New national curriculum for the under fives - is this true?

[gizmo]

or is The Times getting its facts wrong?

They want 3/4 year olds to write sentences with simple punctation, interpret phonics and use some simple formal maths ideas. With no 'opt-out' for any nursery or pre-school. So Steiner Schools/nurseries/Montessori etc will have no option but to teach skills which are (as far as I can see) probably not age appropriate for the vast majority of 3/4 year olds.

I really cannot believe this - I shall have to go and google what they are proposing. But if they are, how the hell do we stop them?

Well am in a hurry so have skimmed the article but I think they have got their facts somewhat wrong, for instance the EYFS (currently Foundation Stage) extends to the end of Reception. I have been told (but not seen it yet) that the EYFS shouldn't differ much from the current Foundation Stage.

But- I believe there will be more pressure on Reception teachers in the area of literacy

Yes, maybe it is a bit far fetched.

I've just skimmed the ofsted site and at the moment I can't find any reference to those sort of (IMO, totally unsuitable) academic goals in 3 or 4 year olds.

It it must be very tempting for the government to introduce such easily measurable targets at this age so I fervently hope it's not being contemplated.

Mind you the people launching this Open Eye campaign are heavily involved in the education sector and in a position to get their facts right, so I'll be interested to read what they have to say first hand - as soon as I can find some sort of website for the campaign.

I was talking to our pre-school manager about this story this am and she said that the curriculum wasn't significantly different from what is currently in place and she certainly wouldn't be sitting them all down and forcing them to read!

good lord. dd can't even pick up a pen cos she has cerebral palsy. I can't wait till they try and teach her phonics, punctuation or what have you.

I work in an pre school setting and have just received training on the New Early years foundtaion. Nothing was mentioned about this and I think it is scare mongering.

We also have been told that it will not differ too much from what we are doing now.

I am not a teacher although have a qualification in childcare ( NVQ3) . You cannot expect non tecaher trained staff to implment reading and writing at 3/4yrs age .

As someone said the foundation stage extends to the end of Reception year at school.

Most if not all childcare experts in early years say that learning through play is how children in that age group learn .

mking then learn punctuation etc is NOT learning through play.

OK, sounds like I might need to downgrade the outrage

Still, Ofsted, just be aware...I'm watching you...

jeez, I truly we hope we go back to Canada before DS1 starts school

my ds(6) would have had no hope at all

Its an over reaction. Three year olds have had a foundation curriculum for several years and private nurseries that claim the governant grant have to follow it.

I am sure that children will carry on learning through play. All that the early curriculum is about is making sure children are safe and well looked after. Also nurseries are going to have to make sure that there are enough qualifed staff.

I am sure that alternative nurseries can opt out of the the early foundation stage, but won't be able to claim governant funding. This is the situation at the moment.

I wouldn't be surprised tbh, we ignore all other research about education, why wouldn't it be likely that the government is planning something stupid?

In a country where the leader of the oppostion puts forward the notion that his party will insist that all children should be able to read by the age of six and fully (and probably rightly) expects that proposition to be met with enthusiasm instead of dismay, anythign is possible.

Gizmo- Steiner schools don't follow the national curriculum- they're independent- they have their own curriculum- to do with not learning to read until the children's milk teeth come in- they don't think they're spiritually ready until then- their milk teeth are formed by the mother's spiritual forces- and their own teeth come from the childs own forces built up from the spiritual world. Their curriculum is based on preparing the child for re incarnation- the core of it being basd on Rudolph Steiner's occult/ clairvoyant spiritual science- called anthroposophy.

Huge over-reaction. The changes are really not very great indeed. Our staff went on a course last week for an initial over-view of the changes and they came back very relieved and heartened. The curriculum is almost exactly the same, but some of the way things are set out and explained are different. Most of the changes will affect how pre-school staff organise themselves and their paperwork. Children are already continually assessed on all areas of development anyway, but it's all very informal. All it means is staff sitting down for a few minutes observing a particular child and writing down what he/she is doing and achieving. It's a bit of a bind for staff keeping up with all the paperwork, but the children don't even know they are being assessed.

Our pre-school leader felt that the new curriculum is actually clearer and easier for staff to follow. And she is a firm believer in learning through play and not doing too much formal stuff, so she was very heartened by what she saw and heard.

The main difference between what we have now, a 3-5's Foundation Stage and the new 0-5's Early Years Foundation Stage is that the under 3's will now have to follow a 'curriculum' of sorts. But one of the main purposes behind this is to improve the quality of birth to three care and to make the transition from nursery to reception class smoother. Nobody should be teaching phonics to under 5's!!!!

I have a Montessori Nursery School - and we find that the EYFS is fine - I have not seen anything in it advocating formal academic teaching for the under 5's! I don't know where all this is coming from! In fact, the EYFS reflects a great deal of the Montessori philosophy and we are very happy to incorporate it into our sessions. Most of it we were doing anyway! There have been a lot of ill informed people scaremongering about this issue.

The people who are really unhappy about it are childminders - suddenly it'll be paperwork city for them.

