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

b) is not the answer to the question. What about 5 year old Johnny? What actually happens? The answer - nothing. A target was set for him, he failed to meet it because he has SEN, he's August born, he's not that ready or he just wasn't in the mood and NOTHING HAPPENS.

He moves into KS1 with a little bit more care and attention and possibly School Action than he would otherwise have had. So the framework has worked.

mumoutandabout - your point at 18.35 about teaching to targets and settings testing children by targets is a valid one. But it isn't the same as it being compulsory for children to meet the targets.

It is compulsory for Johnny's nursery to provide activities that encourage his understanding of numbers, and to assess and record whether he can identify numbers.

It is not compulsory for Johnny to identify numbers. The EYFS says 5 year olds should be able to identify numbers. If Johnny can't, then there's no problem, he isn't held back in nursery til he can, the nursery isn't fined. It's just noted, recorded and maybe passed on to his primary school. Maybe a learning difficulty is suspected, maybe it turns out his sight is poor.

Mumoutandabout - I'm by no means trying to say that EYFS is flawless; we all know it isn't. It puts immense pressure on childcare practitioners and Reception teachers, and at times turns early education into a pointless box-ticking exercise. I have some sympathy for your campaign, but on the other hand recognise that the targets can serve to identify children who may need additional support.

We are not idiots - if you want the support of other parents, you need to be prepared to answer questions and engage with us. Properly.

That's interesting. Sorry to have taken half an hour off this thread, you know how it is when you need to get the tea ready, and so on...

By the way, I don't think engaging with people properly should include allowing them to call you a 'troll' or a 'loon' - but I'll just leave that statement to one side for a moment and return to the subject at hand.

This thread is about a parliamentary petition. The text of that petition is quite clear and carefully formulated. I'm very interested to note that there is a need for a more general discussion, and will certainly try to meet that need as far as I am able, but actually the thread is about the petition itself.

It is up to Mumsnet readers whether or not they sign the petition. Indeed if anyone would wish to mount a counter-petition they will find the instructions on how to do this on the No. 10 petition site. It's entirely up to you. Here's the link again:

petitions.number10.gov.uk/parentsguideeyfs/

best to you all and thanks for reading this, I'll try and pick up the discussion again tomorrow, it's that time again and need to get Babes into bed...

Just before I got, just wanted to inlude these links. They are all about new research which shows some of the possible detrimental effects teaching very young children to targets may have. As such they reiterate what Dr. Penelope Leach said in the video mentioned earlier, but all those who are asking the question 'what happens to the children?' may be interested in these. Some of us who have criticisms of the EYFS compulsory learning and development targets would perhaps answer - what happens to the children is that they are set up to fail - and this may have a negative impact on them for the rest of their lives.

Here are the links, I hope you'll find them helpful:
These links are all about the same research, so just try one! I hope they work okay

www.voxy.co.nz/national/research-finds-no-advantage-learning-read-age-five/5/33888

www.odt.co.nz/on-campus/university-otago/87016/later-readers-catch-study

www.3news.co.nz/Late-starters-just-as-good-at-reading-research-shows/tabid/209/articleID/134996/Defa ult.aspx
www.reading.org/general/publications/blog.aspx?BlogTagID=ba349b95-66c0-4c82-ba23-dd2df20d6b5f

discoverytime.blogspot.com/
in.news.yahoo.com/139/20091221/981/tsc-kids-who-learn-to-read-at-age-five-u.html

You really are rather rude, mumoutandabout. MN is not an audience with 'readers'. It is a forum, with posters who also read threads. No individual poster gets to dictate what a thread is about. I doubt you will get very far in recruiting supporters like this, tbh.

Beyond rude quite frankly.

Mumoutandabout do you have any connection to a Steiner School or the general Steiner education ethos?

mumoutandabout, stop name dropping and back your claims up properly please. YOu said in an earlier post that the EYFS targets are

"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."

This is evidently untrue.

