliamentary petition which you may like to consider signing. Since this comes under the heading of campaigns, I'm assuming it is okay to post the link here.

Click here to go to the petition:

petitions.number10.gov.uk/parentsguideeyfs/

Thanks

[Missus84]

I'm not sure what you mean by "compulsory" targets - compulsory in that all children have to meet them, or compulsory for all nurseries to plan activities around them?

[mumoutandabout]

Hello,
Compulsory in that they are a statutory requirement, and yes, all children are required to meet them, regardless of setting. All settings are required to meet them too.

[mumoutandabout]

Apologies folks, this thread has appeared twice it seems. Teething problems. Here's the correct link to the petition. Thanks for your patience.

petitions.number10.gov.uk/parentsguideeyfs/

[mumoutandabout]

All settings are required to meet them, unless that is they apply for a settings exemption. Some Steiner schools have succeeded in doing this, but it is a lengthy and bureaucratic process.

[Missus84]

"all children are required to meet them"

I'm not sure that this is entirely true - the goals are things children should be able to do by the end of the foundation stage, but it's not compulsory. I mean, if a child can't count to 10 or write their own name then they won't be held back a year.

[mumoutandabout]

You will notice that the first person to sign my parliamentary petition was Dr. Richard House, who has written more than forty books on education and early years education. The petition is also supported by many early years practitioners and childminders...

When I started learning about this, I could hardly believe the situation myself. But yes, it IS true. The sixty-nine targets are compulsory. The 'should' that Dr. Penelope Leach refers to in an excellent video (see this link) is a legal requirement.

See this link for the short yet excellent video directed by Fergus Anderson. It's the best introduction to this topic I know of - for those to whom this is a new topic.
Best regards

openeyecampaign.wordpress.com/video/

[Missus84]

It isn't a legal requirement for every child to meet every goal though is it - what's the penalty if they don't?

I understand some criticisms of the EYFS - that it's too prescriptive, impractical for childminders to implement etc. But I don't understand what you mean about these targets being a legal requirement for children. It's a legal requirement for settings to follow the EYFS and plan round these targets, but not compulsory for children to meet them.

[mumoutandabout]

Yes, I assure you it is. You may have watched the video now with Dr. Penelope Leach who explains that this approach is 'setting children up to fail'. That's exactly what an increasing number of people believe that it is.

And there is more than that. Lots of new research which suggests that these compulsory targets are counter-productive. But Dr. Penelope Leach explains this really well in the video. Here's the link again:

openeyecampaign.wordpress.com/video/

[hocuspontas]

They're goals and all settings have to provide opportunities for children to achieve them. Nothing more.

Whether all setting should have to follow the EYFS e.g. childminders with children in nursery/reception is a different matter.

[mumoutandabout]

Oh, in answer to your question Missus84, please clarify, I'm not sure what you mean by 'What's the penalty if they don't?' Please explain...and I'll get back to you as soon as I can...
best

[mumoutandabout]

Sorry folks, but they are compulsory targets. I've been researching this for over a year now, and I've talked to some of the best educationalists...they are compulsory and statutory targets. That's what the petition is about. Here's that link again...

petitions.number10.gov.uk/parentsguideeyfs/

For more information follow this link:

openeyecampaign.wordpress.com/

[SleighGirl]

if a child doesn't meet the targets what happens

a) to the setting
b) to the child?

[Missus84]

As sleighgirl says, if these targets are compulsory for children to meet, what happens if they don't?

[mumoutandabout]

a) Settings cannot refuse to apply the compulsory targets. If they do, at a most basic level they can have their funding withdrawn or not be allowed to operate at all. They can apply for an exemption (as some Steiner schools have successfully done) - but there is no guarantee they will get it, and even Steiner schools have only gained partial exemptions from the targets.

b) This is a really important and quite complex question. Many educationalists (such as Dr. Penelope Leach - who appears in the video mentioned) believe that 'teaching children' to compulsory targets at this young age and 'testing' them against targets is counterproductive in the long run. Meaning that this may actually put them off learning altogether.

By all means though, if you are concerned about this, there is loads more information on the Open Eye site at the links already meantioned.

best

[Missus84]

It isn't compulsory for children to meet the targets mumoutandabout - the govt is not insisting that every child must meet them.

But I do see that one problem with the EYFS is that some nurseries do interpret the early learning goals as something every child of a particular age has to be able to do, and then concentrate on what they can't do rather than what they can.

[lou031205]

mumoutandabout, this is going around in circles. Children cannot and will not be made to achieve a certain level at a certain time. All the EYFS does is standardise the learning experience for children of an age, and force all providers to offer a learning environment which will enable those children in their care to learn foundational skills if they are capable.

My DD has SN, and is very likely not to reach targets set in the EYFS. She will not be penalised in any way, and therefore your assertion that there are 'compulsory targets' for the children has no substance, because it only matters if there is a penalty for non-achievement.

Downgrading to recommendation only simply means that there will be no teeth to the educational standards.

[Missus84]

I do think the EYFS is broadly a good thing btw, a framework like this should improve quality. How it's implemented is an issue though.

I've done supply work in a lot of nurseries since the EYFS came in and while some have implemented it really well, others just don't seem to have had the training and understanding. Rather than planning round individual children's interests and providing opportunities to meet goals, they've taken a tick chart approach, crossing off goals as children meet them and panicking about children "failing" - obviously not the intention behind it.

[mumoutandabout]

Missus84 and lou031205 you are sadly mistaken. The targets are compulsory and a legal requirement. This thread concerns a parliamentary petition signed by prominent early educationalists such as Dr. Richard House who has appeared on numerous occasions over the past few years in many interviews with the Times and the Independent.

This thread is very focussed. We're not 'going around in circles' at all. The formulation and the wording of the petition is considered and as I said, I've been researching this topic for over a year now, supported by quite a number of prominent educationalists.

For other readers do consider signing the petition, check out the links provided and I'd be happy to help further on this topic.

[mumoutandabout]

Oh, and here's the link to that petition again, thanks for anyone who considers signing and supporting the campaign.

petitions.number10.gov.uk/parentsguideeyfs/

[Missus84]

mumoutandabout - the EYFS is a legal requirement for settings, they have to plan for the goals.

If it is a legal requirement for children to meet every goal, then what happens if one doesn't? Let's say 5 year old Johnny can't recognise numbers 1 to 9. What will happen?

[Hassled]

Yes, the targets are compulsory in as far as settings are required to set those targets. Meeting the targets is not compulsory. That's the point posters are trying to make.

[Missus84]

Think about it like the National Curriculum in schools. The school is legally required to teach a certain maths curriculum to GCSE. If they choose not to teach it, they'll be in trouble. But it isn't a legal requirement for every child to pass GCSE maths - if Johnny fails maths then there are no legal penalties for him.

[mumoutandabout]

Refer to answer b) already given above at 18.35 this evening.

Also link given to Dr. Penelope Leach video in my message of 18.22 p.m.

Here's the link to that petition again.
Thanks for reading this everyone.

petitions.number10.gov.uk/parentsguideeyfs/

[mumoutandabout]

Yes, and the targets are compulsory. That is what the petition is about.
best

[hocuspontas]

AAAARGH!!!!