Being a parent in a target-driven culture (Early Years Foundation Stage)

In the last two weeks everything seems to have moved very fast. Last week I attended my daughter’s first parent’s evening. We made it very clear how we felt about the learning and development targets of the Early Years Foundation Stage which are being imposed on us.

It was an upsetting evening. We’d put enormous effort into applying for the exemption – and were refused – not because our application didn’t stand up – (we applied on religious, moral, educational and philosophical grounds)…but basically because the school said the resources weren’t there to make alternative arrangements(see previous posts). So we had no choice but to deal with the situation – which is not the same as saying we accept it. We don’t. We are not going to push our child to meet targets which are not backed up with a sound educational basis and research. I’m sounding like a broken record at this point, I know.

Practically speaking – what this means for us is that we sometimes don’t fill in the reading book (with it’s targeted readers geared towards the EYFS Learning and Development Goals) which is sent home with our child. Our child is still attending non-compulsory schooling – so we are not obliged to as far as I can see.

We read stories together every night, but our child is just four and three months and we are not going to do anything which comes even remotely close to destroying her love of words. We really feel that striving towards some externally-imposed (and compulsory not optional) targets is not the way. So I have said to the school that what the government is doing (and what our local authority is asking schools to achieve) is counter-productive in that sense.

On a brighter note I was really glad to get away for the weekend with family and child and had registered for the “Being a Quaker Parent” course at Woodbrooke Quaker College. Although our group agreed on a confidentiality clause there are some aspects of this weekend that I can write about. See Questioners Garden Time for links to food and sustainability.

We looked at how, as parents we can deal with a target-driven culture in general. A fellow parent recommended a book to me which I shall try and chase up. I will try to post the title here.

At the school gate yesterday another parent pressed a newspaper cutting into my hand. I managed to find the link to what she was showing me on the Times Online website.

It’s a letter written by the Head of Infants of Radlett prep school in Hertfordshire. Further evidence I believe that the compulsory nature of the EYFS learning and development targets are not the way.

I’ve heard some people who support the EYFS learning and development goals say that their teachers can ‘bend’ the requirements so that they don’t have a negative effect on their children. My response on this is to say, well ‘yes’ but these compulsory targets don’t just affect the relationship between teacher and pupil – they also affect the relationship between peers and between parents. I’ve already met parents who’ve swallowed the government propaganda wholesale and actually believe that if their child doesn’t meet the targets on time, they have failed as parents and their children will be disadvantaged in life.

Peer pressure can be a positive thing but in this instance it quite definitely isn’t. When these issues come up I’ve had to explain to my child that she is nearly a year younger than some others in her class and that it is perfectly fine for her to be doing different things. I’m careful to praise her achievements whatever she does.

The Wall.

Twenty years since the fall of the Berlin Wall. Times have changed and so has education. I’d like readers to listen to the words of this song again. After our experiences with the Early Years Foundation Stage Learning and Development Goals and the exemption process – I think I’ve finally understood what Pink Floyd were trying to say.

Steve Biddulph: “Raising Boys”

A few weeks ago (at the school gate) one of the mothers pressed a copy of Steve Biddulph’s ‘Raising Boys’ into my hand. She described it as ‘pop psychology’ but now that I’ve read it – I see what Steve Biddulph is saying as further evidence that the sixty-nine Early Years Foundation Stage Learning and Development Targets are not useful for children.

Steve’s basic message is that boys develop at a different rate than girls and therefore that the one-size-fits-all approach is simply not sensible. Here’s the link to Steve’s bio again.

Is screen-based technology a benefit for children today?

Woman’s Hour slot today with Sue Palmer 10.a.m. Listen (again) here.

What the government has to say: The Cambridge Primary Schools Review

Couldn’t let this go without reading what the government has to say in today’s Guardian online – see this link. What do you think? Leave a comment at the ‘leave a comment’ link…

The Cambridge Primary Schools Review 2009

Catching up with Professor Robin Alexander of the Cambridge Primary Schools Review on the BBC Today Programme. Listen to the BBC Today Programme yourself at this link. A great deal more to say about this so watch this space…

The Cambridge Primary Review 2009

The Cambridge Primary Review “Children, their World, their Education: final report and recommendations” was published today. It’s the result of several years work and it’s available as a press release, a short version (useful for tired parents and teachers…?) and the full version (608 pages). See these links:

Key findings include the following (of particular interest to blog readers).