So either you have misunderstood the meaning of "target" and got your knickers in a twist about something that has never, in fact, been the case - or you have been telling porkies to get people to sign your petition

Which is it?

Gosh. Gomez. Actually I don't. You may be surprised to learn the opposition to the EYFS compulsory EYFS targets is a broad 'church'.

best
m.o.a.a.

"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."

Coldtits - if you will allow me, politely to call you by your username. The above statement is fine and stands up. I'd put my name to it.

Apart from those settings as I said, who've applied for and been granted an exemption.

...

Look forward to hearing your further and very interesting comments.

In what way does it stand up.

Please give an example of the sanctions imposed on children who fail to meet these targets.

In a nutshell (and I'll come back to this one)

I believe the existence of these targets is in danger of changing our whole culture. The trend has been referred to as 'the death of childhood'.

The targets change the way that parents relate to each other (no alternative views permitted...)

They change the way children relate to children (undue and inappropriate competition at such a young age)- I have seen this myself and so have many others.

They change the way that nursery staff, teachers and educational authorities relate to children (this has already been said on this thread - the 'box ticking' culture...

Finally, they encourage the view that it is appropriate and eduationally sound for children to learn to read and meet the other sixty-nine targets by the age of five. All the evidence we have shows that this is simply not the case.

And the sanctions imposed on individual children are quite simply - they set children up to fail. Giving such young children the impression that they are somehow 'not good enough' in this way is just about the worst thing you could do to a child educationally speaking.

So, all you bullies on this forum...are those sanctions enough for you? Is your only answer to what has been called a 'courageous intiative' (my e petition) to put me down, try to rubbish my integrity and confuse the debate?

And here's that petition link once again. Thanks to anyone who adds their signature.

Best

petitions.number10.gov.uk/parentsguideeyfs/

Oh dear. YOu were just about giving me a convincing argument until you called me a bully.

I'm a bully because you're being questioned, and asked to substantiate your beliefs?

I really do now think you have another agenda. You are not just a concerned parent with the wrong end of the stick.

Listen - CHILDREN ARE NOT REQUIRED TO MEET THOSE TARGETS AT THE END OF RECEPTION!!!

As others have persistently asked - what do you think happens if they don't reach those targets? Expulsion? Re-do a year or two? Setting closed down?

I work in reception and by the end of the year the average age of the child is 5.5. (Not 4 as Penelope Leach keeps repeating). Most children meet the EYFS targets. Some exceed them, others are still working on them. AND WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON THEM THROUGH KS1.

And please stop putting a link to your petition - you sound deranged.

mumoutandabout - I don't think anyone is denying there are problems with the EYFS, but I think you have maybe misunderstood the "targets" for children.

They don't mean "Every child MUST do these things or they have failed"

They mean "An average 5 year old should be able to do these things by the end of reception"

And then they put the responsibility on settings to plan around these goals, and record children's progress towards them.

Now, there are problems with this approach - for one, I have worked in nurseries that have interpreted it in a way similar to you, that a child aged X must be able to do Y. But, "downgrading" the goals - presumably making the EYFS optional for settings to work to - isn't going to solve this as far as I can see.

Also, your point about the "sanction" being that the child knows it has failed - I don't think this is true. Hocuspontas can probably comment on this too, but no adult working in the foundation stage is ever going to say to a child, "well, you're not very good with a pencil, and by your age we'd expect you to be more co-ordinated" or "you need to put more effort into your imaginative roleplay, you're falling behind the average 3 year old".

Oh how nice, my post got deleted because I said she was either stiring for the sake of it or wasn't all there. That's not a personal attack - it's how she's coming across!!

Mumoutandabout, please go and read the Childcare Act 2006 then come back and let's see if you're stil grasping at the wrong end of the stick.

A factual point squirrel. Actually you said I was a 'troll' and a 'loon'...

squirrel42 I'm reading this thread with growing astonishment - I think 'troll' is just a commonly used internet term (not a great hairy beast) & 'loon', though it might possibly cause offense - was clearly in this case jocular.

Well, you know... cap fitting & all that...