The impact of electronic media simply can’t be ignored these days.

More and more nurseries are setting up websites, using email to contact parents and setting up Facebook pages for the nursery. And of course, many staff members are active Facebook and Twitter users, and some have their own blogs or social networking sites.

The increased use of electronic media can bring great benefits. It can reinforce the partnership between parents and staff. It can provide a forum for discussion, learning and team building. And it can create a sense of community for the nursery. A dedicated nursery Facebook site, which both staff and parents can join, can celebrate the children’s achievements, advertise upcoming events or share the successes of staff when they pass exams.

But it’s not without its risks.

Inappropriate comments or images may be posted which could reflect badly on the nursery and other staff, either intentionally or unintentionally. This could undermine the professionalism of staff as well as breach confidentiality or have safeguarding implications. Online interactions between staff and parents may accidentally replace the more effective face to face interactions and small niggles could potentially get out of hand (without the benefit of seeing people face to face, online interactions can get unexpectedly heated and personal).

It is important that nursery owners, managers and staff should be aware of these pitfalls and that steps should be taken to prevent them from occurring.

One way of dealing with this is to have a nursery policy about all social networking activity. This could clearly state whether staff could be ‘friends’ with parents or if the nursery could be named, for example. If the nursery manager is joined as a ‘friend’ then he or she can monitor the staff comments on the public area. Private messages can still be sent, but these will not be read by parents, governors and other staff.

I would also advise that the nursery manager has an open discussion with staff and gets common agreement about what is acceptable and what is not. The truth is that social networking is blurring the boundaries between personal and professional life. You only have one profile on Facebook and its very easy to forget who has visibility of what you are posting – as employees have found to the cost in the past!

So, although clear policies can be helpful, there are many grey areas which are best addressed by having open discussions with the team and agreeing to apply common sense. For example, advising staff on how to communicate privately with friends on Facebook groups with restricted access and the policy if a member of staff is already a ‘friend’ with a parent prior to the child starting nursery.

Social networking is still a new phenomenon and we are still learning about its impact and how things can go right and wrong. But creating a simple and clear policy and discussing this with staff can go a long way to making sure the nursery and its team doesn’t meet any pitfalls.

A version of this article was first published in Nursery World, 22nd September 2010

Image by Kodomut. Find the blog at http://www.kodomut.com/info/Similar Posts:

• The Manual for the Early Years SENCO by Collette Drifte
• Involving Parents in their Children’s Learning 2nd Ed by Margy Whalley
• Leading scientist affirms importance of Early Years
• Reflective Practice and the EYP
• Breathtakingly Beautiful Land of Me

Social Networking is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

Having just completed the EYFS consultation document at the DfE website. I have serious concerns about some of the document.

1. The qualifications required are the bare minimum – Level 3 for managers and half of the rest at Level 2 – despite all the research (EPPE, REPEY, Tickell Review) confirming again and again that a graduate led workforce results in better outcomes for children.

2. “School Readiness”. Apparently the Early Years is all about ensuring the 5 year olds of England are “ready” for Key Stage 1. This has replaced play and emotional development as being key for children. In addition the Literacy Early Learning Goals have been altered.

The original EYFS required children to “Link sounds to letters, naming and sounding the letters of the alphabet. Use their phonic knowledge to write simple regular words and make phonetically plausible attempts at more complex words.” (EYFS, P.53) and “Attempt writing for different purposes, using features of different forms such as lists, stories and instructions… begin to form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation.” (EYFS p. 60).

However, the new EYFS requires children to “read and understand simple sentences in stories and information books, using phonic knowledge to decode regular words and read them aloud accurately… children write their own … simple stories which can be read by themselves and others.” (EYFS Consultation document, p. 9). This is a significant difference. Is the hope that by asking 4 year olds to write their own stories that the level of literacy will be raised?

A brief look at the research from around the world ( unicef vexen) shows that starting children’s literacy earlier doesn’t mean better results at age 11. In fact the later children start formal training, the better the long term outcomes for literacy. You would think the Year 6 teachers would be screaming for less literacy in the Foundation Stage.

3. Babies seem not to get a mention, except to say they must be segregated from other children. This is a massive shame. There is lots of research from many years to show that there are a range of benefits to mixed age groupings, including keeping siblings together, social development, nurturing, peer learning and emotional development (Cohen, 2002, Derscheid, 1997, Di Santo, 2000, Gmitrovaa et al. 2004, Goldman, 1981)

I know it wouldn’t be suitable for every setting, but to require that there is segregation removes all the learning opportunities which may be available for children in mixed groups.

This is why it is so important for everyone to complete the consultation form. These are my concerns and I’m pleased that I have the opportunity to voice them.

Make sure your voice is heard too.

The consultation ends on the 30th September 2011.

References

Cohen (2002). How the child’s mind develops. Hove: Routledge

Derscheid, L. (1997) Mixed-Age Grouped Preschoolers’ Moral Behavior and Understanding Journal of Research in Childhood Education Vol. I I. No. 2

Di Santo, A. (2000). Multi-age groupings in early childhood education: The affordances and opportunities of a multi-age child care model. Ottawa:National Library of Canada

Gmitrováa, V. and Gmitrovb, J. (2004) The primacy of child-directed pretend play on cognitive competence in a mixed-age environment: possible interpretations Early Child Development and Care Vol. 174(3), pp. 267–279

Goldman, J. (1981) Social Participation of Preschool children in same versus mixed-age groups Child Development Vol. 52 p. 644 – 650

McClellan, D. and Kinsey, S. (1999) Children’s Social Behavior in Relation to Participation in Mixed-Age or Same-Age Classrooms Early Childhood Research and Practice Spring 1999 Volume 1 Number 1

Image by sabianmaggySimilar Posts:

• Multiple Benefits and Entertaining – Julia Donaldson: MBE
• Frank Fields’ Poverty Review
• The EYFS Review – part two – The Impossible Curriculum
• Value your EYP
• How Children Learn. Book 2 by Linda Pound

EYFS Consultation document is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

With Early Years Professional Status (EYPS) in the news again for good reasons (supported by the Tickell Review) and not so good reasons (Providers lose their licence), the debate has once again opened on the value of the Status and its role in Early Childhood Education.

Early Years Professional Status was conceived after the Effective Provision of Preschool Education (EPPE) research found that a ‘graduate led workforce’ gave demonstrably better outcomes for children in preschool settings. However, since then the authors of the EPPE research have produced a book (Early Childhood Matters, evidence from the Effective Pre-school and Primary Education project, 2010 Sylva et al.) which clearly states that they had intended the Early Years to be led by qualified teachers (pages 19/20). They declare the current situation a ‘muddle in provision’ being followed by a ‘muddle in training’.

This leaves the dilemma of what role does an EYP fulfil?

Over the last 3 years or so I have met many EYPs. The vast majority are dedicated, passionate, enthusiastic and inspiring professionals. It is hard to say whether these people would be like this anyway, or if it is as a result of becoming EYPs.

But in most cases this is irrelevant.

The Status has given them the validation of being a Professional. Something to prove their dedication to Early Years to parents, Ofsted and other professionals. Although at the beginning EYPS was heralded as being equivalent to teacher status, (a strong contender for the ‘most regretted phrased ever used by the CWDC’ award) the terms and conditions and pay have never been equivalent and could never hope to be in a sector dominated by private and voluntary companies.

The Status has given them a way of combining the theoretical element of a Degree with proof that they can apply this to practice. This is to the benefit of the children and their families.

The Status has given them a way to identify and meet like minded Professionals. The EYP networks, Forum sites such as www.eyps.info and EYP Conferences enable EYPs to support each other, driving good practice forward.

There are now over 7,000 EYPs in England, implementing, encouraging and supporting good practice in every sort of Early Years setting. The Tickell review has clearly endorsed the ‘higher level qualifications such as EYPS’ (Tickell Review, p. 45), but it also suggests that further consultations are required on qualifications.

Does this mean that the 7,000 current EYPs would need to re-train again? If so, who is going to provide the training? Or maybe this will just be for graduates with non Early Years qualifications, as the New Leader course?

Whilst we wait to see which Universities will be awarded the licence for providing EYPS, and whilst the public consultation for the EYFS is still underway, let’s enjoy the calm, take a minute and value the great work that our EYPs do.Similar Posts:

• EYPs – what’s next for Continued Professional Development?
• A Glimmer of Hope for EYPs
• What is the purpose of an EYP network?
• Reflective Practice and the EYP
• Review Roundup

Value your EYP is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

I’ve just seen the most marvellous quote tweeted:

“All adults who come in to contact with children contribute to children’s education and are teachers whether or not they are called by that name.” Tweeted by Linda R at Beyondplaydough.

Coincidentally, I commented today on a forum about Teachers and Early Years Professional Status (EYPS), so this was already on my mind. The discussion had meandered into the treacherous waters of EYPS versus teachers. Teacher status is well recognised by parents and carers. They understand that teachers have usually gone to University and have had specialist training in effective teaching. Few parents and carers understand that the EYP Status is also post graduate and covers the full age range Birth to 5 years.

The reason for this could be that the EYP Status is still new, particularly compared to teaching.

It could be that EYPS hasn’t been advertised well enough by the government and CWDC.

It could be that parents and carers just want their young child to be happy and cared for by someone who loves and cherishes their child, as they would do themselves, whatever their qualification or Status.

And really that is the reason why the tweet made me smile. From the child’s point of view, they don’t care. Children are natural learners, investigators, scientists and explorers. That’s why babies love peek-a-boo games, why toddlers love to hear the same story over and over again and why pre-schoolers are fascinated with mini-beasts. Children just enjoy having adults who are interested in them, who are willing to engage whole heartedly in their play and have new experiences to share with enthusiasm.

The important thing for the adults is that they are aware that they are being teachers – like it or not! When a practitioner refuses to touch a worm, when the adults wont go out in the rain, when the children aren’t allowed to choose their favourite story – what is that ‘teaching’ the children?

On the other hand, there are those adults who will spend hours picking up the toy and putting it back on baby’s high chair, crawl into a den to read the story or spend time hearing both sides of the dispute between friends.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a big, big advocate of EYPS and a graduate led early years workforce, whether that is called Teacher, Pedagogue or Directoress.

However, I’m also a big fan of young children being surrounded by interested, loving, caring, enthusiastic ‘teachers’, whatever their name is.

What do you think? Leave a comment below to share your view.
———-
Image by Pinkstock photos Similar Posts:

• A Glimmer of Hope for EYPs
• Value your EYP
• Are you a Sparkly Thinker?
• More men in childcare
• Multiple Benefits and Entertaining – Julia Donaldson: MBE

A Teacher by Any Other Name is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

This is part two of the posts about the Tickell, or Early Years Foundation Stage, Review. In part one I have looked at the quantitative and qualitative data which was gathered during the consultation phase. Here in part two I’ve considered the 46 recommendations in detail and how these might affect practice in the Early Years. The report can be found here.

Arguably the biggest change recommended is “that personal, social and emotional development, communication and language and physical development are identified as prime areas of learning in the EYFS.” (page 21). Note that CLL has lost Literacy, which would appear as one of the “four specific areas in which the prime skills are applied: literacy, mathematics, expressive arts and design, and understanding the world.” (page 27). Problem solving, reasoning and numeracy has been re-replaced with mathematics. I feel this is a shame. To most people “mathematics” inevitably means numerical calculations rather than the much broader areas of spatial awareness, patterns and shapes.

Three characteristics of effective teaching and learning are recommended: “playing and exploring, active learning, and creating and thinking critically” (page 27) This is so children’s learning can be supported effectively by all practitioners, whether that is a play worker or childminder. This highlights one of the most thorny issues of the EYFS. It is a generalised curriculum trying to be ‘one size fits all’ which is very difficult. Make it too woolly and it will be open to misinterpretation (intentionally or otherwise). Make it too prescriptive and risk excluding sections of the childcare community. Whether defining characteristics of effective teaching and learning will solve this remains to be seen.

In part one I highlighted the fact that the EYFS doesn’t call for extra paperwork – it’s a perception that ‘everyone else’ has, from Local Authorities to Ofsted representatives. This is recognised on page 28 and on page 31 it is recommended that the paperwork should be “kept to an absolute minimum”. Who will be brave enough to be the first to buck the trend and ditch meaningless forms which don’t inform practice or support the child?

It has been recommended that the number of early learning goals (against which a child is assessed at the end of Reception Year) be reduced from 69 to 17. These are to be judged using a “simple scale” (page 31) of emerging, expecting and exceeding and link more closely to the National Curriculum. These do seem to contain a lot of statements for one early learning goal (page 72), but they have been grouped together in a sensitive and sensible manner.

Another very sensible decision is to allow mobile phones to still be used in settings (page 39). The vast majority of settings already have policies about mobile phones. After all, it is the way in which they are used which is the problem, not the phone itself.

The second recommendation (page 13) is that the framework remains statutory across the early years. The argument being that if it isn’t statutory then the areas of greatest deprivation, and therefore greatest need, will suffer the most. Having worked with a number of children’s centres around the country I would whole heartedly agree and think this is a thoroughly laudable recommendation.

Interestingly, when referring to independent schools opting out, Dame Tickell has suggested that they should not be exempted, and that the argument that all independent provision is superior to other provision is still to be proven (page 14).

Hopefully the recommendation on page 17, that the EYFS is available in more formats, more easily, will mean that we can get paper copies again. I sincerely hope so! My final copy of the EYFS separated from its spine during training on Saturday.

It is very encouraging to see parents and carers getting special mention (page 18). When Dr Margy Whalley spoke at the North West EYP Conference in March this year, she had plenty of good reasons for why this is good practice. Dr Whalley enthusiastically encourages home visits and has multiple examples of their benefits. At the moment I am reading Kate Wall’s book ‘Special Educational Needs and Early Years’ where she emphases the ‘partnership’ being a joint decision making one, including planning and assessment, if it is going to be truly beneficial.

However, I feel a little sad that there has to be a specific recommendation to give parents an overview of the EYFS when they start (page 18). I had imagined that this was good practice and would be happening as a matter of course in most settings.

The recommendation for a 24 – 36 month summary of a child’s development – written in conjunction with the Health visitor – screams “extra statutory assessment” and ” more paperwork”. In addition there is the question of access to health visitors and how parents will view this, particularly if they already have some concerns, but don’t want their child ‘labelled’. The hope that the practitioners will be allowed to exercise some judgement in this matter is optimistic. Adding an extra page to the ‘Red Book’ is a good idea, but this set of recommendations are best suited to parents who are engaged with their children’s learning and development already. Are they going to reach those families who are difficult to engage already and are sometimes the most disadvantaged?

Although the praises of the children’s centres and their work is truly sung on pages 25 and 26, the Review falls short of actually giving any recommendations, which is an opportunity missed.

It is recommended that written risk assessments be removed (page 41) – is this too much other way? This appears to be in response to childminders concerns that they are under the same regime as large childcare companies (see part one of EYFS review) and doing written risk assessments every day is clearly too onerous. Hopefully this wont tempt settings ‘not to bother’ with risk assessments, because they only have to be produced if asked for.

The 1:30 teacher to child ratio in reception classes is to be re-reviewed (page 30) because there is not enough ‘clear evidence’ to say this ratio is too high. Is the lack of evidence a demonstration of the hard work teachers have put in to ensure children aren’t penalised? For children to go from a ration of 1:8 to 1:30 in a matter of weeks, as well as coping with a change of setting, change of key person, change of routine and going from being the ‘big boys and girls’ to being the smallest in the setting again must be incredibly difficult. Maybe this should be reviewed from the child’s perspective first?

Overall the Dame Tickell appears to have listened carefully to the practitioners and educators who have been involved in the Review of the EYFS. There are lots of common sense recommendations and I can certainly recognise some of the dilemmas, such as Ofsted requirements sometimes being at odds with the EYFS. The bigger challenge may be that producing one curriculum for such a diverse set of child care situations – and pleasing everyone – may be impossible.

The summary of the recommendations start on page 56 of the Review report.

Similar Posts:

• The EYFS review – part one – much ado about nothing?
• Reflective Practice and the EYP
• Review Roundup
• EYPs – what’s next for Continued Professional Development?
• Leading scientist affirms importance of Early Years

The EYFS Review – part two – The Impossible Curriculum 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

Yesterday I was at the most amazing training session. It was the last session on a course which I have thoroughly enjoyed leading and am proud to be a part of – the Early Years SENCO, run by Stockport Local Authority and certified by Manchester Metropolitan University. All ten sessions have been really informative and very enjoyable. However, the reason for particularly singling out yesterday’s session is that I now know why my husband can’t find Wally!

Let me explain. My youngest son and I often ‘read’ a Where’s Wally in the evening in lieu of a bedtime story. It sometimes gets a bit competitive, but is great fun. One night my husband was stand in for the bedtime routine and caused much amusement by not being able to find any of the characters. I did suspect at the time that he was doing this so he would be excused doing bedtime again, but no! The Occupational Therapists (OTs) running yesterday’s course explained that he may have visual perception problems.

Visual perception is partially what we see but is also linked to what the brain does with the information that the eyes send it – how it interprets the incoming data. The OTs went on to show some really simple, effective things you can do to improve children’s visual perception, such as covering most of a photograph and asking the children to guess what the whole picture is. The picture is gradually revealed to see if the children are right. Similarly, using jigsaw pieces and asking the children to guess what that is a small piece of. Simple, easy activities which support such a vital skill.

There were lots of other great activities and information around sensory processing, but discussing visual processing reminded me about a conversation I’ve been having with Kathryn Albany-Ward about colour blindness. She has the best website at http://www.colourblindawareness.org/ which has examples of what it looks like to be colour blind. Did you know approximately 8% of men are colour blind? So how many children in your setting could be struggling with this right now? And how often do we use colour as an additional ‘clue’ to help children? We may, in fact, be asking them to do the impossible! Do check out the website and see how you can support your children more effectively.

But back to why it’s important to have good visual perception. Without this skill there are problems with 3D awareness (a circle can represent a sphere, for example) and also visual spatial awareness (think of Escher’s pictures – what is a ‘finger space’ if you have no concept of ‘space’?). In the course of the morning a whole new world was opened up to me. For example, where does simply not liking messy play end and sensory processing problems start? It really was an amazing morning and I sincerely thank the OTs for sharing such valuable information with us.

However, it still doesn’t explain how Husband can find the bottle opener in the melee of the cutlery drawer but not Wally…

Similar Posts:

• Resource ideas to support children
• Speech and Language and TV – what is the evidence?
• Sources of free information for Early Years Practitioners
• Letters and Sounds
• EYFS Consultation document

Where’s Wally? And why it’s important is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals

The consultation date has passed for getting your views to Frank Fields regarding poverty and life chances. The findings are not expected to be reported to the Prime Minister until ‘the end of the year’ [2010] (http://povertyreview.independent.gov.uk/)

Unfortunately this initiative has been somewhat overshadowed by the proposal to remove the child benefit payments from households where at least one partner pays higher rate tax (income exceeds £43,875 per annum). This ideological shift was done without any public consultation or debate.

So is the independent Review on Poverty and Life Chances just a sop? A chance to make the public think they will be listened to? Would Frank Fields’ findings conclude that all households need the child benefit?

My concern is that major decisions are being made before public consultations are completed. I’m hoping that the consultation findings on the EYFS will be listened to and considered, before a knee jerk reaction throws the Early Years sector back into the chaos of change.Similar Posts:

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

Frank Fields’ Poverty Review is a post from: Kathy Brodie: Early Years Training Courses and Coaching for Early Years Professionals