I was really pleased to see today that the incredible author Julia Donaldson has received an MBE. It is well deserved and reflects the enjoyment she has given children and adults around the world.

Julia Donaldson has written some of my all time favourite books – The Gruffalo, A Squash and a Squeeze, Monkey Puzzle, The Smartest Giant in Town, Room on the Broom – to name just my very, very favourites!

Personally I love the spoken rhythm, songlike quality of the words, which make the books such a joy to read aloud to any child or group of children. The colourful illustrations by Axel Scheffler complement the words perfectly. In addition the repetition encourages word recognition and phonological awareness.

Just recently Dunst, Meter and Hamby (2011) reported on the relationship between nursery rhymes and early literacy abilities. They found that not only nursery rhymes, but any rhymes supported phonological related skills. They also found that ‘Intervention studies of young children with disabilities indicate, regardless of a child’s particular disability, that rhyme-related interventions are associated with a host of positive literacy outcomes (e.g., Blondel & Miller, 2001; Glenn & Cunningham, 1984; Rogow, 1982)’ (p. 6).

But, for me, the reason why Julia Donaldson’s books are enjoyed so much by adults and children alike is the gentle humour in the stories. How mouse’s ‘made up’ Gruffalo actually appears, much to mouse’s surprise; how the witch is saved from the Dragon in a very unusual manner.

For preschoolers this opens up avenues of open questioning, which can demonstrate empathy, understanding another point of view, expressing feelings (surprised, scared, happy) and understanding right from wrong. For example:

Why were the other animals scared of the Gruffalo?
Why did the butterfly not know what Monkey’s mum would look like?
How do you think the witch felt all by herself?
Why do you think the Giant gave away his beautiful new clothes?
What was the little old lady happy about when all the animals had left?

These are the types of skills that underpin the vital area of personal, social and emotional development of young children.

So there are a multitude of benefits to reading the Gruffalo to your children, from phonics to personal, social and emotional development – and it is enormous fun! What is there not to like?

To paraphrase:

The mouse ate the nut and it tasted good

Blondel, M., & Miller, C. (2001). Movement and rhythm in nursery rhymes in LSF. Sign Language Studies, 2, 24- 61.

Dunst, C., Meter, D. and Hamby, D. (2011) Relationship Between Young Children’s Nursery Rhyme Experiences and Knowledge and Phonological and Print-Related Abilities Center for Early Literacy Learning reviews 2011 Volume 4 Number 1

Glenn, S. M., & Cunningham, C. C. (1984). Nursery rhymes and early language acquisition by mentally handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 51, 72-74.

Rogow, S. (1982). Rhythms and rhymes: Developing communication in very young blind and multi-handicapped children. Child: Care, Health and Development, 8, 249-260.Similar Posts:

• EYFS Consultation document
• Young Children’s Personal, Social and Emotional Development by Marion Dowling
• Book Review: Early Childhood Education by Nutbrown, Clough and Selbie
• Sources of free information for Early Years Practitioners
• Are you a Sparkly Thinker?

Multiple Benefits and Entertaining – Julia Donaldson: MBE is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

So, the long awaited EYFS Review is out and being pored over by one and all. I thought it might be interesting to see what line of attack the media had on this one. Supportive? Derisive? Outraged?

The TES decided to go front page here and then misunderstood Dame Tickell’s view on phonics here. The Times went for the “nappy curriculum”, as did the Guardian, who focused on the exclusion of independent schools here. The Sunday Times (News Review, page 9) has a reasonably balanced overview, although I’m not sure that prior to the EYFS all “little ones would stay at home, having stories read to them, being taken to the playground and having friends over to play”.

Certainly in the media there have not been many objections or calls for a petition to stop the Review. So all in all, has it been Much Ado About Nothing?

I’m going to approach this by looking at the two aspects separately. First the statistics and information from the online questionnaire, literature review and qualitative study. The next post will look at the recommendations that have been made from these. This is because I think its important to understand where the recommendations have come from and the sort of things that practitioners (whether that is a play worker, teacher, childminder or early years practitioner) have asked for.

The EYFS Report on the Evidence (2011) can be found here and the Tickell review (2011) can be found here.

One of the impressive things is that over 3,300 people responded to the online questionnaire. That is a lot of people. However, it is still only 0.7% of the total workforce (DfE, 2010). Not even 1% of the early years childcare staff have had their voice heard.

Chapter one gives a brief overview of the situation so far. Chapter two deals with the welfare (mandatory) requirements of the EYFS and how these have already affected practitioners. The views reported here are diverse and many ‘depend upon the situation’. So, for example, doing a risk assessment for a setting which has an annual trip is very different to a risk assessment for a childminder who is out every day. But both situations are governed by the same piece of legislation.

