Petition response

The government has finally responded to the Open EYE petition on the 10 Downing St website, over 2 months after it closed. You can see the response here.


3 Responses to Petition response

  1. G Copping says:

    “The only statutory requirement to write anything down is that practitioners must complete an EYFS Profile for each child in the year in which they turn five – reception class at primary school for most children. This is intended to help inform future policy, and to support teachers in understanding children’s needs when they enter Key Stage 1 of primary school”

    As I read this particular element – it is either a complete reversal in Government Policy or all childminders have been instructed completely wrongly in that we have continuously been told that we must write a daily diary. keep notes on information shared with parents, make regular daily observations and assessments on each child in our care: photograph “wow” moments; complete more detailed monthly observations and have written proof of short, medium and long term planning!!

    Now it would appear that now we don’t have to do any of this at all as there are no legal requirements to do so! Is EYFS therefore now just for “guidance” for childminders who do not have children in the “year they turn 5?” Or if not how and upon what information will Ofsted inspectors assess us and expect to see when they do their inspections?

    We need clarificatiom from the Minister Beverley Hughes to say precisely what this now means to us all.

  2. Fiona munn says:

    As a practitioner in a full daycare nursery I would love the writer of the no. 10 response to visit us to see the amount of paperwork generated by the OFSTED lead requirements. Folder upon folder upon folder resulting in filing cabinets in playrooms!(No room in the office as it already has three of it’s own!)

  3. Arthur Adams says:

    When I was at school, I was told I should make sure I completely understand the question before beginning to answer it. Who ever provided the response to the petition has either never heard of that piece of advice or is too arrogant to use it.

    The petition asked for an independent review of the EYFS, but the response doesn’t mention anything about that. Neither does it consider the request to downgrade the EYFS from statutory to professional guidelines. Instead, the writer seems to have cut and pasted various soundbites to come up with the government’s response (and even then it took 2 months to do it). We are told that plagiarism of this type is becoming a problem with university exams, so I suppose the government is now no exception to the same sort of behaviour.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: