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

ReadPeterStaudenmaier as a teacher, I'm only aware of Sue Palmer for her work with literacy and only know what I've read about Steiner Waldorf (mainly on mumsnet) I'd be interested to know what the connection is between the two and the issues??

Gosh - have just read all of this with interest. I only post rarely on mumsnet - but a friend told me about this thread as we were chatting about early learning last night - so I looked it up.

Firstly - Richard House is definitely related to the Steiner movement - but I am not aware that Sue Palmer is in any way - in fact I think she was a head teacher for years before leaving to do educational research and write her books. Personally I value her opinion highly and have learned a lot from Toxic Childhood and its sequel. I am currently reading "21st century boys" but too early to comment on it.

I don't want to contribute to any vitriol here or be accused of having an "agenda" in any way so will be totally transparent. We sent our kids to a Steiner school for the kindergarten years almost entirely because we were concerned about them being pushed too early in an in apprioriate way. I was doubtless influenced by the fact that I have lived and worked in Europe prior to having kids and they do not formally school their children until 6 or 7. We therefore opted for a play based (although highly structured contrary to popular belief I find!) environment until age 6/7 after which they transfered to the local primary. The settled in well and quickly, and both could read fluently within 12 months. I believe that they were developmentally ready to learn to read in a way they weren't at age 4/5. This was backed up by my Mum who was a primary school teacher all her life and regularly shook her head in sadness in later years at how small children were being set up to fail by being introducted to too much too early.

Contrast my children with some others (not all of course!!) whose parents despair that they will ever read a book or enjoy literacy. I have friends who are worried that at 5 their child can't read. Or who are stressed that their LO is not doing X, Y or Z. They are trying to do more at home with them which in one sense is great - but only if they are developmentally ready. I know other parents who have said - "It's really funny, but he couldn't read for ages - and then suddenly, in year 2 he just "got it".

Now all children are different - some will learn formal skills earlier than others - but personally I don't hold with targets for under 5s at the very least. It is interesting to remember that Finland has the highest academic achievement levels in Europe and their children don't start formal learning until 7.

how on earth did this turn into ANOTHER friggin Steiner thread

If you google 'Sue Palmer' and 'anthroposophy' you do get a lot of hits - she seems to have given lectures to lots of anthroposophical societies, and she seems to have some sort of professional or personal relationship with Richard House.

I'd be interested to hear more about what her involvement is. I've dipped into 'Toxic Childhood', and while I don't agree with everything in it, it does seem pretty sane.

Happy New Year everyone!

Imbacille, I think it's because the Steiner Conspiracy Theory contingent picked up on mumoutandabout's examples of methodologies that do not orient their approach around the EYFS, and therefore need to go through a process of seeking exemption in order to do their own thing. Certainly the rhetorical technique of mudslinging and witch-dunking methods of ascertaining truth can only be masking a deficiency in substantive ideas.

It would be wonderful if the discussion could turn back to one of thoughtful and respectful debate worthy of MN, thus saving our foreheads.

I believe the issues under discussion are:

1. are the criteria currently set out by the EYFS appropriate in light the diversity of educational theories

2. should the government be dictating the educational focus for all children, and

3. does a target-focused educational setting actually affect the way children who do not meet those goals are treated.

Mumoutandabout's insistence that the targets are mandatory for children demonstrates the fine line between regulations for child centres and regulations for the child. Certainly the regulations are mandatory for centres with a penalty if they aren't the focus of planning, but I believe there is room for debate, as indicated in the numerous links above, about whether or not this ultimately translates into a penalty for the children who aren't focused on those targets themselves.

It seems to be very difficult for some people to accept that people with very different beliefs can agree on a middle ground. That is, that the compulsory EYFS learning and development targets are not educationally sound and that this system needs to change. My petition demand ie.

petitions.number10.gov.uk/parentsguideeyfs/

is but a first step. It is not a radical demand, it is only the beginning.

Of course a petition is not everything, we know that. There have been petitions before on EYFS (see the one launched by childminders for example, or the one which relates to after school clubs for example) and there will be petitions again, I'm glad to say.

The fact that huge numbers of people have signed petitions on this before and that the government have not yet listened to our voices does not matter in the slightest. We will keep coming. We will keep making our voices heard. We will not be shouted down.

One of the connections between Sue Palmer and Richard House is the Open Eye campaign, which has been in existence for at least two years now. See this link for more information on it's scope and history.

openeyecampaign.wordpress.com/

If you look and really listen to what people who support Open Eye have to say, you will find that their views on education are different. But they share some common ground.

The list of supporters for reform now includes headmistresses and headmasters of private schools, montessori educators, parents of all faiths and none...and the coalition umbrella is getting broader all the time.

As for me, I have never sent my child to a Steiner kindergarten, and even if we had one in the vicinity I wouldn't choose to do that. Neither can we afford to send our child to a private school. Our child is attending state education.

I do not agree with everything that Richard House or Sue Palmer have to say. (Incidentally Sue Palmer is not Steiner trained as far as I am aware).

Nevertheless I share a common cause with both of these amazing and well-informed people (namely that we urgently need to reform the EYFS learning and development requirements as a FIRST STEP).

May I say - I have tremendous respect for both Sue Palmer and Richard House as I do for many other educationalists and academics involved in the Open Eye campaign. Of the many people who have helped me in my parenting practice I would list both Richard and Sue near the top. So a very public thank you to both of you.

Whilst I would not choose to send my child to a Steiner school I respect the right of parents to hold different views and to approach pre-school education differently.

I support the Open Eye campaign wholeheartedly, but that does not mean I am uncritical of it, and my support for that campaign does not compromise my integrity as a mother, a writer or a parent.

Thank you to all those who have taken the trouble to write constructively on this difficult subject and once again, happy new year to you.

By Imbacille Fri 01-Jan-10 11:29:46
how on earth did this turn into ANOTHER friggin Steiner thread

I'm sorry but I think restlessnative is suggesting here and on another thread that I have some connection.

I am aware of Richard House's connection to Steiner but had no knowledge of any link to Sue Palmer.

As a teacher I value her contribution and commitment to literacy and certainly don't consider anything I've read or heard at conferences to be more than common sense.

Thanks holidaywonk I'll take a look.

What a complete and utter load of nonsense the the OP is.

sue palmer, really?

I've generally liked her practical stuff a lot. Although found 21st century Boys very shaky stuff.

I can't find anything directly linking Sue Palmer other than the fact she has spoken at a number of Steiner settings and that she and Richard house are often quoted in articles.

Yes, that's how it seemed to me mrz - maybe it's more a case of Steiner types finding something of value in her writings and approach, rather than SP being a signed-up anthroposophist?

Possibly holidaywonk guilt by association?

mumoutandabout you said "Compulsory in that they are a statutory requirement, and yes, all children are required to meet them"

Without meaning to be rude can you not see how that make no sense?

A statutory requirement is something that is a Legally mandated requirement that must be complied with by the party to which it applies.

Forget everything else you know and have read and simply consider this statement: if a child by 4 years old can not spell their name they are acting illegally.

Do you not think such a statement is absurd?

"The Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) sets standards for the development, learning and care of children from birth to five. All registered providers of Early Years care are required to use the EYFS statutory framework."
www.teachernet.gov.uk/teachingandlearning/eyfs/

"The early learning goals

The statutory early learning goals (detailed below) establish expectations for most children to reach by the end of the EYFS. They provide the basis for planning throughout the EYFS, so laying secure foundations from birth for future learning."

nationalstrategies.standards.dcsf.gov.uk/eyfs/site/requirements/learning/goals.htm

I think this is where the confusion arises.

mrz, no one here (it seems to me) is doubting that it's a statutory requirement for childcare providers to implement (at the very least) the statutory requirements of EYFS (which IMO is a good thing).

But that's very different to saying for eg

**children are required to meet them

**But yes, it IS true [that all children are required to meet them]

**Yes, I assure you it is [a legal requirement for every child to meet every goal]

I am happy for the OP to argue that EYFS and prescriptive teaching is a bad thing in their opinion.

I am happy for the OP to say that childcare providers are legally required to implement, at the very least, the statutory requirements of EYFS and that there is great pressure to implement the non statutory parts too.

But it is in fact wrong to stipulate and actually alarmist to state "Compulsory in that they are a statutory requirement, and yes, all children are required to meet them"

especially given the OP has purported to have spent a year researching this topic.

I work as a chilminder within the EYFS framework and I have never once sat down and "taught" a single child in my car a single thing.

I think zazizoma is right in that there are a few tangled threads of discussion here.

Do we all agree with sending children to school at rising 5, plunging head-on into structured literacy and numeracy teaching in Reception - probably not.

But given that this is our system and not many of us have the time or resources to HE/send children to other educational settings, it seems that most of us think that the EYFS goals at least provide a framework within which children with SEN, from deprived backgrounds or unsupportive/difficult home environments can be identified and (ideally) given some extra support.

After all, there is evidence to show that early years childcare goes some way towards mitigating the effects of deprivation, isn't there?

navyeyelasH I was simply pointing out that the inclusion of the word statutory in both the EYFs and the EYFS profile may be causing confusion and have led the OP to believe that children must meet all ELGs.

holidaywonk . . . regarding "but this is our system . . ."

Perhaps some of us are contending that this is actually not our system, and that we desire one with more openness to approaches.

Given that the system changes with the political wind, I believe those of us who do have time to put toward forming an educated opinion should have a say in it.

I also don't believe allowing for diversity and addressing social inequality and SEN issues are mutually exclusive.

mrz, oh sorry didn't realise that was what you meant. Good point, but I think the OP does genuinely believe what he/she is saying and don't think any of will convince them otherwise!

Beverly Hughes did announce a review of EYFS
www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2008_0133

"Beverley Hughes also announced further details of the EYFS review, scheduled to begin in 2010. The Minister confirmed the review will assess how the framework was implemented and how well it meets the needs of children, families and childcare providers. Work will begin immediately to gather information to inform the review, including compiling national and international evidence on child development and monitoring the way in which the EYFS is implemented. "

zazizoma - completely agree that the system is mutable and that informed individuals should have an input.

What do you mean by contending that this isn't our system, though?

As for diversity of approach and inequality - I just don't know enough about this to comment . I know NuLab's fondness for targets and goals has been widely criticised, and doubtless in some instances the criticism is broadly correct. But targets do serve a purpose, in that they allow us to see who is falling behind.

I meant that it's a system of a temporary nature which I feel is imposed, not one that I accept. I don't think we have a disagreement here.

I am wondering if your perspective is something along the lines of "there are limited resources to put into education, therefore it is our responsibility to see that whatever is available is geared toward the disadvantaged."

holidaywonk teachers know which children are falling behind without government targets.

zazizoma - that's probably broadly right, yes. I would prefer to prioritise children who are falling behind, I suppose.

mrz - I'm sure they do. I guess my assumption is that these statutory targets mean that those children get more follow-up than they otherwise would. It is an assumption rather than anything else though!

I think possibly the opposite is true in some schools. Children who are really struggling and stand little or no chance of meeting targets may not have such a high priority for support/follow up as children who are borderline