Watch Me Grow Logo
principles, pedagogy and practice in early childhood

Di's Response to the Ofsted EIF consultation document

April 10, 2019

Education inspection framework 2019: inspecting the substance of education

Di Chilvers – Response to the consultation document

5th April 2019 

Proposal 1

We propose the introduction of a new ‘quality of education’ judgement built around our working definition of the curriculum. It will focus on a provider’s educational intent, implementation and impact. Inspectors look at teaching, assessment, attainment and progress under the current inspection framework, and they will continue to do so, but these considerations will contribute, viewed in the context of the provider’s curriculum, to a single quality of education judgement. In short, we propose to take a holistic approach to considering the quality of education rather than artificially separating the leadership of the curriculum from teaching, and separating teaching and the use of assessment from the impact this has on the outcomes that learners achieve. This will de-intensify the inspection focus on performance data and place more emphasis on the substance of education and what matters most to learners and practitioners.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposal to introduce a ‘quality of education’ judgement?

A focus on the Quality of Education (pedagogy and practice) is very welcome - it shifts the view from measurement and data to the quality of the curriculum - what is experienced and learned by the child

Quality is about many things, one of which is the curriculum but it also includes the quality of those who are creating the curriculum.  Creating a curriculum which is fit for purpose in the EYFS needs to be undertaken by professionally trained experts in the field (0-7 yrs) who are highly experienced

We already have a Quality Curriculum in the Early Years Foundation Stage which includes the following elements;

A Unique Child + Positive Relationships + Enabling Environments = Learning and Development   (EYFS Overarching Themes and Principles, EYFS Statutory Framework (2017. p.6). This forms the INTENT of the EYFS Curriculum.

The EYFS curriculum is different for young children (0-5+) because  of the developmental trajectory they follow which means that  HOW children learn (The Characteristics of Effective Learning) are the foundation from which they begin to learn and understand the knowledge of the Areas of Learning (programmes of education).  It is not just a combination of knowledge and skills it also includes dispositions as a developing learner.

This also means that IMPLEMENTATION is through a play based approach as described in Ofsted’s Balancing Play Thematic Review and also the Ofsted Definition of Teaching.

Both inspection documents for the EYFS should reflect this

Ofsted have always said that they will not tell settings/schools how to teach or what to teach (the EYFS and the National Curriculum as statutory duties do this). E.g. “We are not prescribing what schools should do - but what the leadership intends for the curriculum and what you want to achieve. It’s about the whole breadth of the curriculum not just maths and English” (Lee Owston 10.1.18. The problem is that Ofsted are doing this very thing through the following;

  • Influencing the review of the EYFS and EYFSP by being involved in the advisory/discussion groups for the EYFS by the DfE
  • Pushing forward unsubstantiated views about early years pedagogy from the Bold Beginning’s Report
  • Creating an unbalanced and skewed view of the development of reading by a relentless focus on vocabulary and phonics across the EYFS 0-5+. The development of literacy particularly reading is hugely complex and grows out of communication and language; especially serve and return conversations (many references available for this research - see Harvard Centre for the Developing Child; Hirsch-Pasek’s and Goswami’s research into the development of language and literacy).  The focus on phonics etc above all else has contributed to the very point you make about the overuse of commercial schemes and how they are creating generations of teachers (not just in the EYFS) who actually don’t know how to teach this without using a programme. Teachers need to have a stronger knowledge and understanding of child development and how children learn to read through a firm foundation in talk, singing, rhymes etc
  • Ofsted seem to be colluding with the DfE in the un-informed, de-construction of Communication, Language and Literacy as an Area of learning. Is this the case? How can Attention and Listening be taken out of Communication and Language and put into Reading and PSED – Behaviour, when they are both the bedrock of the development of children’s talk (especially in the first 3 years of life – which is why they are in the Prime Areas of learning) and providing the firm foundations on which literacy (reading and writing) are built.
  • Ofsted films on vocabulary and reading and Early Reading which are taken out of the context of the whole complex process of becoming a secure reader. They do not give a balanced and informed view. What is needed is a film which starts from the beginning and sets the learning of vocabulary and phonics in the wider context of development.

IMPACT/ACHIEVEMENT should be undertaken through observation of children's embedded learning (2.1 EYFS Statutory Duty).  The quality of the curriculum and teaching is evident when children are observed in their child-led play as they bring together dispositions, skills and knowledge in ways of their own which show they have truly understood what has been taught

The following statement does not describe how young children learn “Progress, therefore, means knowing more (including knowing how to do more) and remembering more” there is much more to learning than this. UNDERSTANDING is essential and learning in a context which is familiar, first hand and as concrete as possible supports progress. Knowledge is a part of this - in the context - but it needs to be situated in the  child's context and taught in appropriate ways  for their developmental range 0-5 +

It is heartening to see that Ofsted recognises the different approaches to the curriculum BUT how will this be interpreted into practice by Ofsted Inspectors?