The thorny issue of transition is dealt with at the end of chapter 3, highlighting the sorts of ‘top down’ pressure that many reception classes feel.

On page 35 (Chapter 4), 4.18 the biggest myth of the EYFS is laid bare. The EYFS does not call for extra ‘paperwork’. It asks for observation based assessments and planning. According to the review, the demand for paper comes ‘other sources’, for example the inspectorate or Local Authority. This is something which I have challenged practitioners on many times. “Where does it say in the EYFS that you have to fill out A4 folders of observations every week?” and, more importantly, “How does the child benefit from this?” Thank goodness this issue has been explicitly stated in the review.

The EYFS Profile is criticised by practitioners for being too bulky and time consuming. It is suggested that the results are not used by the Year 1 teachers (although, in my personal experience this is an educational law – “no educator will trust the summative reports of the previous key stage”) and that only a third of parents receive them. Combine this with the “highly subjective” and “wide variation” (page 37) that headteachers report and you can see why this has been targeted for change.

The key person, which was controversially included as a mandatory requirement, has been accepted by practitioners and parents alike. Although, understandably, teachers who have 30 key children are not so keen!

Chapter 6 deals with training and development of the workforce. The good news is that training levels are rising and more nurseries have level 6 (degree qualified) practitioners. Even better is the finding that Early Years Professionals (EYPs) are improving the quality of care and education that children are receiving. The biggest complaint was that training was patchy and not of a high enough quality. In many ways this is really good news. It means that practitioners are demanding more in depth, challenging courses and are really recognising the benefits that these courses bring.

What does this tell us about the sorts of things that practitioners have asked for? The underlying theme appears to be that, in general, the EYFS is well used and well respected. The additional ‘paperwork’ is more a demand from other sources than a requirement of the EYFS. There are some accepted good practices, such as key person. Levels of qualified practitioners has risen and is continuing to rise. The EYPS has been shown to improve outcomes for children.

What has been asked for is clarification in some areas, such as the EYFS Profile and smooth transition between settings.

In general this is a balanced Review, albeit based on the views of practitioners who had internet access and felt strongly enough, one way or the other, to respond. So maybe not ‘Much Ado About Nothing’, more ‘As You Like it’.

References:

DfE (2010) Childcare and early years providers survey 2009. London: DfE

Brooker, L., Rogers, S., Ellis, D., Hallet, E. & Robert-Holmes, G. (2010) Practitioners’ experiences of the EYFS. London: DfE.Similar Posts:

• Value your EYP
• Unicef Report on Childhood
• The EYFS Review – part two – The Impossible Curriculum
• Paying for summer holiday care
• Review Roundup

The EYFS review – part one – much ado about nothing? is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

Picture courtesy RLHyde

Frank Field is the man charged with the unenviable task of tackling poverty. His report to the PM David Cameron on ‘poverty and life-chances review’ is due week commencing 13th September 2010.

Mr Field has had a lot to consider in the short time since he was appointed. One of his recommendations, as reported by The Times on Saturday 11th September 2010, is that poorer parents should be given money so they can enrol their children in activities that other children enjoy over the long summer holidays.

It is a logical idea.

It solves two problems at once: the children are supported with worthwhile activities, whilst the parents have childcare so they can work.

However, this has been tried before, albeit in a slightly different guise.

Currently Working Tax Credit can be used to pay for nursery places. The children are in a safe, stimulating environment and the parents are able to work. The parents receive the money directly, as proposed in the new scheme by Mr. Field.

What happens in reality is that the parents receive the money, take the childcare places and may or may not pay the nursery. Although I have not done extensive research or analysis of this phenomenon, I do know, speaking to a number of nurseries, that this is a real problem. A review of the threads on the Nursery World Forum shows that my experiences are far from unique.

Until these sorts of issues are cleared up, should we even be considering compounding the problem for other businesses?

Before pumping money into a well meaning scheme, we need to be sure that the methods used will produce the results required.

As George Santayana wrote:
“If we don’t learn from history, we are doomed to repeat it”Similar Posts:

• Letters and Sounds
• More men in childcare
• Review Roundup
• Social Networking
• The EYFS review – part one – much ado about nothing?

Paying for summer holiday care is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

In the Times Educational Supplement (TES) on the 23rd January there was an enlightening article about the Daycare Trust attracting more men into the Early Years sector.

The first reason given for the lack of men was the ‘work’s low status’. By whose standards? Is it because playing with the children is seen as a bit of an easy life?

