The Independent Schools Council is a politically independent, not-for-profit organisation representing 1,270 independent schools educating more than 500,000 children. It exists to promote choice, diversity and excellence in education, developing talent at all levels of ability and from all backgrounds.

Select Search Area: Enter Search Keywords:

DfES Early Years Foundation Stage - Consultation on a Single Quality Framework for Services to Children from Birth to Five

5 May 2006

Response from the Independent Schools Council

Section 1: Introduction

Question 1.

Do you agree that the introduction to the EYFS and the explanation of its aims and objectives are arranged clearly and in the appropriate language for those working in or responsible for managing settings delivering EYFS? - Disagree

Some of the language used within the EYFS introduction needs revising in order to allow the wide audience of professionals and parents for whom it is intended to be able to access and understand this document easily. Whilst the overall glossary is useful, it should be used to complement, not substitute for, real textual clarity. Each phrase, and set of phrases, need to be examined to ensure that nothing is over-complicated.

The document frequently uses the terminology from child development theory, which, if you have come across it before, is readily understood. However, if you have not, it makes the meaning far more opaque.

In bullet point 5 of 1.2 it would be better to say 'rather than through being told or shown'.

Question 2.

Do you agree the introduction makes clear which parts of the document are statutory requirements and which parts are guidance or good practice - Agree

The answer to this question is linked to the answer to question 1. If the language is not accessible, then clarity has not been achieved.

The distinction between ‘must' and ‘should' is a useful one. However, this clarity does not carry through into the rest of the document. For example, it is not clear whether or not there is intended to be a distinction between a ‘providers should' presumption and ‘good practice' from the sentences:

‘If something is expressed as ‘providers should' then there is a strong presumption that they should act in that way, though it is open to them to take different action which will achieve the same result. In other cases, it will be clear that the document is describing good practice, but not a statutory requirement.'

Are the presumptions expressed as ‘providers should' the equivalent of ‘good practice'? Or do they have some kind of intermediate status? This is not obvious, as ‘in other cases' divides the two sentences. This situation is further complicated by later use in, for example, ‘Section 4: Meeting the welfare requirements' of the phrase ‘should have regard to' when talking about the examples of good practice in the third column of the welfare grid.

It will be crucial in order to enable innovative flexible practice to make clear what providers are required to do, what is recommended that they do and what guidance sits outside these two categories. In order to make the document maximally clear and accessible, it is suggested that every part of it be visibly sectioned into the appropriate categories within the original sections. At the moment, the danger, particularly in ‘Section 2: The Overview', is that the categories appear in the same paragraphs of sub-sections making it unclear which is which.

Other areas not covered in the introduction, which would be useful, are how this document relates to the Foundation Maths and Literacy Frameworks and an explanation of the replacement of the National Standards for Daycare.

Question 3

Do you agree the introduction helps you to navigate through the document successfully? - Agree

The introduction may assist many to negotiate the document easily, but the same caveat applies here as applied to question 2. If the language used excludes some people from accessing the document, then they will have difficulties navigating the various sections.

Section 2: EYFS overview

Question 4.

Do you agree that this section sets out clearly the roles and responsibilities of providers in delivering EYFS? - Disagree

Whilst many of the roles and responsibilities of providers in delivering EYFS are clear, there are points where it is not apparent how these roles will work in practice and therefore it will be difficult for providers to appreciate fully what their role is.

The first point to make is the requirement in 2.9 that ‘providers must collaborate to ensure that, between them, they provide children with a broad range of experiences which, taken together, deliver the whole of EYFS'[ii] and that ‘practitioners must ensure effective continuity and progression by sharing relevant information and, where possible, planning together'[iii] are extremely difficult to achieve in practice precisely because of the diversity of the sector. Consider a nursery setting that takes 30 children. Some of these children will attend for a few hours, three mornings per week, be looked after by a childminder during the rest of the day and then their parents in the evenings; with each child going to a different childminder and different parents. Other children will switch settings and carers even more frequently, particularly if the diversity of family situations is considered. It is no exaggeration that settings for 30 children could be required to liaise formally with upwards of 150 other carers. The logistics of this would be extremely difficult to co-ordinate. There can also be no guarantee that upon liaising with other carers there will be agreement as to what care is appropriate and what aspects of care they want to provide as ‘it is not necessarily expected that each setting a child attends will cover the whole of EYFS'[iv]. It is unclear how providers should manage this complex liaison, i.e. what their role is, and what they can do if co-ordination breaks down. Ultimately, whilst providers should aspire to enabling as much continuity as possible, as a requirement it is unrealistically rigid.