There's a petition here petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpenEYE/ if anyone feels uncomfortable about it (the great Penelope Leach has signed it, as has the guru Veronika Robinson, so I'm feeling quite proud about putting my name on the list

grrr links

here

And the campaign website is here

some people post everything they want to say in one go, and some people don't...

Firstly can I explain what EYFS is? EYFS stands for Early Years Foundation Stage and is in essence a curriculum for children from BIRTH until the end of the Foundation Stage which is sometime after their fifth birthday. As a teacher I would have no problem with the EYFS if it was merely a guidance document BUT and here is the BIG BUT it is a STATUTORY document and as such takes away parents freedom to choose how they would like their pre school aged child cared for, whether they choose a childminder, a pre school, day nursery, or independent setting ALL MUST follow EYFS.

Here is the full petition text:

We, the undersigned, petition the Prime Minister to commission an urgent independent review of the compulsory Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) policy framework, and to reduce the status of its learning and development requirements to ?professional guidelines?.

We recognise the government?s good intentions in its early-years policy-making, but are concerned about the EYFS legislation, which comes into force in England next September. Our concerns focus on the learning and development requirements, as follows:

1. They may harm children?s development

1. They will restrict parents? freedom of choice in childcare and education

1. Their assessment profile requirements may place an unnecessary bureaucratic burden on those who care for young children

1. Recent evidence suggests that government interventions in education generally may not be driving standards up and may be putting too much pressure on children

------------

Additional information

The following is intended to explain further the thinking behind the petition. However, please note that only the text above forms the official petition wording - which means that even if you are not entirely certain about what follows, as long as you agree with the wording above, you can sign the petition.

1. There is significant evidence to suggest that introducing formal education too early is damaging to some children in both the short and the long term, especially to boys. Consequences may include the development of unpredictable emotional and behavioural problems, unwarranted levels of stress, damage to children?s self-esteem and erosion of their enthusiasm for learning. Research has shown that 5 year olds drilled in reading and writing were outstripped four years later by children whose first year at school was more socially interactive and stimulating. Such evidence suggests that in practice (notwithstanding the reassurances offered in the legislation) the approaches to teaching that will be encouraged by broad-brush EYFS targets - such as that by the age of 5 children should ?begin to form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation? - are likely to be those which may be harmful to young children.

1. The EYFS will be mandatory across all settings ? childminders, nurseries, playgroups, schools (including independent schools). We appreciate that the Government?s intention is to ensure the same high standards everywhere, but we believe that this could be better achieved by investing the necessary resources in comprehensive staff training across the field. We do not accept that the EYFS encapsulation of child development reflects the views of professionals worldwide, nor do we accept that it is acceptable to mix developmental milestones with aspirational outcomes.

We note that the law allows for the Government to make regulations regarding exemptions to EYFS. However such exceptions are to be made only at the request of individual parents, and it will therefore be impossible for parents to find a childcare or educational setting which takes a different approach to the EYFS and therefore does not teach to its learning and development requirements. This is an unprecedented restriction of parents? freedom to choose how their children are cared for and educated. It may actually increase the use of informal care, with accompanying lower standards in some cases.

1. The EYFS profile demands that carers assess children against 117 different assessment points. With less than a year to go until implementation, arrangements for carers to receive training and ongoing support are seriously inadequate. Without such training and support there is unlikely to be any consistency of assessments and random ?box-ticking? is a real probability. Even once trained to do it, assessment and recording will add significantly to the workload of those who care for and work with young children. It may skew the way staff observe and interact with those children, and the paperwork required will certainly take up valuable time that could otherwise be spent with them.

1. Recent evidence ? including the reports of the Cambridge Primary Review, and the latest OECD PISA report (the ?international league tables?) - suggests that government-driven changes in education have been largely ineffective in driving up standards and may at worst be adversely affecting both educational standards and the quality of children?s educational experiences. We see no reason to believe that the EYFS learning and development requirements would break this pattern.

In conclusion, we believe that this unprecedented legislation could lead to harmful long-term consequences and therefore contradicts the responsible ?precautionary principle? which should surely be exercised in all early-year state policy-making.

To sign the petition, please visit the Downing St website.

petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpenEYE/

The initial changes might seem only slight but it is by stealth that it has become acceptable for teachers and now childminders to spend their time assessing toddlers and young children instead of caring for them and facilitating creative and imaginative play (which longterm stands the children in better stead in every way including academically and in terms of self-esteem).

