Liberal Democrat Children’s Minister Sarah Teather today spoke to Lib Dem Voice about her campaign to put a fair start for children at the heart of the government’s reform agenda. Her first announcement is a review of the Early Years Foundation Stage, which sets out what three and four year olds should do in pre-school and nursery. Sarah said,
“Liberal Democrats have always seen education as the key to social mobility. It isn’t right that differences in social background are evident as early as 22 months and that children from deprived backgrounds are overtaken by lower-achieving children from advantaged backgrounds by age 5.
“But we know we can make a difference. There is real evidence that good quality early years education, provided by skilled professionals, makes an impact. It helps all children to succeed at school and beyond, but crucially it helps those from disadvantaged backgrounds the most.
“So this review, which will cover what happens in every nursery across the country, will look particularly at the evidence of what works for those children who will benefit from it most. It will also look at how the system can be made less bureaucratic, so that small voluntary and private sector groups can continue to run local nurseries, so parents can choose the place that’s right for their child.
I’ve campaigned for better early years provision for years – now we have the chance to make it happen in Government.”
Here is the full text of her written ministerial statement:
I have asked Dame Clare Tickell, Chief Executive of Action for Children, to carry out an independent review of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS). I have written to Dame Clare today to set out the remit of this review and I would like to take this opportunity to provide the House with further details.
I recognise that the EYFS has helped to promote a consistent approach to early learning and development of children aged 0-5, and has done much to raise standards, and keep children safe. However, I am concerned that the framework is too rigid and puts too many burdens on the early years workforce. I have asked Dame Clare to consider what the evidence tells us about how children can best be supported in their early learning, particularly children from disadvantaged backgrounds, and how all children should be prepared to take full advantage of the opportunities offered by more formal learning in primary school. I have also asked her to consider how to reduce the burden of the EYFS on those who have to deliver it.
The review will cover four main areas:
• Scope of regulation – whether there should be a single framework for all early years providers;
• Learning and development – looking at the latest evidence on how children are best supported in their learning and development and what is needed to give them the best start at school;
• Assessment – how young children’s development should be assessed;
• Welfare – the minimum standards to keep children safe and support their healthy development.We need a framework that raises standards and keeps children safe. But we also need framework which is responsive to the needs of parents and supports a diverse and flexible childcare market.
I am delighted that Dame Clare has agreed to lead this important review of the EYFS. Her knowledge of the needs of children and families, especially those from more disadvantaged areas, and the importance of early intervention means she is well placed to advise on how young children can best be supported, and how we can free up the system so that it works for both childcare workers and parents.
The review will start in September this year, and I have asked Dame Clare to produce her final report in spring 2011. We will be looking to implement any changes from September 2012 onwards.
I have placed a copy of the letter sent today to Dame Clare in the House Libraries.
Follow @libdemvoice.org on Bluesky
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Northern Ireland debates the future of its railways in 1957
Church Green video
Thinking of standing for election or re-election next year? Helpful questions to consider
Endometriosis and acetylation
Jeff
Nonconformistradical
John Peters
David Raw
Henry
10 Comments
Do you not think this announcement is pitiful and be lost in the noise over the £3.5 billion freezing(which in real terms means a complete cancellation and will not be re-started) of the BFS programme. It is like chopping off someones arms and then offering them a ring as compensation.
http://redrag1.blogspot.com/
I have asked Dame Clare to consider what the evidence tells us about how children can best be supported in their early learning,…
The evidence suggests that children shouldn’t be starting school at all until they’re 6 or 7 years old, but of course this will continue to be ignored because government policy is only ever evidence-based when the evidence suits their pre-existing ideologies.
You say that as if it contradicts the objectives of this review in any way. The research that you are referring to strongly suggests that children should be in early-years, play-oriented/nursery education rather than in the kind of formal education given to older children, until the age of 6 or 7. This review is into how early-years education should best be applied. Incorporating that research into government policy is part of what it is about, (although the focus is going to be on neglected or otherwise disadvantaged children).
However, research also indicates that the age of transition from early-years to formal education has basically no effect by age 30, and only a fairly modest effect at age 20. So we don’t need to worry about it much. All it really changes is the performance on standardised testing while they are still at school, which just tells us that the age of transition should be included in the weighting of the standardised tests – since they’re already weighted based on actual age in months, to compensate for the effects of varying ages within the same school year, that’s a reasonable thing to do.
No.
I’m guessing you mean the BSF programme – “Building Schools for the Future”. And no, I don’t think that the priority of our education budget should be paying for a lot of new construction work on school sites. The quality of education is not significantly affected by the age or even quality of the buildings in which that education takes place, and making the school look pretty has got to be one of the most wasteful things you could do with the budget. Far better to spend it on books and teachers, which actually do affect the quality of education.
You can get a lot of good teaching done in a run-down building with good staff and supplies. You can get a lot of photographs taken in a freshly constructed building with neither. Pretty photographs are good for politicians and the media, but they don’t make kids learn stuff.
Funny story: the buildings at the secondary school I went to were, by and large, a lot more spacious and modern than the university where I studied. One of these places was internationally renowned for the quality of its teaching and research.
Pity the government has to announce illiberal nonsense at the same time, such as giving teachers power to search children’s belongings.
Andrew: Here’s another “funny story” for you. I have visited a lot of schools in recent years, both primary and secondary, in my role as a parent checking out potential schools for my kids. Some of these schools were, as you’d say, “run down” – leaking roofs, peeling paint, no sports facilities, that kind of thing. Other schools had nice new or refurbished buildings, and generally offered a more pleasant environment with superior facilities.
I couldn’t help but notice that one of these types of school tended to be much more likely to have an outstanding or good Ofsted report; to be situated in a more affluent neighbourhood; to have well motivated staff who seemed keen to talk to me about the quality of education that went on in their schools.
Moreover – and this is where I can’t pretend it’s funny any more – the “run down” schools didn’t seem to make up for it by having better educational resources. Time and again, I noticed that the “pretty” schools had libraries bulging with brand new books, while the “run down” schools had a few shelves of ancient and out of date books.
You may be right that good teaching can take place in a run down school (though I’m shocked that you think any child deserves to go to a run down school). The trouble is, the good teachers are far more likely to be working in the shiny new academy a couple of miles down the road, with an outstanding Ofsted and higher teacher salaries thanks to the most divisive education policies ever seen (courtesy of Gove and Teather).
If this is what the Tories do while restrained by the Lib Dems with their putative social conscience, it is truly terrifying to imagine what they’d be doing with a majority.
That’s just a reflection of how Labour’s been throwing money around. Scrapping the building work and introducing the pupil premium is a good start on fixing it.
Ah, and there’s the reason. The rich school’s construction budget came from raiding the poor school’s teaching budget.
Deserves? No, it’s just not really important. You pay for what’s important first – quality of teaching – and then if there’s money left over, you can think about major construction projects.
Grammar schools. The Tories were never happy about the move to comprehensives. Thatcher only let it go because it would have cost too much to revert. Probably creationism in science classes and political indoctrination on the curriculum, too. It’s not hard to remember what right-wing governments do with education systems.
Andrew:
“Scrapping the building work and introducing the pupil premium is a good start on fixing it.”
You make it sound like they’re using the money “saved” from scrapping BSF to invest in other areas of education.
The reality is that that money simply disappears from the budget – and they’ve already removed an additional £1.5bn from the education budget on top of that. Where is this money you speak of for better teachers going to come from?
Tell me about the pupil premium when it actually exists and we can see how it works.
“Deserves? No, it’s just not really important.”
I don’t agree. Though the deficit is being used as an excuse for everything under the sun, the fact is that we are still one of the richest countries in the world and we could easily afford modern and well equipped school facilities for every child – *if we wanted to*.
The BSF budget was £55bn over 20 years – far less than people in the UK spend on such essential items as diet pills. Don’t tell me we couldn’t afford it.
“Probably creationism in science classes and political indoctrination on the curriculum, too.”
Both of which we’ll get with “free schools”.
“It’s not hard to remember what right-wing governments do with education systems.”
We don’t need long memories – it’s happening today.
Ah, so you’re conveniently ignoring where the money went.
Actually, probably not. While the rules haven’t been worked out yet, free schools will have to follow the national curriculum in core subjects.
And to add on the really important condition: if we didn’t want to do anything else.
In reality, everybody wants something, and the result is usually that they all get a bit, but less than they wanted.
Andrew:
“Ah, so you’re conveniently ignoring where the money went.”
The money hasn’t gone anywhere, it’s money that will simply not now be spent, period.
“Actually, probably not. While the rules haven’t been worked out yet, free schools will have to follow the national curriculum in core subjects.”
Last time I checked, creationism was not on the list of core subjects. Nor were politics or alternative medicine. The government’s own website boasts that free schools will have “freedom from following the National Curriculum”. Giving creationist groups money to run state schools and freedom to set their own curriculum sounds to me like the worst education policy ever.
“In reality, everybody wants something, and the result is usually that they all get a bit, but less than they wanted.”
We have a choice. You may be comfortable about children being taught in “run down” schools; I think it’s a disgrace for a country with our wealth.
I see from Gove’s statement that the government has set up a review of school capital projects to be headed – and I’m not joking here – by some bloke who works for Dixons, a company which does not have a great reputation for being a well run business in recent years, but does have a good track record of donating money to the Tory party. If you ask me, this is taking ’80s retro way too far.
All this talk over the BFS on this link has clouded the issue at hand; namely the EYFS. Whilst I agree that education is the key to social mobility the EYFS makes it clear that ‘parents are a child’s first and most enduring educators’ and whilst improving education for the most disadvantaged children in our society we must remember that education begins at home. Children’s centres offer vital links between early education and home care which most private settings lack. What I am most interested in about this review is how it will be conducted. The opinions need to be heared of those of us working with the EYFS, perhaps especially those who have recently trained for a careeer in early years as our opinions are not blurred by memories of the ‘good old days’ when ‘you could just turn up and ‘look after the children’. Having re-trained for (a hopefully) long career within the early years framwork I am committed to improving outcomes for children and their families but am apprehensive of the changes on the horizon, especially as they seem likely to offer yet more confusion for an area that is just starting to get to grips with a decade of change.