A further point for clarification is what the phrase ‘by the time they reach the end of the EYFS, the majority of children will have achieved the early learning goals in all six Areas' means in practice. At the moment, when the Foundation Stage Profile is filled in most children will not attain level 9 in all areas even in provision rated extremely highly by Ofsted. Is it therefore intended that the Profile be adapted so that more children achieve all the goals?

Notably, in other places, the EYFS states that children develop at different rates in different areas of learning and this is at odds with the statement that the majority will achieve all the learning goals. Parents should not be given unrealistic expectations that their child will be in the group that achieves all the goals and it should be made clear to providers that these are aims, but that children do not fail if they do not develop in accordance with the EYFS goals.

Question 5.

Do you agree that EYFS is sufficiently flexible to enable all types of providers to play an effective role in delivering it? - Disagree

As EYFS contains the phrase ‘it is not necessarily expected that each setting a child attends will cover the whole of EYFS'[v] this allows providers to deliver only some of EYFS and therefore it is flexible enough to allow providers to deliver it as they only need do part of it to be considered to be delivering EYFS. However, as there is no way to ensure that any collaboration is successful (please see the response to question 4) this flexibility may mean that a child would not receive the whole of EYFS.

Section 3: Progression through the Areas of Learning and Development

Question 6.

Do you agree that this section is useful for those managing provision and/or working with children from birth to five years in different settings? - Disagree

Up to a point, the information given is useful for providers in different settings in that the grids offer much useful advice.

It is not necessarily useful, however, for providers to be advised to anticipate that all children will continue into Key Stage 1. Providers need to be aware that not all schools, notably independent schools, follow the National Curriculum. It should be a matter of asking parents whether or not their child will go on to attend a school that uses the Key Stage 1 curricular framework and if they will not, the provider should assist their transition onto the alternative framework.

Many workers in the early years field will not understand the concepts of affective and cognitive domains. Plainer English is necessary.

The two visual aids are confused and thus detract from the usefulness of the document. The diagram[vii] is not in the same order as the grids and should either be omitted or clarified. It is unclear who the poster is aimed at, what it communicates and why it should appear in the bulk of the document.

The title ‘development matters' in the diagram, 3.3 and the 3.9 development grids is not felt to be intuitive and it is suggested that an alternative such as ‘the child's development' be adopted. This title is more child-centred and likely to succeed in focusing the attention of the practitioner more on the individual than on the group or on anticipating that every child will undergo the generic development pattern.

In the last paragraph on page 15 'reflecting on' would be better than ‘assessing' because ‘assessing' suggests weighing the child up against the standard, whereas ‘reflecting on' is more about trying to understand the individual children as they are themselves.

Question 7.

Do you agree that the learning and development requirements are sufficiently flexible to enable the diverse range of providers in the sector to deliver them effectively? - Disagree

The range of providers in the sector would be able, with sufficient training, to deliver these learning and development requirements successfully. However, the framework in specifying an approach will curtail innovation and effective practice that would seek to adopt a different approach to EYFS. The diversity of the providers' provision will thus be limited by the parameters of the framework. Please also see the answers to questions 12, 14, 21 and 22 on this point.

A separate specific comment to make on the flexibility of this framework is that it represents what could be seen as a top-down approach working back from the literacy and mathematics expectations of Key Stage 1 maintained primary education. So, rather than looking at the needs of the developing individual child from birth to age five, it gives the impression of being worked back from a particular idea of a 5 year old to birth.

ISC/IAPS would question whether the statement, which is made in EYFS, that ‘children learn by doing, rather than by being told' is consistent with effective delivery. It is strongly felt that whilst children learn from their own experiences, they also learn ‘by example'. Things and attitudes can be demonstrated to a child and then they should be allowed to carry them out themselves. It is particularly strange that the introduction to section 3 makes this point, when much of the effective practice recommendations are often about showing and demonstrating to children.

Question 8.

Do you agree that the learning and development requirements are expressed clearly enough to support quality improvement? - Very clear

The learning and development requirements are expressed clearly in so far as is appropriate for the statutory EYFS document. Two points that were noted particularly were the re-labelling of what was formally known as ‘Mathematical development', to ‘Problem solving, Reasoning and Numeracy'. This will enable providers to conceptualise the mathematical development of a child as contributing towards their wider development and not an isolated ability, which will assist them to design activities that enhance the child's learning in multiple fields.

The emphasis on the inseparability of physical development from all other Areas of Learning and Development and the expression of the fact that physical development can happen in areas such as meal times are both extremely positive.

It was felt that in Personal, Social and Emotional Development it should be noted that children need to be secure enough to ‘take risks'- not physical risks- in their learning and should not feel afraid to make mistakes.

Again as pointed out in the answer to question 6, quality improvement, and in particular quality transition, will not be assisted by all children working towards the Primary National Strategy, if this is not the system their parents wish them to enter. Independent schools have their own strategies for this age group and providers need to understand those relevant to the children in their care.

Question 9.

Do you agree that this section will help practitioners with early identification of children's particular needs and ensure providers understand their obligations and legal duties to support the diverse needs of all children? - Disagree

In specifying that ‘there must be no tests for children at any stage within EYFS' it takes away useful tools from providers to assess children's needs. Many independent schools use PIPS, ASPECTS and other baseline tests for children in this age group as it helps build an understanding of what the children can do at the outset. It may also be necessary to ‘test' a child to identify as soon as possible whether or not they display signs of having SEN. These tests are done sensitively and are useful diagnostic tools that should not be outlawed. Testing should not be entirely excluded, but should be allowed where it is done appropriately for the age and stage of development of the particular child concerned.

Question 10.

Is it sufficiently clear how the needs of disabled children, children with SEN and/or the needs of children from a minority ethnic background will be supported through the six Areas of Learning and Development? - Unclear

It is far from clear how the needs of disabled children, children with SEN and/or the needs of children from a minority ethnic background, will be supported through the six Areas of Learning and Development. The document says that needs should be supported, but signposts very few sources of help for this. A TES survey showed that over a third of teachers had received no preparation during their initial teacher training course for catering for children with SEN, and 23% said they had no more than one day's training and there is no reason to believe that early years professionals are better equipped than these teachers of higher age groups to deal with SEN and/or disabilities. Whilst it is understandable that the document does not contain detailed information as to exactly how needs should be supported, given the diversity of support necessary, it should act as a conduit to further advice, guidance and training which should be made readily available to all. These resources need not be drawn up from within government, but should collect together the best support from the voluntary, private and public sectors. It must be emphasized that professionals should not be expected to cater effectively for such a range of needs without proper training and support to do so. It needs to be clear where providers can go for help with funding for children with specialist needs.

A notable absence from the document when discussing SEN and diversity is full reference to provision for the Gifted and Talented. They are covered by the SEN Code of Practice, but not all professionals will be immediately aware of this. This group should be mentioned clearly as having specific needs for which providers should be expected to cater.

Similarly, many settings will contain children from multiple different ethnic backgrounds and it would be useful to have some central resources of knowledge and training upon which professionals could draw to assist them to co-ordinate support for this diversity. There are also issues that should be acknowledged surrounding the viability of providing full bilingual support within such highly diverse communities.

Question 11.

Does this section make clear the provider's role in recording children's progress?

- Unclear

The provider's role in recording children's progress within their own setting is reasonably clear. However, the idea of having a single development and learning record to which parents and practitioners contribute, and which will go with the child from setting to setting is not practical given the amount that children may move within the week from provider to provider. Parents may not wish to contribute to their child's record and it must be understood that the settings will not be in a position to require them to do so.

There would need to be training disseminated to all about the CAF and how it should be used. It is not true to say that ‘the CAF enables settings to identify any factors outside the setting that may be affecting a child's learning and development'. The CAF is a tool employed to try to identify any factors and whilst it may be useful, its power should not be misrepresented.

Question 12.

Do you agree that this section explains clearly about children as individuals who develop and learn at different rates and what practitioners must do to be most effective in promoting that development? - Disagree

The initial text of the document from 3.1- 3.8 mentions frequently that children develop differently. However, the bulk of section 3, 3.9, which practitioners will draw on separately to their reading of the rest of the document, visually sections off the images of the growing child without consistently reinforcing the message that children may develop at different rates within single Areas of Learning and Development and between Areas of Learning and Development. The initial code for the growing child with age overlaps between the images allows a certain amount of leeway for developmental differences. It would be better, however, to try to include along with every new grid - from the image of a baby to the Early Learning Goals - a note reminding practitioners of developmental differences. The inclusion of the monthly indicators with the flexible age ranges may also be helpful.