A quick look at the communication, language & literacy goals will confirm that "Children's learning and competence in... beginning to read and write must be... extended" - so carers will be acting unlawfully, in effect, by not teaching the children in their care reading and writing. Take a look at the goals - some are clearly inappropriate for many if not most children reaching the age of 5, and yet it's written down in law that this is what they should be doing

• Reallytired says: "I am sure that alternative nurseries can opt out of the the early foundation stage, but won't be able to claim government funding." This is not the case. At the consultation stage it was suggested that alternative approaches would be able to opt out, but this was later quietly dropped. The current position is that only temporary exemptions will be granted, for settings that need time to get up to speed, and that no exemptions will be ranted from the assessment profile. The only difference between funded and non-funded settings is that funded settings won't even get a temporary exemption

• Settings that are already teaching to the existing foundation stage won't be too badly affected in what they're doing, so I can see why they might think of Open EYE as scaremongering; but the fact is that things are badly wrong with our education system and evidence suggests that a big part of the problem is that we start children learning too early. There's a huge difference between a system that provides opportunities for young children
  who are interested in reading and writing to play with letters and words and one which makes it unlawful to refuse to "extend" the reading and writing skills of children who are not developmentally ready to do so

Part of the problem is that there will be under-supported staff - probably quite a lot of them - who, burdened by the extra paperwork and not really certain of what they're supposed to be doing, will take a tick-box approach to assessing the children. At this age, the children should be playing. I know the EYFS says that these skills should be delivered through play; but
through 'planned, purposeful play', which leaves no room for real play, which comes from the child and is spontaneous - and is a vital part of their development

Oh - and someone mentioned that Penelope Leach had signed the petition. Not only that, but she helped with the formulation of it!
Many other signatories are equally well known and respected in education and child care circles so please take time to read and consider how this will effect your child and your freedom of choice.

I have signed the Petition against the EYFS because I have looked at the 69 early learning goals which it introduces and I think that many of them, especially the literacy goals,are completely inappropriate for the majority of 5 year olds, particularly boys e.g requiring children to be reading and writing simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation! (See page 13, para 2.10 EYFS). I have a 7 and 6 year old who are still struggling with punctuation so to be expecting this of my 4, rising 5 year old, is utterly ridiculous. I also can not understand why we are so obsessed in this countries with starting formal education younger and younger when all the evidence suggests this doesn't work and that is why most other Country in Europe starter later not earlier.

Finally, I am very surprised that pollypumpkin has not seen anything in it advocating formal academic teaching for the under 5's and I wonder whether she has read the 19 early learning literacy goals? I do not see how 5 year olds can "use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words" without formal academic teaching?

Also I am surprised that her Montessori Nursery School is fine with the EYFS since all the Montessori teachers and teacher trainers I have spoken to are completely against it on the basis that it is starting off formal learning far too young and the extensive observation and assessment requirements will result in teachers spending more time ticking boxes and less time interacting naturally with the children.

Since signing I have also noticed that many leading educationalists have signed up too like Dr Penelope Leach, Sue Palmer and also the country's top expert on dyslexia, a professor of human communication and the neuroscientist who reviewed all the research on early learning for the government. Surely these experts can't all be "ill informed people scaremongering about this issue".

So I think we should all sign up * up.petitions.pm.gov.uk/OpenEYE/*

"We are prisoners of a model that ends up as a funnel... the funnel is a detestable object... Its purpose is to narrow down what is big into what is small. This choking device is against nature." Malaguzzi

Can I just point out though, that the EYFS isn't all about the goals at the end of it, or the learning that takes place throughout. It is also concerned with the care side of the early years and this is represented by the integration of the Ofsted standards, plus any changes that may have been made. This is an important change imo from the current Foundation Stage Curriculum.

Mrz, your statement: "I know the EYFS says that these skills should be delivered through play; but through 'planned, purposeful play', which leaves no room for real play, which comes from the child and is spontaneous - and is a vital part of their development". I do not see how planned purposeful play and spontaneous play can not be integrated to become one and the same thing. To my mind it is about the way the environment is set out, the resources and equipment that are provided and also the interests and needs of the children accessing the areas. Children can spontaneously choose to play in areas that have been set up in a planned and purposeful way to meet their needs and interests.

I'm not picking holes, I was just wondering how you came to see it your way?

I have very mixed views on this so will be watching this thread with interest. We are currently implementing it in our nursery and at present, see no real issue with it, even for the younger children.

I am a nursery nurse doing a degree in early years and this is something that we are looking at an awful lot. I suppose I'm just seeing things in a different light to how I would at level 3.

The EYFS has a principled approach that is rooted in research drawn from both the existing Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage and the literature review underpinning ther Birth to Three Matters framework. These principles should be the fundamental considerations when planning the experiences for children under five in any early years setting.

However, this will not be possible if national and local authority pressure is placed on statutory requirements in terms of achieving the Early Learning Goals by the end of reception year. These goals, some developmentally inappropriate, already exist in the current Foundation Stage curriculum except for one regarding Communcation Language and Literacy which as been reworded. The difference is that the EYFS will be statutory for the whole birth to five curriculum, making it contentious and open to inappropriate interpretation, particularly for our youngest children under three years old.

Consequently, we have what should be a wonderful flexible framework to support all children under five in their development and learning that gives conflicting messages. If emphasis is placed on achievement of targets with an adult outcome agenda we are robbing children of their basic right to have a meaningful rich play-based curriculum. This is dangerous, and has the potential to damage children's spontaneous love of learning for life.

I have signed the petiton and joined the campaign, and I urge everyone else reading this to do likewise, particularly parents. Your children do not have to even be in statutory education until the term after they become five, so please support this cause to give your children in early years settings a better start in the appropriate way by professionals who know best. Even better, as parents please could you state this fact when you sign the petition - thank you.