Opinion: Letters

The press release sent out from the DCSF on 14 October celebrating the first-year successes of the EYFS sent shivers down my spine - and not in a good way. (You can read it at: www.dcsf.gov.uk/pns/DisplayPN.cgi?pn_id=2009_0188.)

The words that really struck me were 'driving up achievement' when being applied to children of five and under. The release was sent out with a list of impressive statistics - all clearly demonstrating that children were performing better than before.

We have now given young teachers a statutory framework that they are encouraged to see as the 'norm' for children's development in the early years. The framework uses terms like 'required to deliver', 'driving forward' and 'outcomes'. Settings are measured according to how well they are delivering the outcomes and the workforce is being trained to ensure that its focus is on achievement.

What the results tell us is that children are performing better in those areas that practitioners have been told to focus on. This is hardly surprising. What they don't tell us is how the imposition of such a framework has impacted on the psychological and relational nature of early years settings.

Children will respond to the conscious and subconscious demands of the adults in their environment. We need, therefore, to be extraordinarily careful that adult criteria and expectations don't interfere with children's natural developmental agenda. Statistics can be massively misleading if they are more a reflection of the system that created them than an accurate portrayal of the larger picture.

Let's not get too excited about the reported success of the EYFS without being extremely cautious about its impact on this very precious and highly sensitive foundational period of life.

Wendy Ellyatt, independent writer and early years consultant

- Letter of the Week wins £30 worth of books

VETTING AND BARRING

I was interested to read your analysis of the vetting and barring scheme ('A high price for workers', 8 October). However, I think your readers would welcome the following clarifcations:

- Registration is not compulsory from July 2010. From July 2010 new workers or those moving jobs can register. It does become mandatory from November 2010, but again just for that element of the workforce. There is a five-year phasing strategy that will introduce all other relevant workers.

- The scheme is not just about 'paedophiles'. There are other reasons why an individual could be barred from working with children or vulnerable adults.

- While we cannot comment directly on the Vanessa George case, it is not clear the scheme would not have prevented a similar case from happening.

- Additionally, the scheme is quite clear that it is another weapon in the safer recruitment armoury for employers. Individuals on the scheme will be subject to monitoring and registered under the premise that 'there is no known reason why they can't work with children or vulnerable adults'. It takes us one step further than a CRB check, which provides only a snapshot of what was known at the time the CRB check was made

- The Independent Safeguarding Authority's Referral Guidance has been on our website since 21 September.

- The Home Office generic guidance is due out shortly.

- The ISA has responsibility for barring under the scheme and continues to engage actively with Unison, as does the Home Office, which has responsibility for the whole Vetting and Barring Scheme.

- If the ISA is minded to bar someone, it will share with them all the information it plans to rely on in making the bar, and the individual has the opportunity to put their side of the story. Additionally, if it was clear that it was a malicious allegation, it would be automatically discounted by the ISA.

Adrian McAllister, chief executive, Independent Safeguarding Authority, www.isa-gov.org.uk

- Send your letters to ... The Editor, Nursery World, 174 Hammersmith Road, London W6 7JP; letter.nw@haymarket.com; 020 8267 8401