Section 3 establishes a basic framework for a series of things that children learn or attributes they develop and a series of methods that may be used to assist children as they do this. No evidence base is provided to establish the validity of this framework over another. This is not to say that this framework is not of merit, but due to the complexity of child development and variety of childcare approaches, it is not possible to characterise one framework as the ‘most effective'.

Although the document constitutes one example of an effective framework, it does have drawbacks. ISC/IAPS would repeat part of the answer to question 7 questioning whether the statement, which is made in EYFS, that ‘children learn by doing, rather than by being told' is consistent with effective learning. Again, whilst children learn from their own experiences, they also learn ‘by example'. Things and attitudes can be demonstrated to a child and then they should be allowed to carry them out themselves. It is particularly strange that the introduction to section 3 makes this point, when much of the effective practice recommendations are about showing and demonstrating to children.

Question 13.

Does this section cover the right ground in the right way? - neither agree nor disagree

It is unclear what this question means.

Question 14a.

Is our approach to exempting individual children the right one? - Disagree

It is not clear from the two paragraphs of 3.8 in which ‘Exempting individual children' is discussed what exactly the approach to exempting individual children would be. It is possible to envisage philosophies of learning that would not agree that this framework was the correct approach to childcare and early years education. Just as independent schools have the freedom to develop their own frameworks for school-age children, which parents can choose as appropriate for their children, so too should this freedom be made available for children within the early years range. The European Convention on Human Rights allows parents to choose an education that fits with their own philosophies and beliefs. The option to exempt individual children does not go far enough to allow for this. Provision should be allowed to exist so that parents can select something of quality that fits with their beliefs, without necessarily having to design it themselves. The system should ensure the quality of their choice in the same way that it is ensured at school level, through a strong inspection regime. Ofsted's Annual Report in 2000 stated that ‘the performance of independent schools ... [was] particularly commendable' and the education provided by independent schools for school-age children has been found to be the best in the world.[xvii] It is therefore crucial that the schools themselves should be allowed to continue to innovate effectively by devising their own approach, which parents can select as appropriate to their child.

Question 14b.

What are the grounds on which children might be exempted?

In line with the response to Question 14a, parents should be allowed to opt for quality provision that follows a different pathway from that outlined in Section 3. Not enough is known about how children develop to claim that practice sitting outside this framework does not enhance children's development as much as practice within it. Parents should not have to make a case for exemption. The right to an education in accordance with the parents' own philosophies and beliefs should be recognised, provided the quality of that education is subject to inspection.

Section 4: Meeting the welfare requirements

Question 15.

In setting the qualification requirements, do you agree that we have struck the right balance between setting the requirements at a good level, and setting the bar too high for providers to reach realistically? - Agree

From the perspective of the independent nurseries that ISC and IAPS represent, the qualification requirements are set at a realistic level. It would be advisable that before any qualification requirement is implemented all settings be given a suitable amount of time to prepare with subsidised training opportunities made available so that it does not place an undue burden on smaller providers.

Question 16.

How helpful are the adult:child ratio requirements in helping to achieve good outcomes for children without overly restricting providers? - Helpful

The adult:child ratios that would apply to independent school nurseries are helpful except that it is not clear what ratios to adopt for mixed classes of 3s and rising 3s, children who will be 3 in the term they are entering.

Question 17.

Do the welfare requirements cover the necessary areas and strike the right balance between placing requirements on and giving guidance to providers? - Disagree

Independent school nurseries should in general find the welfare requirements well-balanced between requirements and guidance. These schools are already fully aware of all good practice documents referenced such as, for example Working Together to Safeguard Children or Guidance on first aid in schools. It is surprising, however, that Working Together is referenced, but Safeguarding Children in Education is not. Working Together is a vital tool in itself, but it is a complex document that practitioners might find easier to access if read alongside Safeguarding Children in Education and What to do if you're worried a Child is being Abused?.

It is vital to outline to providers the role that even for independent and private providers the Local Authority and LSCBs will play in supporting the safeguarding of children in their areas.

In the context of safeguarding, it is important to note that the sentence ‘parents are allowed access to all written records about their children' nee