Primary schools at 2 have ofsted lost the plot?

[3asAbird]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24818439

we have hardly any schools with nursury classes attached from age 3.

cant imagine my 2year old in a school nursery in a school uniform he cant even talk and doesnt keep still for long plus ratios in school are much less than at preschools and day nurseries?

like starting at 4 was not early enough

not keen on all through schools either they be massive.

surly theres better way to support deprived families maybe more toddler groups and one to one help such as play worker?

not to mention we have shortage of school places and cant find places for ones starting school.

And fwitw I think that article is badly written. It emphasises that her notion of start to finish is about formal education, which is not what she is saying at all. If you read her speech. She simply feels that schools are well placed to deliver strategic intervention.

Yes, reception should resemble playgroup, but it isn't actually playgroup, there are generally more children to fewer adults in reception compared to playgroup, schools do not like the children still to be having toilet accidents in reception (despite the fact that even with good parenting, some children are just not physically ready...), children in reception generally wear a uniform, and there are still quite rigid expectations as to what they should be able to do and how they should behave by the end of the reception year.

I have worked in both reception (before it become more like playgroup as it were) and more recently in a playgroup. While reception does have some formal areas, ie, phonics, maths work, it is a pretty benign place.And to be honest I would expect any NT child to be able to use a toilet and dress themselves at the end of reception.

And I speak as a parent of child with SN who struggled mightily in reception.

Yes, by the END of reception, yet it is not really part of the reception teacher's remit to help children in reception to use a toilet and dress themselves. Does that not imply that it's all a year too early?...

I would say that 99% of the kids in my reception classes were toilet trained, and about 80% could change themselves. And yes, we did help all of them if they needed help. Help they would also need in a playgroup or nursery or preschool setting. I can't see what the difference is.

As for NT versus not-NT, whereabouts would you classify a child who was diagnosed with aspergers one year and undiagnosed the next? Maybe a child who doesn't fit with your timetable for NT children, but who nevertheless managed to end up fairly normal by year 5??... Or a child forced into the wrong environment at the wrong time?

I can see what the difference is - staff trained in nurseries to expect toilet accidents and with better adult/child ratios versus teachers not specifically trained in EYFS who have been moved by the HT from year 3 or 4 to get some experience in reception...

Did you miss the bit I where I said my own ds had a hard time in reception due to identified, but undiagnosed SEN? I think you need to depersonalise this. Just because your dc was not ready (and nor was mine) does not mean its an evil torture.

No system of education is perfect. But saying that because our children were not ready for it does not mean early intervention and playsettings would not be beneficial to a great deal of children.

Anyone working in reception does so under the direction of the EYFS co-ordinator. I am sure the toilet habits of 4/5 year olds will have been discussed.

There are poor practitioners everywhere. But I do think they have far less chance of slipping through the net now than they did before.

Eh? Where have I said early intervention is bad for everyone? I have made it quite clear that I don't think it is bad for everyone, but do think it is bad when everyone feels forced into it - or did you think your child's miserable reception year was the best way to deal with things and there was no element of feeling you were forced to grin and bear it? By all means make more provision for 2-year olds whose parents think they need it, but that's not what you are talking about, you are talking about making provision for children whom the State thinks need it, and the State then setting all sorts of early learning goals for children to meet, so that if they aren't in the system from the beginning, they've missed some of that. And how is the State going to get the right children into the system, anyway?

by a lot of hard work by people like me.

I don't see why they do actually have less chance of slipping through the net, now - schools can go years without an Ofsted inspection if they were once considered good, Ofsted is talking of slackening its requirements to enable schools to introduce provision for 2 and 3-year olds, and LAs are stepping away from their monitoring roles as schools are academised.

Ofsted already inspect all Early Years settings. I can't see how that would change or get watered down.

I think the state has a vital role to play delivering decent care and education to all children, whatever their age.

But a DfE spokesman, according to the OP's article has said, "That is why we are making it easier for schools to take children from the age of two by removing the requirement on them to register separately with Ofsted when doing so." What does that really mean? That the DfE trusts schools to know what they are doing with 2-year olds because they currently deal with 4-year olds? Or that, actually, Ofsted will be just as involved in checking the set up of any new provision, rather than leaving it for 5-years until the rest of the school is due an inspection, and this is all just guff, it will still be well regulated and inspected?

That is indeed very vague. I would also be interested to know the answer to that.