HOWEVER: The Ofsted Films e.g. Vocabulary and Reading and Early Reading are already showing a perceived view of the EYFS curriculum and giving determined messages about what should be taught and how it should be taught.  Is this the remit of Ofsted?   The message from Ofsted has always been ‘we will not tell you how to teach or what to teach’. Has this changed??

It does state in the consultation document that “We recognise and support the importance of providers’ freedom to choose their own curriculum approaches within the appropriate legal parameters"  This includes the EYFS.

However – there are many mixed messages and inconsistencies in Ofsted’s role. On one hand Ofsted reiterate this ‘neutrality’ in their presentations and documentation BUT the production of  a series of films on Utube; conferences and training which have pushed phonics, vocabulary, reading  and comprehension including supporting Read, Write Inc are giving strong messages about curriculum expectations and what should be taught. This is blurring the lines of Ofsted’s remit as an inspection and regulatory body which “reports directly to Parliament and is both independent and impartial”

The role of Ofsted needs  clarifying with the introduction of the 2019 Framework so that there is a clear and transparent understanding across the sectors otherwise this will  lead to a confused and distorted interpretation of the EYFS curriculum

Proposal 2

We propose to judge ‘personal development’ separately from ‘behaviour and attitudes’ to enhance the inspection focus on each and enable clearer reporting on both. This approach recognises the very different elements in focus. We believe that the behaviour and the attitudes learners of all ages bring to learning is best evaluated and judged separately from the provision made to promote learners’ wider personal development, character and resilience.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed separation of inspection judgements about learners’ personal development and learners’ behaviour and attitudes?

This may be an appropriate separation for older children but for younger children it is complicated; the reason being that behaviour and attitudes are all connected to personal, social and emotional development. Which is why I have selected strongly disagree

Referring to the EIF for Sections 49 and 50 in the EYFS there are some very confusing mixed messages in this section;

  1. The Characteristics of Effective Learning are attitudes or dispositions as lifelong learners and a critical part of the early years curriculum as such they should be included in Quality of education.

Whilst they could be described as behaviours they are NOT about behaviour in terms of rules, social norms or compliance which are very different.   This is a misunderstanding of the C of EL which will have a huge impact on how they are currently understood and embedded into high quality practice e.g. the links with sustained shared thinking, mastery and mathematics

References to motivation, collaboration and self-regulation are linked to the C of EL but again are a much broader part of children’s development than just behaviour especially when it is described as ‘behaviour and conduct’, ‘developing a sense of right and wrong’ and ‘responding promptly to requests and instructions from practitioners’ (p.35)

Personal Development (p.36) is separated from social and emotional development which for young children is all connected.

The previous version of Personal development, behaviour and welfare is  a much stronger, informed and developmentally appropriate descriptor – it also makes reference to children’s emotional development, well-being and welfare which is lacking in the revised version

Proposal 3

We want to ensure that the education inspection framework 2019 judgements (see section above and para 131 in the EY handbook]) are appropriate for the range of early years settings.

To what extent do you agree or disagree that the judgements will work well for:

Referring back to my response to Proposal 1 – I am confused by the way Ofsted have interpreted the following;

The quality of education (educational programmes)

  1. The educational programmes (EYFS) provide the curriculum framework that leaders build on to decide what they intend children to learn and develop.
  2. Leaders and practitioners decide how to implement the curriculum so children make progress in the seven areas of learning.
  3. Leaders and practitioners evaluate the impact of the curriculum by checking what children know and can do.

 

  • It is not the educational programmes alone that provide a curriculum framework – (see my points in Proposal 1). The INTENT of the EYFS Curriculum includes the Themes and Principles; the Characteristics of Effective Learning and the Programmes or Areas of Learning
  • IMPLEMENTATION is much wider and complex than just the 7 Areas of Learning. Implementation is also about HOW children learn not only WHAT they learn (The Tickell Review 2011 made this very clear in order to redress the balance from teaching to the Areas of Learning without giving regard to the Characteristics of Effective Learning)
  • IMPACT is more than checking – it is having a full understanding of children’s development and using professionally informed observation to ensure that they have fully understood what has been taught

How do Ofsted’s proposals re the 7 Areas of Learning fit in light of the DfE’s proposals to reduce the educational programmes especially shapes, space and measures and technology? This will significantly narrow the curriculum not broaden it as Ofsted have stated is one of their key aims in the EIF

This needs to be much clearer and less confusing for everyone working in the EYFS – which is why I have had to select Strongly Disagree

Looking at the EYIF – Sections 49 and 50 I have the following comments and questions;

  • Quality of Education (p. 31) – Leaders & practitioners do not only use the 7 areas of learning to implement the curriculum or only judge children progress on this – the Characteristics of Effective Learning are a huge consideration for children’s development and have a significant impact on progress. They are also  a statutory duty (1.9)
  • Cultural Capital is a massively subjective statement and seems to have come out of nowhere. What you seem to be talking about here is Early Intervention to support children and families – this is a much more widely understood and less contentious description of what early childhood education is all about; it  is what you are describing here. If you are going to use the term Cultural Capital there should be a wider debate, training and transparency about what you mean by using this terminology.
  • 140 Again it is not just about the 7 Areas of learning – awe and wonder is more likely to be found in the Characteristics of Effective learning through Playing & Exploring, Active Learning & Creating & thinking critically. To use your term – this is also cultural capital
  • 141 Good to see this included However – will all Ofsted Inspectors understand the full potential of child development and not just that which is written in Development Matters?
  • 33 ‘Over the EYFS, teaching is designed to help children remember long-term what they have been taught and how to integrate new knowledge into larger concepts’. There is a danger here of misunderstanding the way young children learn – remembering does not equate to understanding. Young children are very good a remembering things but that doesn’t always mean they have understood them e.g. children can memorise how to count up to 30, 40, 50 but they do not understand what that actually means or how to connect the understanding with previous understanding. (See Proposal 1). The main way for this to happen is through PLAY which is not mentioned at all
  • Vocabulary, comprehension, fluent readers (and work) are mentioned throughout the descriptors yet there is little mention of communication; talk; listening and understanding. This Inspection framework will be used in settings where there are many children under the age of three; they are not schools and invariably follow a play based curriculum using the EYFS Themes and Principles as their starting points. The revised EIF has become much more ‘school-ified’ throughout which has affected the balance the previous framework had. This is reflected in the points I make above as well as this.

It is good to see that the definition of teaching remains (p.32, 33) though why does this have to be in the footer?? It is an important interpretation of teaching and also IMPLEMENTATION

Proposal 6

The recent Teacher Workload Advisory Group report[1] noted that ‘time associated with data collection and analysis… is most frequently cited as the most wasteful due to a lack of clarity amongst teachers as to its purpose’.

Ofsted is committed to ensuring that our inspection work does not create unnecessary work for teachers, and as such we propose that inspectors will not use schools’ internal performance data for current pupils as evidence during an inspection. This is because:

  • internal data for current pupils has its limitations, and inspectors will not be able to assess whether the data is an accurate and valid representation of pupils’ learning of the curriculum
  • inspectors will gather direct evidence of the quality of education in schools
  • inspectors will have meaningful discussions with leaders about how they know that the curriculum is having an impact.

Inspectors will, however, ask schools to explain why they have decided to collect whatever assessment information they collect, what they are drawing from this information and how that informs their curriculum and teaching. We believe that this will help to reduce unnecessary workload for teachers; we do not believe that it will have a negative effect on our ability to judge effectively the quality of education in a school.

To what extent do you agree or disagree with our proposal not to look at non-statutory internal progress and attainment data and our reasons why?

The current Ofsted Inspection Framework for the EYFS (Section 49 & 50) is helpful in the way it focusses on professional dialogue to show children’s progress;

  • The progress all children make in their learning and development relative to their starting points and their readiness for the next stage…..(146)
  • Effectiveness of the monitoring of children’s progress, and interventions where needed, to ensure that gaps are narrowing for groups or individual children (150)

Quality of teaching and learning – gathering the ‘evidence’;

  • Talking to practitioners about their assessment of children’s knowledge, skills and abilities and how they are extending them (52)
  • Talking with the child’s key person about their progress (53)
  • Looking for the quality of the practitioners assessment knowledge of each child (53)
  • Any records the provision keeps that show how they have tracked the progress children make, including recording any concerns about children’s development in the prime or specific areas of learning or both (53)
  • Accurate assessment, including through high quality observations, is rigorous and sharply focussed and includes all those involved in the child’s learning and development.
  • Where appropriate children are involved in the process.
  • Information from assessment is used to secure timely interventions and support, based on a comprehensive knowledge of the child and their family.

Mapping/Tracking progress is important as it shows the developmental journey of the child. This should be drawn from observations and other formative types of assessments e.g. paintings, drawing, writing, construction play etc. BUT not from tick lists via IPads or photocopied versions of Development Matters.

Teachers/practitioners should be able to tell the ‘child’s developmental story’ from their starting points and talk about it in an informed way; discussing their  thinking and being  clear about what child needs to support them in their next steps.

Changing the focus from assessment for accountability which has led to the current data driven, workload situation to Assessment for learning which looks at the quality of teaching and learning and how this impacts on children’s progress using professionally informed judgements.

Feedback from Head Teachers, teachers, practitioners etc about moving away from data driven paper work is positive and a relief  however there was considerable scepticism about if this would actually happen, with ‘rogue’  Ofsted Inspectors wanting to see the data – in which case Heads said they would have to do it just in case!

A question: How will this changing view of data by Ofsted sit alongside the introduction of Baseline Assessment and changes to the ELGs and the EYFSP – which, if the proposal goes ahead, will become non-statutory??? Again there is a great confusion and mixed messages across the sector.

Di Chilvers

WatchMeGrow – 5th April 2019