Response to Planning Guide for early years and childcare settings, Department for Education (24 May 2020) A Joint Statement
Reproduced by Dr Pam Jarvis
A coalition of early years and education experts, parents groups and teaching unions have sent a response to the DfE, proposing that their plans for returning young children to schools and settings do not sufficiently address the safety, well-being and learning needs of children under seven. The text of this response is reproduced below.
Response to Planning Guide for early years and childcare settings, Department for Education (24 May 2020)
Youngest children first- care and education suffer
In support of the government’s aim for early years settings and schools to admit all pre-school, Reception and Year 1 children from 1 June 2020, the DfE has issued guidance intended to support schools and settings in minimising the risks from Covid-19 infection. We are concerned that the guidance is inadequate in addressing the health aspects of safeguarding children and staff, while wholly failing to consider the value or otherwise to the children of rushing them into a new and uncharted scenario with major implications for their education and well-being.
The DfE justifies its decision to admit first the youngest children in primary schools because ‘they are key transition years’, and notes that early education lays a foundation for lifelong learning and social and emotional development. While recognition of the importance of the early years is welcome, what is missing is acknowledgement that the quality of children’s experiences determines the educational value. The guidance focuses throughout on issues such as limiting contacts and maintaining hygiene, rather than the quality of children’s experiences of play, talk, social interaction and well-being. There is a danger that the regime of social distancing, strict adherence to grouping, and restricting children’s play and active learning could have a detrimental effect on their development and learning. It may also increase children’s anxiety, feelings of separation and frustration. For these ‘key transition years’, returning for a few weeks to an alien environment and routines before making a further transition in the autumn will arguably be of little or no educational benefit to the children.
Time needed for good practice
Certainly keeping everyone as safe as possible in the face of the coronavirus pandemic means that there must be changes in the way schools and settings work. Schools and settings who have remained open for vulnerable children and the children of key workers have already been operating in new ways, and in some cases the small number of children with high degree of adult attention has allowed enhanced experiences for the children. Opening the doors to many more children, however, will introduce major new challenges.
This latest guidance was issued with only one week to prepare before the projected starting date, making many of the suggested steps impossible to complete. Time is needed to map changes against requirements of existing health and safety legislation, to make decisions and implement new ways of working with staffing, environment, resources and routines. The guidance also suggests schools and settings prepare by consulting with staff to develop new policies and ensure familiarity with new routines and procedures, informing parents about the new arrangements including in multiple languages, and sourcing materials for cleaning. It is clearly impossible to undertake such major change in a reflective and informed manner within the government’s timescale. There is even less time to undertake elements of good practice not covered in the guidance, such as liaising with families about their experiences and concerns and establishing common understandings.
The science of safety
There are still many scientific questions unanswered, such as to what degree asymptomatic children can transmit the disease. In this scientific limbo, there is concern that education professionals are being placed in the position of making decisions for which they are not qualified, and where their legal liability may come into question. The guidance repeatedly suggests steps that schools and settings should ‘consider’ and decide for themselves on policies such as for minimising the risk of transmission, and ‘use their professional judgement’ to follow approaches depending on their particular circumstances. The professional judgement of educators pertains to the education and development of young children but does not extend to making decisions regarding how to manage a pandemic. Until such time as there is clear scientific and medical consensus about the safety of children in schools and early years settings, the expanding of provision should be delayed. At the very least, there should be clear requirements rather than optional guidance on how to minimise risk for children, their families and staff. The additional costs of staffing, cleaning, and resourcing in the face of this situation should be provided for.
Guidance inadequate
There are numerous specific instances where the guidance is confusing, contradictory, or unworkable. For example, the ‘bubble’ concept of keeping a small number of children together is intended to minimise social contact and transmission of infection. The guidance says that keeping the group to a maximum size of 8 is ‘preferable’, yet ‘no more than 16’ in early years settings. In Reception classes, having one adult to 15 or 16 children is too large a group to be manageable or to contain infection. The bubble concept also breaks down where members of staff work part-time, children attend part-time, or attend more than one setting, since staff working across a number of bubbles or children participating in different groups increases contacts exponentially.
Describing the need for an ‘enhanced cleaning schedule using disinfection as appropriate’ is unhelpful. How often do items need to be cleaned, and in what manner? How does this apply to large outdoor equipment? Who will do the cleaning of materials between different groups of children using them? Who will clean the toilets and all surfaces along the way when individual small children need the toilet, and who will supervise the other children in the group if an adult must attend to ensure hygiene? Who will provide the quality interaction and conversation that supports learning if the adults’ attention is largely on cleaning materials, washing hands, and preventing children from moving out of the designated area? The guidance on personal protective equipment is also inadequate, given that social distancing as a protective measure will be impossible with young children.
The workload expected of teachers and early years staff is unsustainable, since maintaining integrity of the small groups will militate against breaks, while staff are still expected to do a double job of considering how to ‘continue to support the learning of children who do not attend settings, including how these children can maintain contact with their key person and peers through the early years setting, and how parents and carers can be supported to provide a positive learning environment at home.’
Plan with benefit to children at the centre
Fundamentally, the guidance points to a rushed return before the schools and early years settings are ready, and before assurance of maximum safety can be given. Putting children’s well-being and learning at the centre of decision-making would result in very different arrangements. For some children, being in nurseries and schools now is valuably supportive and there should be enhanced efforts to welcome vulnerable children. For many, a few more weeks in their home environment, at an age where most children around the world have not yet started formal education, may be a rich time with their families. On return in September if public health conditions are then favourable, they could re-join their previous classes to reform relationships and settle into a familiar environment, before then making well-supported transitions during the autumn term. A high quality early years education is worth waiting for.
TACTYC
Early Education
Keeping Early Years Unique
National Education Union
National Association for Primary Education
Early Childhood Forum
UK Literacy Association
Let Kids Be Kids
More Than a Score
Early Childhood Studies Degrees Network
Sightlines Initiative
Rescue Our Schools
Association of Educational Psychologists
The Oxford School of Thought
Montessori Group
Save Childhood Movement
Professor Cathy Nutbrown, Professor of Education, University of Sheffield
Dr Pam Jarvis, Chartered Psychologist
Melissa Benn, writer and campaigner
Professor Greg Brooks, Emeritus Professor of Education, University of Sheffield
Dr Penny Hay FRSA FHEA, Bath Spa University
Mine Conkbayir, Mine Conkbayir Consultancy
Helen Moylett, Early Years Consultant
Helen Gillespie, Early Years Consultant Independent
Dr Jane Murray, Associate Professor, University of Northampton
Dr David Whitebread, retired Senior Member, Homerton College, University of Cambridge
28th May 2020
