New children's minister Sarah Teather has had to hit the ground running with her announcement of a fundamental review of the Early Years Foundation Stage. She is as yet an unknown quantity to most in the early years sector, so she will have to work hard to get to know the people and to tackle the issues that are most urgent.
She is adamant that she has a very open mind about what changes may be made to the EYFS as a result of Dame Clare Tickell's review, but frequent references to 'getting children ready for school', 'ready to learn' may cause unease.
For those providers desperate for action on the free entitlement funding, with September's extension to 15 hours looming, there may be a sense of frustration that it's back to square one again - the minister would like providers to contact her with evidence of their funding difficulties. She will not be drawn on the thorny issue of top-up fees. On training and qualifications, we must wait for the spending review.
THE EYFS REVIEW
NW: Early years practitioners have on the whole embraced the EYFS and feel it has brought about improvements in their practice. They also fear wholesale change, as they've had an awful lot of that. Can the review be done without risking losing a lot of things that are good and disrupting the sector?
ST: I hope I started from that point. We acknowledge the EYFS has done a lot to drive up standards, and the sector has worked really hard on that and it's done a lot to professionalise.
I think there is a real range of views. There are people who don't want it to change at all, and there are others who felt from the beginning and still feel that it's overly prescriptive, that it prevents them from being able to focus on the child in front of them, on their needs. Some of the smaller providers feel that it's inappropriate for the kind of care that maybe parents want from them.
I suspect most of the sector are somewhere in the middle. They think there are some really good things about the EYFS, but would like to see it with fewer burdens, and with a slightly different focus.
I've asked Clare Tickell to see if she can reduce the burdens on the sector, because we as a Government want to make sure that there is a really diverse market in childcare providers. It's also a theme of the new coalition Government to try to help professionals to get on with their job. I've also asked her to make sure that what she does is based on the best evidence available, and particularly to make sure that early years provision is focused on helping the most disadvantaged children reach their potential and be ready to learn when they get to school.
But I haven't said I definitely want to scrap it or I want to keep it as it is. I've asked Clare to listen to the views of the sector, and she knows that the views are widely differing, and to weigh that up against the evidence, and also to listen to the views of parents. And she will come back to me with recommendations.
NW: The sector will be looking for reassurance that meanwhile they should just be carrying on with the EYFS, that everything will stay in place.
ST: They are meant to carry on as they are. If they have really strong views, positive or negative, or perhaps they think there are things that the EYFS could do better, whether they want big change or small change, I would encourage them to feed their views in when the call for evidence is produced.
NW: The phrase in the announcement about 'getting children ready for education' - is there an implication that early years isn't seen as a stage of education in its own right?
ST: Not at all. The developmental aspects of early years are absolutely vital. The early years sector's role in development and education and what it can do for all children, but particularly children with disadvantaged backgrounds, narrowing that gap, that's why Government is involved in it, why Government funds it.
But it's about also making sure that children are leaving early years provision ready to learn when they get to school. And that's not just reading and writing and sums. It's about can they listen, can they say what they think and what they feel, and can they share with other children, can they sit down quietly sometimes, can they play - it's all those things.
I've asked Clare to think about which of those things are important and how we can make sure that the content of the curriculum, the way we run it, the way we assess it, the kinds of information that parents want as well, so that children are ready to learn when they get to school, is based on the best available evidence.
NW: So we shouldn't take it that there will be a move to a more formal approach?
ST: I haven't given Clare a list of things I want her to come up with. I haven't said I want a much more rigid system, or a less rigid system. I've said to her, look at the evidence and look at the experience of how it has worked and see what makes children ready to learn when they get to school. Any teacher, any parent knows that being ready to learn when you get to school is about all sorts of things.
NW: But is early years education being recognised in its own right, not just as a precursor to school?
ST: Well, perhaps people should feel reassured by the fact that it sits within a department called the Department for Education.
NW: There is a feeling that childminders might be taken out of the EYFS. Can you say anything about that?
ST: Should everybody be covered? It's one of the questions from the review, and I would say to your readers that if they feel strongly one way or the other about this, we want to hear their views.
NW: Some problems have arisen not with the EYFS itself, but with the outcomes duty that the local authorities have - sometimes that leads to inappropriate pressure being put on people, or Ofsted inspectors ask people to tick boxes in a way that the EYFS doesn't actually do.
ST: Certainly, people have said to me that it's not always about what's written in the curriculum, but about how you interpret it. But I think that is one of the things that will come out of the review. Some people may be feeling that they are following the curriculum and that their experience is very easy and straightforward, while some get bogged down in detail. Clare will need to work out where that pressure is coming from - is it coming from the EYFS, is it coming from the guidance, is it coming from inspection, is it coming from the way in which other people operate?
I'm sure that external factors are going to come out in the review.
NW: Why Dame Clare Tickell rather than an early years education expert?
ST: I wanted someone who has been very much involved in the children and families sector for a long time. She has experience with her organisation of running children's centres and specific experience of working with disadvantaged children. I wanted someone who was able to step back a bit. I also wanted someone whose experience and the way her mind is hard-wired prioritises evidence, and Clare is very pragmatic and very evidence-focused.
You meet lots of experts who talk about evidence. It doesn't necessarily mean that they actually focus on evidence, whereas for Clare it is central to what she does. She's practical and evidence-based, and most of all, she was really enthusiastic about doing this. She's got lots of experience of holding diverse views and weighing them up and coming to a view that people are happy with. You need a strong chair who can build relationships.
FREE ENTITLEMENT
NW: A really important issue for many in the sector is the funding for the free entitlement, the code of practice and the promise made by the Tories to suspend the code and allow top-up fees. Lots of providers are very concerned about their future with the funding available, and the extension to 15 hours. That is the issue that they say is most pressing.
ST: This is another area where there is a real range of views. There are nurseries who have managed very well, who have gone through the pathfinders and had a very good experience, and there are others who are really struggling. At this point, as a new minister, I'm looking at what's happened with the pathfinder projects, and will consider what the sector tells me, but I'm not yet in a position to give you a clear answer.
NW: Some private nursery owners voted for the Tories because they said they would suspend the code of practice and allow top-up fees while the Early Years Single Funding Formula is worked out. They are saying, what's happening with that, we want to know.
ST: Well, I'm listening to the sector at the moment and people are welcome to write to me here at the department with their experience of working with funding. I expect I'll be inundated! I would encourage people to explain exactly how they are affected, with funding details, not just to say that it's a problem.
NW: Some providers are already pulling out of offering the free entitlement, which could lead to not enough childcare provision in some areas.
ST: If nurseries are struggling, some local authorities have business support schemes, so it may be worth them contacting local authorities. I'm very keen that I want to see very diverse provision so that parents have a choice about where to send their child, and obviously local authorities have a duty to make sure there's a sufficiency of places. I will look to see what can be done to help with those difficulties.
QUALIFICATIONS AND TRAINING
NW: The other main issue is qualifications and training. Our readers say it's fine to review the EYFS, but the most important factor is having the staff with the skills to deliver it.
ST: Of course, it's absolutely key. The quality of staff has such an impact on children's outcomes.
NW: Is there a commitment to maintain the plan to have an Early Years Professional in every setting?
ST: We are just working with CWDC to launch a new programme called Top Graduates, which is a bit like TeachFirst, to encourage graduates to go into early years settings. I think quality is really important, and we'll have to look especially within the context of the spending review at how we can encourage quality in the sector.
NW: A lot of people are saying, 'I've done my degree, on top of doing my job and looking after my children and then getting EYP Status'. They have spent a lot of time, effort and money and want to know, 'has it been worth doing?'
ST: I'm very committed to quality in the sector and I'm very aware that's a key issue. Within the context of the spending review, we need to look at how we can support quality in the sector. I'm sorry that I can't give you any more than that.
NW: And the aspiration to have everyone qualified to a minimum of Level 3 - is that going to carry on?
ST: Clare Tickell will also be looking at ratios and so on, so some of this will be picked up by the review, but some of it we need to look at within the context of the spending review.
