in boximage.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Education/documents/... · E Y F S,allow in g diverse con...
1
We share a profound concern about England’s early years foundation stage (EYFS) legislation, which becomes law next autumn. We believe it to be fundamentally flawed in conception, with net harm likely to be done to children due to the framework’s contestable assumptions and unintended consequences. Young children learn most naturally and effectively through a subtle balance of free play, movement, rhythm, repetition and imitation. An overly formal, academic and/or cognitively biased curriculum, however carefully camouflaged, distorts this learning experience; and an early head start in literacy is now known to precipitate unforeseen difficulties later on, sometimes including unpredictable emotional and behavioural problems. Legally enshrining a model of child develop- ment allows no space for very different but equally plausible developmental frameworks. The age bands and associated age-related goals in the EYFS are also quite arbitrary, with little if any coherent developmental ration- ale; and to impose a compulsory legal framework on what are pre-compulsory school-age children may well have profound civil rights implications. Caring for babies and toddlers is deeply personal, involving immeasurable qualities such as attunement and responsiveness. A one- size-fits-all framework that needs copious record-keeping risks substituting bureaucracy for care. So we call on the Government to commission an urgent independent review of EYFS, allowing diverse conceptions of child development to flourish without undue compromise, and to reduce the status of EYFS to professional guidelines, free of legal compulsion, so safeguarding the professionalism and freedom of practitioners who have principled objections to the framework. Many feel unable to speak out against EYFS for fear of career reprisals; others feel helpless to influence government thinking. So the Department for Children, Schools and Familes may be unaware of the level of opposition. We call on practitioners, academics, administrators, teacher-trainers and parents to join our Open Eye campaign for the very heart of childhood. l For more details or to join the Open Eye campaign, email: [email protected] 26 Send your letters (maximum 300 words) to: The Editor, TES, 26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQ email [email protected]; fax 020 3194 3202. Include your school or other professional details and home address and telephone number. Letters may be cut Priority is inclusion I am extremely saddened, yet not surprised, that some schools behave in such a manner that results in a pupil exclusion described in your article “Governors in mass walkout over biting boy” (TES, November 23). Some schools (too many) are so set in the institutional practice of exclusion that they seem never to take a step back and reflect on the traditional procedures they employ. At our school, we support and attempt to understand children with challenging behaviour, employing many strategies which keep these children in our school. Inclusion is top of our list and due to the success of our procedures over the past two years, we have had no fixed or permanent exclusions. How do we manage this, even though we termly accept two or three “managed cases” of pupils with challenging behaviour from other schools? We manage through our nurture group, an extremely effective and intelligent behaviour support team, close liaison with the two pupil referral units in the city, pastoral support plans with agencies for individuals, and respect for these pupils and their parents. Above all, it is the corporate vision towards inclusion held by all who work and govern in our school. One day last week I asked all the support staff who work in many one-to-one situations with children with challenging behaviour to remain after school for 10 minutes. I wanted to acknowledge and praise their work, which may mean that they are often spat at or hit by children unable to understand and cope with their extreme emotions, yet which through employing Team-Teach ensures our pupils remain safe and secure. We are the adults. We are the ones who aim to develop effective relationships involving forgiveness that possibly will help a child’s life to improve through inclusion at Caldecote Primary. Independent voice There was one small but very important omission in William Stewart’s otherwise excellent reporting (“Adviser says his ideas have been ‘perverted’”, TES, November 23). It failed to point out that I was a non- Conservative member of the review group. Though the Conservatives are to be congratulated on using independent advisers such as Alan Dyson and myself, and though their “green paper” contains a good many interesting and challenging ideas, I do not want be associated with some of their dafter notions, such as the extension of ability grouping across the curriculum, the repeating of Year 6 by so-called “failing” pupils and the party’s fetish for school uniform, let alone its simplistic ideas on the teaching and testing of reading. Professor Colin Richards Spark Bridge, Cumbria Hazel Pulley Headteacher, Caldecote Community Primary School, Leicester Politicians are priceless. Since Kenneth Baker first gathered subject specialists and shut them in separate rooms, ensuring they came up with a national curriculum which couldn’t possibly be delivered in the time available, people have been appointed at the highest levels to ensure the decisions of politicians were put into place. These people appointed like-minded people and the training cascaded down through a range of initiatives to the literacy and numeracy hours, with those training teachers using approved scripts and teachers being forced into a “one size fits all” method of teaching. This resulted in teachers deliv- ering the politicians’ vision of good teaching methods over at least the past 10 or 12 years. Now that the evidence is beginning to show