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

By Missus84 Tue 29-Dec-09 18:57:16
mumoutandabout - the EYFS is a legal requirement for settings, they have to plan for the goals.

Sorry but settings should not be planning towards the goals. That is the same as teaching to the test as schools are often accused of doing with SATs. Surely the idea that babies and children under 5 should be provided with activities to allow them to achieve 117 points on the EYFS profile isn't what it's all about.

Talk to teachers ...some schools/LAs are saying every child must achieve every goal by the end of reception others are being told don't award the points as it will make KS1 look bad...what is the point?

That's just it restlessnative - saying that someone is trolling is pretty common in these sorts of situations where people post the same thing over and over and don't respond to basic facts that go against their arguments, and last time I checked "loon" wasn't particularly offensive. Sorry if it came across that way, but to me mumoutandabout seems like someone who entirely fails to understand both the law and what people are saying to her, and can't comprehend that she has got this the wrong way around!

Once more: children are not legally forced to meet targets. I repeat, the children are not legally forced to meet targets!

Oh, and it was troll OR loon actually.

mumoutandabout, there is no point in trying to petition for making something a recommendation only. You are saying that you believe that the EYFS is dangerous to the well-being of small children. Why, therefore, would you want the Government to 'recommend' its implementation to settings? If you believe it to be wrong, you need to campaign for its replacement with a more suitable vehicle for teachers to monitor and assess the progress of children in their care.

Also, competitiveness between parents is not the responsibility of those settings or the Government, it is the responsibility of the parents.

By lou031205 Wed 30-Dec-09 16:17:33
mumoutandabout, there is no point in trying to petition for making something a recommendation only. You are saying that you believe that the EYFS is dangerous to the well-being of small children. Why, therefore, would you want the Government to 'recommend' its implementation to settings?

lou at the moment EYFS is statutory if it were only a recommendation or guidance settings would be free not to follow it.

The petition to prevent EYFS becoming statutory was signed by almost 8000 people was turned down, so I doubt any further petitions will have more success.

Yes, I understand that, mrz, but my point was that if I truly thought something did children harm, I wouldn't campaign for it to be 'recommended', rather scrapped.

I appreciate that lou but getting EYFS scrapped has already failed so to minimise the perceived damage having it's status reduced may be the next step?

mumoutandabout - but do you realise how hopeless the situation was before these targets were introduced? at least the targets give teachers something to focus on; it can only help to raise standards and pull our country out of the educational gutter. only a few of the targets are overly ambitious anyway. most of them are prefectly achievable by the majority of children. if you don't like them, why ccan't you simply ignore them (they wont turn around and bite you if you do). there are many things that are contributing to the destruction of childhood- not just EYFS

By tispity Wed 30-Dec-09 19:56:18
mumoutandabout - but do you realise how hopeless the situation was before these targets were introduced? at least the targets give teachers something to focus on;

sorry to disillusion you tispity but the targets for the end of reception have existed since 1999.

mrz - i was thinking back to my own childhood actually

and I'm just thinking that if after 10 years of teachers having them to focus on they have obviously failed to help to raise standards and pull our country out of the educational gutter

well, they have got round that by steadily lowering the standards at the same time so it looks as though they have succeeded.

Something here rang a bell - then I remembered a thread in the TES forum a couple of years ago where posters discussed EYFS and the role of Dr Richard House and the Open Eye Campaign.

Funny that here is a mrz and on that thread there's a Msz! I wonder if they could by any chance be related?

Really interesting to read how mumsnetters have perceived the early years goals, which admittedly did look stringent.

What are the 69 targets that the petitioners think are unreasonable targets for the children and providers?
(Having a child in reception I know I really should know already )

Early Learning Goals

Ooh, and look what it says: "By the end of the EYFS, some children will have exceeded the goals. Other children, depending on their individual needs, will be working towards some or all of the goals - particularly some younger children, some children with learning difficulties and disabilities and some learning English as an additional language."

Thanks. Yes, that first paragraph is quite clear there.

By restlessnative Wed 30-Dec-09 21:07:58

Funny that here is a mrz and on that thread there's a Msz! I wonder if they could by any chance be related?

same msz restlessative but not my thread and I'm not a signatory to the petition mentioned in this thread.

I still believe that a statutory curriculum from birth is wrong and that aspect of EYFS is ill considered. I also believe it is a "daycare" curriculum imposed on schools but personally as a teacher I don't have a problem with assessing children at the end of reception.

By tispity Wed 30-Dec-09 20:40:30
well, they have got round that by steadily lowering the standards at the same time so it looks as though they have succeeded.

Sorry but while I agree this may be true for older children what is happening with EYFS is the age the standards are expected to be achieved is being lowered, so now 4 year olds are expected to be at the same level as children almost a full year older

There aren't actually 69 ELGs there are 65 plus 39 development matters plus 13 additional points for children consistently working beyond the ELGs. Children are assessed against these 117 points and their scores are reported at the end of the reception year in much the same way as KS1 SATs are reported.

For your information all...
see link
www.morningstaronline.co.uk/index.php/news/content/view/full/84981

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/preschool/884740-boys-aged-three-must-work-more

There are some points made in the Morning Star article I posted which are not made in the other link, so I'm sure this will interest those concerned about the topic of this thread, especially Sue Palmer's comments.

The Morning Star article seems to be a brief synopsis of the Independent report

I would take anything Richard House and Sue Palmer say with a pinch of salt.

Their agenda is not about saving childhood, it's about saving Anthroposophy also known as Steiner Waldorf.

I agree with ReadPeterStaudenmaier

And if her post is deleted: I'll know she's right.

Happy New Year folks