Matching Ages, stages and structures.

 ”The English insistence on the earliest possible start to formal schooling, against the grain of international evidence and practice, is educationally counterproductive. The Early Years Foundation Stage should be renamed and extended to age six, and early years provision should be strengthened in its quality and staffing so that children are properly prepared – socially, linguistically and experientially for formal learning. The Key Stage 1/2 division should be replaced by a single primary phase, yielding a seamless journey through Foundation (0-6) and Primary (6-11). The feasibility of raising the school starting age in line with these changes should be examined”.

Here are my initial comments:

As the parent of a four year old child who started school this September I encountered the Cambridge Primary Review this morning with interest and anger.

I recently applied for a parental exemption to the sixty-nine compulsory Learning and Development Requirements of the Early Years Foundation Stage on ‘moral, educational, spiritual, religious, philosophical and political grounds’ for my child.

The application was refused. The local authority and the school could not argue that we were morally wrong to insist that our child be exempt from these compulsory targets (responses can be viewed on this blog) . In their heart of hearts I believe the people who dealt with this matter knew we were right all along – and as we (as parents), the members of the Cambridge Review team and countless other expert Early Years Practitioners have shown - some of the best educationalists in the land support our position.  

It is significant that there is no right of appeal in this parental exemptions process. I imagine our local authority advised our school on the formulation of the letter which they sent to us regarding the rejection of our exemption request. In their consultation with the school I would also imagine the local authority sought legal advice.

I believe the reason why they did not dispute the moral and philosophical and educational grounds for our exemption request is that they simply couldn’t  and if they had tried to do that as part of a legal challenge they wouldn’t have had a leg to stand on.

But ultimately we’ll never know. If the government does not bring about changes  the only other way to change the law (that is to make the sixty-nine learning and development targets non-compulsory) is to launch a judicial review.

I recently asked an experienced solicitor what this would entail. On the telephone I heard them estimate costs: ”between £60-£80,000″  I couldn’t help react accordingly with a raucous and cynical laugh.

 ”Democracy?” I said, still laughing “That’s not democracy – it’s beyond the reach of most parents”.

So where does that leave our children? Of course, we’ve seen government foolishness before and no doubt we’ll see it again. What do they think parents are for, exactly…?  Make the tea, do the school-run, generally pick up the fall-out from government incompetence…(as if we didn’t have enough to do).

Are summer-born children at risk of mental illness?

The National Foundation for Education Research’s latest findings on summer-born children are directly relevant to criticisms of the Early Years Foundation Stage.

The research shows that children born late in the school year are more likely to be referred to a psychiatrist or assessed as having Special Education Needs. This could be due to younger children experiencing failure or stress or comparing themselves unfavourably to their older classmates.

There’s a discussion on Woman’s Hour about this today. On the way to school I meet many parents with summer-born children like ours so I’m not the only one who will be tuning in. See ‘Woman’s Hour’ at 10.a.m. (If you miss this slot, follow the link and listen again from the archive) see this link:

(With Kim Catcheside and Education Psychologist Kairen Cullen). Would be interested to hear reader comments on this discussion. Do use the ‘comment’ box below.

Beverley Hughes and criticisms of the Early Years Foundation Stage

The Guardian’s ‘Mortarboard’ blog filled up with comments last year. I’m including a link to it here, as this blog clearly shows up the weaknesses of Children’s Minister Beverley Hughes’ position and the sustained and wide ranging criticisms that have been fired in the direction of the Early Years Foundation Learning and Development Requirements.

We need these to be downgraded to recommendations immediately. Of course they are targets. We know they are compulsory – and that’s the problem. The debate has gone on for too long already.

Read the Guardian newspaper’s Mortarboard blog here.

Tories to review Early Years Foundation Stage?

Nursery World reports: “Tories to review Early Years Foundation Stage”. The article is enlightening but what use is this sort of party-political bickering to children and parents who are suffering with this bureaucratic straightjacket in the here and now?

Read the Nursery World piece here.