that this investment hasn’t made much real difference to standards, the “edu- cation establishment” and teachers are sud- denly to blame for “causing damage through the teaching methods they have used”. But are not these methods the very ones politicians ensured we were trained to use? Teachers’ friend Peter Wilby (“Why Prince Charles is abusing his position”, TES, November 23) has misunderstood the nature of the Prince’s Teaching Institute. His criti- cisms are baseless and nonsensical. The Prince’s Teaching Institute is by teachers for teachers. It works in partner- ship with Cambridge University and has the support of the Training and Devel- opment Agency, Ofsted and the Chil- dren, Schools and Families Secretary. It would not have been established without the enthusiasm of the teachers who have attended the summer schools. Unlike other professions, there is no mandatory requirement for teachers to refresh their subject knowledge. The summer schools do just that, and teachers tell us how positively it has affected their teaching and improved the attainment and enthusiasm of their pupils. The institute was established to support teachers. It is not in any way an accrediting body, nor a cynical exercise in influencing the curriculum. Chris Pope and Bernice McCabe Co-Directors, The Prince’s Teaching Institute, London Mike Wright Teacher, St Edward’s Primary School, Plymouth Doing as taught Tim Brighouse, Margaret Edgington, Richard House, Penelope Leach, Bel Mooney, Lynne Oldfield, Sue Palmer and others inbox The Times Educational Supplement Friday November 30, 2007 We call for review of early years law ‘Young children learn most naturally and effectively through a subtle balance of free play, movement, rhythm, repetition and imitation.’ Photograph: Michael Hall
Transcript of in boximage.guardian.co.uk/sys-files/Education/documents/... · E Y F S,allow in g diverse con...
We share a profound concern about England’searly years foundation stage (EYFS) legislation,which becomes law next autumn. We believe itto be fundamentally flawed in conception, withnet harm likely to be done to children due tothe framework’s contestable assumptions andunintended consequences.Young children learn most naturally andeffectively through a subtle balance of free play,movement, rhythm, repetition and imitation.An overly formal, academic and/or cognitivelybiased curriculum, however carefullycamouflaged, distorts this learning experience;and an early head start in literacy is now knownto precipitate unforeseen difficulties later on,sometimes including unpredictable emotionaland behavioural problems.Legally enshrining a model of child develop-ment allows no space for very different butequally plausible developmental frameworks.The age bands and associated age-related goals
in the EYFS are alsoquite arbitrary, withlittle if any coherentdevelopmental ration-ale; and to impose acompulsory legalframework on whatare pre-compulsoryschool-age childrenmay well haveprofound civil rightsimplications.Caring for babiesand toddlers is deeplypersonal, involvingimmeasurablequalities suchas attunement andresponsiveness. A one-
size-fits-all framework that needs copiousrecord-keeping risks substituting bureaucracyfor care. So we call on the Government tocommission an urgent independent review ofEYFS, allowing diverse conceptions of childdevelopment to flourish without unduecompromise, and to reduce the status of EYFSto professional guidelines, free of legalcompulsion, so safeguarding the professionalismand freedom of practitioners who haveprincipled objections to the framework.Many feel unable to speak out against EYFSfor fear of career reprisals; others feel helplessto influence government thinking. So theDepartment for Children, Schools and Familesmay be unaware of the level of opposition. Wecall on practitioners, academics, administrators,teacher-trainers and parents to join our OpenEye campaign for the very heart of childhood.l For more details or to join the Open Eyecampaign, email: [email protected]
26Send your letters (maximum 300 words) to: The Editor, TES,
26 Red Lion Square, London WC1R 4HQemail [email protected]; fax 020 3194 3202. Include your school or other
professional details and home address and telephone number. Letters may be cut
Priority is inclusionI am extremely saddened, yet not surprised,that some schools behave in such a mannerthat results in a pupil exclusion described inyour article “Governors in mass walkoutover biting boy” (TES, November 23).Some schools (too many) are so set in theinstitutional practice of exclusion that theyseem never to take a step back and reflecton the traditional procedures they employ.At our school, we support and attemptto understand children with challengingbehaviour, employing many strategieswhich keep these children in our school.Inclusion is top of our list and due to thesuccess of our procedures over the pasttwo years, we have had no fixed orpermanent exclusions.How do we manage this, even though wetermly accept two or three “managed cases”of pupils with challenging behaviour fromother schools? We manage through ournurture group, an extremely effective andintelligent behaviour support team, closeliaison with the two pupil referral unitsin the city, pastoral support plans withagencies for individuals, and respectfor these pupils and their parents. Aboveall, it is the corporate vision towardsinclusion held by all who work andgovern in our school.One day last week I asked all the supportstaff who work in many one-to-onesituations with children with challengingbehaviour to remain after school for 10minutes. I wanted to acknowledge andpraise their work, which may mean thatthey are often spat at or hit by childrenunable to understand and cope with theirextreme emotions, yet which throughemploying Team-Teach ensures our pupilsremain safe and secure.We are the adults. We are the ones whoaim to develop effective relationshipsinvolving forgiveness that possibly will helpa child’s life to improve through inclusion atCaldecote Primary.
Independent voiceThere was one small but very importantomission in William Stewart’s otherwiseexcellent reporting (“Adviser says his ideashave been ‘perverted’”, TES, November23). It failed to point out that I was a non-Conservative member of the review group.Though the Conservatives are to becongratulated on using independentadvisers such as Alan Dyson and myself,and though their “green paper” containsa good many interesting and challengingideas, I do not want be associated with someof their dafter notions, such as the extensionof ability grouping across the curriculum,the repeating of Year 6 by so-called “failing”pupils and the party’s fetish for schooluniform, let alone its simplistic ideas onthe teaching and testing of reading.
ProfessorColin RichardsSpark Bridge,Cumbria
Hazel PulleyHeadteacher,CaldecoteCommunity
Primary School,Leicester
Politicians are priceless. Since KennethBaker first gathered subject specialists andshut them in separate rooms, ensuring theycame up with a national curriculum whichcouldn’t possibly be delivered in the timeavailable, people have been appointed atthe highest levels to ensure the decisionsof politicians were put into place.These people appointed like-mindedpeople and the training cascaded downthrough a range of initiatives to the literacyand numeracy hours, with those trainingteachers using approved scripts and teachersbeing forced into a “one size fits all” methodof teaching. This resulted in teachers deliv-ering the politicians’ vision of good teachingmethods over at least the past 10 or 12 years.Now that the evidence is beginning toshow that this investment hasn’t mademuch real difference to standards, the “edu-cation establishment” and teachers are sud-denly to blame for “causing damage throughthe teaching methods they have used”.But are not these methods the very onespoliticians ensured we were trained to use?
Teachers’ friendPeter Wilby (“Why Prince Charles isabusing his position”, TES, November23) has misunderstood the nature of thePrince’s Teaching Institute. His criti-cisms are baseless and nonsensical.The Prince’s Teaching Institute is byteachers for teachers. It works in partner-ship with Cambridge University and hasthe support of the Training and Devel-opment Agency, Ofsted and the Chil-dren, Schools and Families Secretary. Itwould not have been established withoutthe enthusiasm of the teachers who haveattended the summer schools. Unlikeother professions, there is no mandatoryrequirement for teachers to refresh theirsubject knowledge. The summer schoolsdo just that, and teachers tell us howpositively it has affected their teachingand improved the attainment andenthusiasm of their pupils.The institute was established tosupport teachers. It is not in any wayan accrediting body, nor a cynicalexercise in influencing the curriculum.
Chris Popeand BerniceMcCabe
Co-Directors,The Prince’sTeachingInstitute,London
Mike WrightTeacher,
St Edward’sPrimary School,
Plymouth
Doing as taught
TimBrighouse,MargaretEdgington,RichardHouse,PenelopeLeach,
Bel Mooney,Lynne
Oldfield,Sue Palmerand others
inboxThe Times Educational Supplement
Friday November 30, 2007
We call for review of early years law
‘Young children learn most naturally and effectively through a subtle balance offree play, movement, rhythm, repetition and imitation.’ Photograph: Michael Hall