The second reason given is low pay. The TUC and Daycare Trust found pay was between 19.60 pounds per hour and 8.70 pounds per hour in 2007. This was, presumably, in the state sector as pay in the private, voluntary and independent sector is much lower than this, as a glance at jobs advertised in the Nursery World Magazine indicates (and they tend to be the ‘best’ jobs!).

The third reason was the high proportion of women in the sector. I can sympathise and empathise totally with this, having previously worked in an industry predominantly male. However, if you have an interest and enjoyment of the work this should not stop you.

Marlon, an early years educator who is case studied in the article, says that he comes from a large family and always had children around. I think this is the key to the problem. Unless men are allowed to come into our nurseries and settings and enjoy being with children they will never aspire to work with them. Many women enter childcare after having children and enjoying the mums and tots sessions, or spending time at the nursery.

We should be encouraging our settings to involve dads and male carers more. They have skills and life experiences which should be shared. Children need all sorts of role models to help them make sense of the world. And what an excellent time to do it, when all sorts of stereotypes are beginning to be seriously challenged.Similar Posts:

• Leading scientist affirms importance of Early Years
• Paying for summer holiday care
• Review Roundup
• Frank Fields’ Poverty Review
• Cultivating creativity in babies, toddlers and young children by Tina Bruce

More men in childcare is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

I read with no surprise the results from the Unicef report, and the resultant reporting in the Times yesterday (11th December 2008). When all the hype and comment has been cleaned away the nugget of truth left is that a child from a disadvantaged background does not benefit from poor quality day care. Hardly earth shattering. Maria Montessori had spotted this over 100years ago. More recently the EPPE research has proved it. 

The interesting part for me was that the Times had chosen to dedicate two full pages and a half page of comment to this. There were even references to research – EPPE appears on both for and against childcare, again demonstrating a balanced piece of research. You do have to read to the penultimate paragraph before you come to the obvious conclusion -

 “Either the Government must help these mothers to recognise that looking after their young children is a serious job or they must provide these children from deprived backgrounds with highly skilled, well-paid nursery teachers who can help to improve their chances in life not damage them.” http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article5321347.ece

(As an EYP I am assuming here that the author, Alice Thomson, is referring to a ‘teacher’ as all those who educate and care for early years children).

This did give me great hope that the discussion about early years education is becoming news worthy and of interest to the general public. If nothing else it prompts the questions which may be asked by parents – is my nursery/childcare arrangement of sufficiently good quality? Of course, demographics tell us that those parents who are most likely to be reading the Times have already worked this out for themselves. Those parents who need the help to identify a quality setting have been missed again. 

Similar Posts:

• Paying for summer holiday care
• A Glimmer of Hope for EYPs
• The EYFS review – part one – much ado about nothing?
• What does Assessment mean?
• Sustained Shared Thinking – how important is it?

Unicef Report on Childhood is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

Did you know you can get a lot of the Government’s publications free, online, from teacher net free publications.

These can either be downloaded or posted out to you (no postage either!) with the only caveat being that quantity is restricted. Why would you want more than one copy of Letters and Sounds or the EYFS? Certainly, as a trainer, I find that after a few sessions the EYFS cards become battered and covered with my notes and circled areas when clarifying points.

By having several copies at nursery or in your setting, staff can browse, cut out, display and discuss the publications. They could even take a copy home to read at their leisure. The EYFS is such a broad document that it deserves being studied area by area and by having spare copies practitioners can do this

The other interesting thing on the excellent teacher net site is that you can view and download thousands of documents, again all for free. These vary from newspaper articles to white papers to Sure Start magazines. I have spent many hours just viewing items which looked interesting, but which I would never have known about otherwise, and have subsequently ordered documents.

One example of this is the invaluable ‘information sharing:Practitioners’ guide’ published by the Department for children, schools and families. I have often had practitioners say to me that “we can’t say anything without consent”. Under normal circumstances this would be broadly true, but this booklet explains very clearly when you can, when you can’t and when you should share information. The other area it covers is what constitutes consent and who can give consent, which is an especially sensitive area where is child is going through the adoption process or is being taken care of by grandparents, for example. I feel this would be an enormous help to practitioners and particularly setting managers who want to make sure they make the correct decision on information sharing.Similar Posts:

• Sources of free information for Early Years Practitioners
• Reflective Practice and the EYP
• The Manual for the Early Years SENCO by Collette Drifte
• What is the purpose of an EYP network?
• What does Assessment mean?

Teachernet – a great source of free Early Years material is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals