With the sun out and the summer term ahead, possibly the first term in 2 years not to be framed by the cloud of Covid restrictions, can governors, trustees and their boards finally look forward again with some positivity and certainty? One certainty is that tests and exams are returning for our pupils and, whatever the merits or otherwise of their contextualised full return, we can finally get some externally verified data to compare where we stand against our 2019 results and put a benchmark in the sand for the years ahead. It was lovely seeing schools share highlights on social media of school trips in the UK and abroad which thankfully resumed at the spring half term and Easter, and it won’t be long before the fun and games, sights and sounds, fun and laughter of school fetes, sports days and summer sports create new and special memories. Governors and boards are now settling into their own ‘new normal’ of how they choose to meet and train with most choosing a blended approach to ensure opportunity of access to, and engagement with, meetings, school visits and training. Meanwhile school clerks and governance professionals have adapted and honed their skills to support individual governors, trustees and their boards online and in-person.

White paper

The much-anticipated white paper has landed and much has been said and done by way of analysis, dissection and challenge to its main themes, proposed initiatives and lofty ambitions. At 60 pages long it’s a surprisingly easy read and I think the first action for any board is to link a governor to it, ask them to read it, and ensure that it’s an item for discussion on your FGB agendas – at the very least the paper is a roadmap to the DfE’s thinking which will inevitably impact our schools over the coming months and years. Some of the headlines within its four main chapters that have flown a bit below the radar include: no changes to the national Curriculum for the remainder of this parliament, changes to be made to the statutory exclusions guidance, an expanded Supporting Families programme, reconfiguration of the RSC’s and their regions, the Oak National Academy to produce free resources to help teachers deliver an evidence-based, high-quality curriculum and finally the very welcome news that the Education Endowment Foundation will be put on a firm financial footing to ensure its future.

Of the more eye-catching suggestions was a minimum expectation on the length of the school week of 32.5 hours. It’s important to note that this is the average length of week for maintained schools now but where for instance schools have decided to reduce breaktimes to manage behaviour then some rethinking will need to be done. All that being said it is an ‘expectation’ rather than mandatory, but you can assume that Ofsted will be asking the question once this white paper becomes law!

The one main headline though was the expectation that by 2030 all children will be taught within a strong multi academy trust or in a school that plans to join or form one. Nationally 44% of maintained schools are in MATs with 52% of pupils taught in one. Put this ambition and the above facts together and it’s hard to deny the direction of travel on this, and please be assured at HfL we are not advocating for any side of the argument but when you consider that 2030 is only two full 3-year budget/ planning cycles away some consideration needs to be given to this. If this is now an unstoppable direction of travel, then at the very least it needs to be discussed at committee level even if it’s to park the idea but where it will be revisited on say an annual basis. Whatever your position is now, and for many it’s a very firm no, this is not really a sustainable position – discussing, understanding, researching the academy sector within your area, looking at the national picture on larger MATs and perhaps arranging to speak with or visit a MAT to gain better understanding would seem to be a pragmatic approach. There is no saying that the government will not in the medium term accelerate their thinking and ambitions in this area, the larger MATs will have increased in number and established themselves as substantial families of schools in that time, Local Authorities are not guaranteed to rush and set up MATs with their new found powers to do so – your board needs to be across the development and understanding of all this so that if and when the time comes the board is on the front foot on deciding your schools future. A reassuring footnote to this academisation drive is the expectation that local governance arrangements at individual school level to be responsive to stakeholders within a MAT are seen as key.

A couple of quick things to mention, with the Homes for Ukraine scheme underway and schools now receiving applications for places from displaced families, the DfE have updated their admissions advice in April. The DfE are encouraging Local Authorities to share this information with schools and parents, we wanted to ensure you were aware as well.

Secondly the National Tutoring Programme (NTP) has rarely been out of the news but now schools are being encouraged to make best use of this resource. With 40% of schools not signed up to the programme the DfE are considering publishing data on schools’ engagement with the programme with Ofsted being looped into how best deal with this information. Most of the NTP funding is now going directly to schools which means that boards will be able to monitor how this is spent and what the impact will be on your wider catch-up programme, for governors the following DfE update explains in more detail the latest developments with the NTP.

Safeguarding

Following on from recent blogs we will look at an area of safeguarding each half term. This is an interesting one that has recently been highlighted by a BBC investigation which looks into safeguarding complaints at after school clubs. This clearly highlights how governors and trustees need to be considering all aspects of life at their school, how many of us just assume that after school activity is staffed correctly with all the necessary policies and safeguarding in place. Schools are quite different places before and after the ‘normal’ school day i.e accessing the school grounds is often less controlled at these times, the presence of unknown faces is less likely to be noticed or challenged, senior leaders may not be present, pupils may be with staff members they aren’t familiar with and in unfamiliar parts of the school. The safeguarding link governor may want to look at this provision and report back to the board as part of their safeguarding report.

The white paper raises many questions and has caused much hand wringing by the profession. How can those ambitions be realised and delivered by individual schools without the requisite funding and support? Ensure you have your say where possible in the various consultations. In announcing the white paper, the Secretary of State says he wants ‘to spread the DNA of grammar schools throughout the education system’. Not entirely sure how this will manifest itself and what it means, the suggestion being that grammar schools alone enjoy the elixir of success rather than by virtue of the fact that they are able to select their intake. Clearly the white paper was just the start, and we await the outcomes of many consultations from the DfE. So much must be waited upon, and much must and will have to change otherwise, just as some sense of normality is beginning to pervade our schools, it will be all change again as so often happens with the political football that is education. As governors and trustees, we need to be mindful of its content as well as all the other myriad demands on our time and continue to support our schools and academies during this critical term. Test, exam and transition worries will be all consuming for many of our pupils this term but hopefully with the resumption of the usual summer term activities there will be a sense that schools are returning to normal and importantly remain that special, inspiring and safe place for the pupils in our care.

To contact us please use the following:

Governance Helpdesk: 01438 544487 

Governance Training: 01438 544478

Or email as before: governance@hertsforlearning.co.uk

It’s that time of the year again (comes around quickly doesn’t it!) – the time for thinking about what counts as independent work for the sake of statutory teacher assessment, and debating whether our current practice with our classes needs amending – so let’s recap on the key messages.

The STA state in their guidance that writing used for teacher assessment must be produced independently but through discussion with teachers and peers.

In essence, it can be broken down into two areas: marking/feedback and success criteria/modelling. It is worth noting, as STA do, that there is no expectation that every piece of writing will demonstrate independence for every single ‘pupil can’ statement. It may be the case that the spelling has been assisted by direct, specific intervention from the teacher, yet the rest of the writing could be good independent evidence for other statements within a standard.

Marking and feedback

All our pupils will be at different points in their developing independence, but what we want to be able to say when it comes down to making assessment judgements and presenting evidence in a moderation, is whether a pupil would be able to spot an error and correct it without it being specifically pointed out. It isn’t about whether a pupil gets something correct first time (goodness knows, we all need a chance to proofread and check our spellings/punctuation/coherence and so on), but rather whether they can see where they’ve made a mistake and use resources to address it. Those resources can be word mats, dictionaries, things on the working wall/displays, ‘every time we write’ prompts on desks or around the room. It is worth noting that the STA do draw the line at electronic spelling aids, so if a pupil is typing a piece of work, it is advisable for the spelling and grammar check to be disabled.

So in terms of what we could be doing from this point in the year, it’s really a case of gradually stepping back, where appropriate, so that pupils can begin to develop their self-awareness and patterns of errors and thus their independence.

So, where to start? Jumping straight into asking pupils to seek and destroy errors in a whole piece is pretty daunting (and not entirely effective). For many of our pupils, they will benefit from a far more gradual process or for the volume of writing that they need to check to be limited.

Let’s take the example of spelling -

If we currently identify a specific spelling that a child has got wrong, and then perhaps ask them to copy it out correctly a few times, how about we just tweak that so that we write the word correctly, but also incorrectly a couple of ways, so that they have to choose the correct one and then copy it out. This could be a first step in building up to being more independent by adding in an extra cognitive step rather than just copying letter for letter and not considering the whole word.

Then, over the next half term, perhaps try to move to indicating an error on a line, and allowing the pupil ‘seek and destroy’ time with their talk-partner, referring to the resources available. Another nice way to help pupils find spelling errors (especially for Year 2) is to get pupils to put a tick or dot over every word on a line they know is spelled correctly. Then they get the excitement of using the ‘purple pen’ (or whatever they use for edits) and can narrow down the field of words they need to check.

As a next step, as we get into the summer term, we could aim to indicate that a section/piece contains errors and pupils work with talk-partners to review and make corrections where they spot them.

It may also be worth thinking about focussing attention on just one pattern of spelling mistake at a time rather than a mixture. So if a pupil really struggles with ‘ed’ endings but also a number of other patterns, just focus on the ‘ed’ endings for a few days or a week. This should help the pupil become focused on the pattern and more likely to recognise and internalise it. This can also work for other patterns of error/misconception too.

What would really help is for pupils to be in the habit of proofreading/reviewing/editing as they write. This could be supported with the use of more stop-gaps/mini-breaks during the writing process. So, after ten minutes or so, stopping the class and asking pupils to check the sentence(s) they have just written by reading them to talk-partners and making changes to spelling or punctuation or composition where needed. To speed up the process, each ‘stop’ could have a particular focus. Pupils are more likely to develop that self-awareness of their writing if they are getting to implement the changes and not make the same mistake in the next line. It also makes it less daunting than to go back and try to edit a whole piece (especially when there seem to be lots of errors).

Other things that could be helpful in developing the self-awareness and independence could be getting pupils to use a different colour for particular elements of grammar or punctuation - for example, green for capital letters and red for full-stops. In the mini-break or end-of-piece editing, it can then become immediately apparent to them if things are noticeably absent, but also, during the writing, it again adds a conscious step in picking up a different colour that may assist in the securing of that element.

Success criteria, modelling and scaffolding

Success criteria absolutely SHOULD be used. They are an important part of good teaching and we don’t want to see them be thrown out in the pursuit of ensuring independence. Writing can indeed still be independent where success criteria are used as long as the success criteria aren’t overly detailed.

One key thing that can be done is to just remove the examples given on some success criteria/writing checklists. So, if we are in the habit of saying ‘include conjunctions’, that’s fine, but maybe just don’t put examples of what conjunctions are. Obviously in teaching or on the working wall there would be reference to examples, and pupils could confer and plan ideas as to what may fulfil the success criteria. We may also want to think about taking out some of the ‘every time we write’ elements of success criteria sometimes so that the criteria focus instead on the text type or are specific to that activity.

Modelling and scaffolding writing is enormously important, and certainly using the mini-breaks to collaboratively improve a sentence or section of work can be really effective. Modelling good writing during the teaching shouldn’t be shied away from, but we may need to accept that work produced following heavy modelling is not necessarily independent. Ensuring independence really comes from getting a sense of whether, in the writing process, a pupil can recall good examples and refer back to the teaching input without copying it. A good litmus test for this is reading a few pieces from the class – do they all sound the same or are they quite different?

We often get asked about how this works for the pupils who are not quite ready to have the teacher start to back away, or the scaffolding removed. We need to make sure we are responding to the needs of the pupil, and for those pupils who we aren’t expecting to get to the expected or greater depth standard, there may be fewer examples of where they have independently corrected their spellings or whatever. It is worth noting that under the 2018 TAF, a pupil can still be awarded a standard if there is a ‘particular weakness’ that can be explained and supported in the moderation professional dialogue. There will be a blog post coming soon to further explore this ‘particular weakness’ element of the TAF.

The long and short of it is quite simple really: take steps back where you want to show that a pupil can demonstrate that they are secure with the ‘pupil can’ statements, but don’t whip away all of the support that they need to get to that point.

One of the overarching principles in the statutory framework for the EYFS is that, “every child is a unique child, who is constantly learning and can be resilient, capable, confident and self-assured” (Department for Education, 2020). From the pioneers of early childhood traditions to the present day, early years practitioners have considered children holistically and have used children’s strengths and interests as their starting points when planning provision that will meet their needs most effectively. In other words, practitioners must begin with what children know and can do rather than concern themselves with what they cannot do (yet).

Sometimes, for varying reasons, it is more challenging to ascertain a child’s interests and to create provision that really engages and motivates them. Therefore it is essential that practitioners go out of their way to work out what is really going to ignite a child’s curiosity and enable them to demonstrate high levels of involvement in their play. Children’s interests, fascinations and curiosity motivate learning and when children are immersed in exploration and learning they are more likely to sustain practise, and leaning is more likely to ‘stick’.

Every child deserves their chance to shine. For children who are not yet able to engage in deep-level learning and who may be at risk of falling behind, settings really must consider the activity zones and range of resources that they have on offer so that they are truly accessible to all. Another principle of the statutory framework for EYFS is enabling environments where it is explicit that “the environment plays a key-role in supporting and extending children’s learning and development” (Department for Education, 2020). Periodically, practitioners should stand back and observe how the learning environment is being used. Try getting down to child height and notice what it is that can be seen. It might help to consider the following questions:

• are the activity zones engaging and inviting?
• are the resources carefully selected to meet children’s developmental needs, high-quality and open ended?
• are they visible and organised so that they are truly accessible to the children?
• have children been taught how to access the materials and equipment? Are they given sufficient time to play & explore them and to reset the activity zone once they have finished playing there?

Places to Play Every Day, which is now available to purchase as an app, is an invaluable resource that will help practitioners to effectively audit and organise their Early Years environment so that it invites learning across a range of contexts, indoors and outdoors.

There are many ways of enhancing the activity zones within your EY settings with resources linked to children’s interests or things that we want to entice children to engage with to learn new skills and knowledge. The positive, nurturing relationships with children help them to explore the provision and model ways in which they might like to use it.

However, if it is still proving difficult to get children interested in what’s currently on offer, it’s time to think about introducing some more novel provision to the setting…

In postulating his theory of multiple intelligences, Gardner (2021) suggests that people have a unique blend of intelligences and that our challenge as educators is to ensure that provision is “individualized and personalized” (p.72). So, let’s check that the activity zones we have on offer match with the unique blends of interests and ‘intelligences’ within each cohort of children that we are given the privilege to work with.

Some of the activity zones that are really going to motivate children who are harder to reach are overlooked or deliberately ignored because they may require a greater amount of planning and preparation, or they are sometimes perceived to carry a greater risk of danger to children. However, this shouldn’t be a barrier to setting up something that could make all the difference between a child either flourishing or failing to thrive. We’ve got to go the extra mile and work out a solution to potential barriers so that we get it right for every child.

Woodworking

Benefits:

• opportunities for children to problem-solve, experiment, persevere, concentrate and think critically
• opportunities for controlled risk, self-assess and make judgements
• increase self-esteem and confidence by being trusted to use real tools and gain pride and a sense of achievement in mastering them and accomplishing tasks

Risks to consider (a full risk assessment should be carried out and understood by all practitioners):

• can the zone be seen at all times?
• is their protective clothing e.g. goggles/gloves available? Are resources appropriate?
• have children been taught how to use the tools safely? Are there agreed rules in place?

Gardening

Benefits:

• opportunities to engage senses such as sight, smell and touch
• promotes healthy eating by seeing where food produce comes from
• teaches responsibility and patience as well as curiosity and fascination

Risks to consider (full risk assessment should be carried out and understood by all practitioners):

• have you recorded the type of plants/seeds accessible to children?
• have children been taught how to use the tools safely? Are there agreed rules in place?
• is there access to clean water for hand washing?

Cooking

Benefits:

• opportunities for children to be involved in preparing food encourages them to try new flavours and textures
• promotes hand-eye coordination and strengthens fingers and hands
• allows children to feel a sense of pride at achieving something complex

Risks to consider (full risk assessment should be carried out and understood by all practitioners):

• are you aware of children/adults with allergies in the provision?
• are hygiene procedures in place?
• is time planned to teach children to learn how to use equipment appropriately and safely?

Caring for animals

Benefits:

• allows children to develop control of their movements such as applying pressure
• helps children gain self-confidence and understand responsibility
• supports transition as they find comfort from caring for the animal

Risks to consider (full risk assessment should be carried out and understood by all practitioners):

• are you aware of children/adults with allergies in the provision?
• are appropriate hygiene procedures taught?
• have children been taught how to care for the animal(s) safely? Is there a shared understanding of the agreed rules by all staff? Is there time planned for these to be taught?

A huge benefit to introducing some of these activity zones into EYFS provision is the promotion of communication and language development. Consider the breadth of new vocabulary children will be exposed to as they engage in exciting hands-on experiences. There are numerous opportunities for purposeful mark-making, mathematical skill application and scientific investigation to enhance such activity zones so that children will be easily immersed in learning.

Whilst practitioners may be apprehensive about introducing a higher level of risk into their provision, where they have high expectations of their children it will raise aspirations and allow all children to progress and succeed.

References

Department for Education. 2020. Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage. Setting the standards for learning, development and care for children from birth to five. [Online]. Available from: 

Gov.UK: Early Years Foundation Stage Framework

Gardner, H. (2021), The Disciplined Mind: What All Students Should Understand, Simon and Schuster (New York)

Blog authored by Jennie Ferguson and Andrew Boyes

Childcare providers have a moral and legal duty to safeguard children from infections and illnesses. In England, hygiene is covered under Section 3: The Safeguarding and Welfare Requirements of the Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS) statutory framework, updated in March 2017.

Section 3.54 requires providers to ensure that their premises are “fit for purpose” and comply with the requirements of relevant health and safety legislation. The framework specifies compliance with hygiene requirements.

So it goes without saying that correct and proper hygiene practises are very important when running a Nursery or pre-school. Unlike at home, a nursery or pre-school can be very susceptible to infections or illnesses. Proper hygiene control affects everyone at a nursery, Parents, Staff and the Children.

Promoting good hygiene also helps to educate children on hygiene practises.

Below are 5 simple ways to help stop the spread of infection in your reception class, nursery or pre-school.

1. Hand washing

It is vital to teach and consistently promote proper hand washing in your nursery or pre-school. It is important for both for staff and children alike. There should be enough suitable facilities to allow for thorough hand washing. This includes: a suitable wash basin with hot and cold taps, soap (not bars of soap), disposable hand towels and/or a hand dryer.

2. Identify germ-harbouring "hot spots," and clean them every day

Around 80% of all transferable diseases spread by touching. Frequently touched surfaces, like door handles, flushes on toilets, and cot rails provide an excellent breeding ground for germs and bacteria increasing the risk of infection spreading.

A wipe-down with a disinfectant cloth can help to eliminate germs before they have a chance to spread around your setting. This is important in high use areas or with places that are shared by many children.

3. Cleaning

Your nursery should have a cleaning schedule, which points out what should be clean, and how often as well as who is responsible for undertaking this duty. Certain areas will need more frequent cleaning than others. Proper detergent and disinfectant must be available, but caution should apply if children will be using items very shortly after being cleaning with chemicals. Carpets and rugs need to be included in your cleaning schedule. Don’t forget a process for sterilising toys that babies put into their mouth, these should be monitored closely and cleaned promptly before they are inadvertently shared!

4. Responding to infection outbreaks

Parents should be made aware that children who are unwell should be kept at home; this should be noted in induction materials and cited in relevant policies. Refer to guidance from Public Health, England and guidance from the DfE, when developing your policies and procedures.

• Health protection in schools and other childcare facilities

Those with a temperature and other specific signs and symptoms should be excluded until they are better (48 hours from the last episode in the case of diarrhoea or vomiting). Please refer to the exclusion guidance provided from Public Health

During any infection outbreak, increase environmental cleaning (especially toilets and door/flush handles) Reinforce good hand hygiene with children, especially after going to the toilet and before eating and drinking. Ensure toys are cleaned and dried after use. Exclude children with symptoms and advise staff members with symptoms to refrain from work until they have been symptom-free for 48 hours. Sand/Water and or play dough may have to be replaced as necessary.

5. Changing Children’s Bedding

If children are sleeping at your setting everyone should have their own set of bedding that should be laundered at least once a week. The frequency of washing should be increased if there has been an outbreak of an infectious illness or the child has been poorly bedding should be washed at a temperature of 60 degrees to ensure all bacteria is killed during the cleaning process.

The framework for teacher assessment of writing has changed. The ‘ITAF’ of yore is now the less catchy ‘TAF’ having lost its interim status and has a few notable changes to the ‘pupil can’ statements for each of the standards. Key highlights include handwriting being very much back on the agenda (rather than only being considered for judgements relating to Greater Depth) and a shift away from the ‘grammar/punctuation bingo’ checklist approach towards a more holistic composition and effect one.

One of the biggest changes you will have noticed is the addition of guidance relating to allowance for a pupil to a have a ‘particular weakness’ in their writing. Now, before we get too excited, the STA are quick and keen to point out that this is not a return to a ‘best fit’ approach at all. The model of assessing against the ‘pupil can’ statements is still very much a ‘secure fit’ approach (where pupils have to satisfy all of the statements), but just with some wiggle room – perhaps a ‘wobbly secure fit’, if you will.

Now what may feel slightly odd about this is that the regular ‘secure fit’ of the ITAF did always feel like it had some room for wiggling anyway. The qualifiers ‘some’, ‘many’, and ‘most’ already meant that it wasn’t quite an all-or-nothing approach, and those qualifiers remain. But nonetheless, there is now this further ‘wiggle’ in the form of the STA saying that, on occasion, one element of weakness shouldn’t prevent a pupil being awarded a standard where they meet all of the other ‘pupil can’ statements (see below for direct from the horse’s mouth)

• A pupil's writing should meet all the statements within the standard at which they are judged. However, teachers can user their discretion to ensure that, on occasion, a particular weakness does not prevent an accurate judgement being made of a pupil's attainment overall. A teacher's professional judgement about whether the pupil has met the standard overall takes precedence. This approach applies to English writing only.
• A particular weakness could relate to a part or the whole of a statement (or statements), if there is good reason to judge that it would prevent an accurate judgement being made.

So what does this mean? Well, in the training the STA rolled out to LA lead moderators just before Christmas, they emphasised that this is to allow the teacher judgement of a pupil’s achievement of a standard to overrule the meeting of every ‘pupil can’ statement in very particular cases where the teacher has good reason to believe that the standard awarded is the correct one and provided they can justify it in a moderation dialogue.

The examples STA gave, where one element or weakness should not interfere with the achievement of a standard, were always something very specific. It wasn’t the case of just writing off a whole ‘pupil can’ statement, but rather where a pupil just didn’t demonstrate a part of one or had a weakness that could potentially affect parts of a couple of statements.

It feels, initially, like this amendment may be addressing the issues we encountered for pupils who may have dyslexia/dyspraxia (or potential tendencies to those from a KS1 angle) and previously then lost out on the achievement of standards. But the STA did not state that as such, and in their examples they dealt with a range of possible ‘particular’ weaknesses, for example, a KS2 girl whose home language is German and so has an issue with the use of the possessive apostrophe (which is not generally used in her home language) still being able to achieve Greater Depth, or a KS1 boy whose writing was clearly meeting the Expected Standard but had a small issue with tense consistency.

It is worth mentioning that the materials we were given as part of the STA training for LA moderators are available on NCA Tools in the Teacher Assessment area.

It certainly does seem that this could be helpful for our pupils who have an issue specific to them that may otherwise be a barrier to their achieving what feels like the most appropriate standard. I can see how this could be useful for those children who perhaps have issues with tense or syntactical elements due to EAL, or patterns of spelling error due to dyslexia/dyslexic tendencies or indeed handwriting/motor skills.

What this doesn’t mean is that a whole class could have a particular weakness with spelling, for example. In the STA guidance it is clear that this isn’t a get-out-of-jail-free card. The STA used a helpful phrase to explain the ‘particular weakness’ – that it means a weakness in the achievement of the ‘pupil can’ statements, rather than a weakness in the child. It needs to be something very specific to that child’s writing and able to be justified with good reason during the moderation discussion. Also, this doesn’t change anything for children with physical disabilities. As in previous teacher assessment frameworks, allowances should still be made so that a disability that affects writing does not become a barrier for a child achieving the standard that fairly reflects their achievement.

In discussions with teachers at our recent Years1&2 moderation clusters, this alteration to how the ‘secure fit’ is to be executed certainly seemed to be welcomed. As much as it doesn’t allow as much flexibility as previously may have existed in the ‘best fit’ of NC levels, it does allow a more holistic view of a pupil’s writing to be taken into account by stepping away from a requiring a slavish adherence to ticking off everything in order to achieve a standard.

Writers can be great even with a particular weakness, and that is a message I am sure we can all get behind.

When thinking about the environment for our two year olds to play and learn we need to remember a few key factors. Two year olds need small spaces to be quiet and cosy as well as large spaces to use all their physical skills. They need to have many opportunities to engage in sensory activities; this encourages their natural curiosity and helps them to understand some of the possibilities of what they can do. They respond well to simple open-ended resources; and activities that focus on building concentration, problem solving language and skill building. It’s good to start by building on what they already know, what they need and what will hold their attention and imagination. Well placed supportive adults also play a huge role in getting the environment right for two year olds.

So definitely not as easy as it sounds.

If, in the last week or so, you stood back and watched a room full of children and adults all engaged in purposeful play, then chances are you understand what a good environment needs to have. If however, you have seen some children wandering around the room appearing unsure of what to do or play with; then reviewing your environment should be a priority.

A two year-old needs to see what is on offer at the beginning of play. The first thing to do is to make sure you are not confusing continuous provision with storage.

Look at these two photos of Maths provision for two year olds. Both are offered as part as an enabling environment for children to use. One is ready to play and one is not, so one is storage and one is continuous provision.

Storage: Many full boxes packed into a unit, often with a rug in front of it. When offering this type of provision, practitioners often say ‘the children can get out what they want’ but for a two year old this may mean lifting down a heavy box and then either tipping it all out or simply playing from what is in the top of the box. Offering resources in this way is not the most appropriate way to engage children in a rich learning experience as often, by the time they have the resources they want and got to a point of deep play, it is tidy up time or time for a story. It also relies on children being able to build a meaningful play experience out of a box of resources. Not a skill all two year olds have.

Continuous provision: accessible resources ready to play. Set up individually so that children can see what there is and what the starting point to play might be. Continuous provision allows children to select resources that are ready to use and set up to complement the area they are playing in. For example, this picture is of a small world continuous provision in a Hertfordshire nursery.

Notice how the resources are set up to complement the play. Therefore, if a child would like to add people to the train play, then they know where they are. Notice also that there is not a huge amount of resources on the shelf. No storage here. Just a select amount of resources. This way, both the children and the adults can focus on language and extending play.

It gets better!

Many of our Hertfordshire settings are moving away from offering predominately plastic to children. Instead, providing children with resources and objects from the real world.

Natural materials provide children with more tactile stimulation than plastic. They have different textures and smells. They also have a place in the real world, allowing children to make sense of their environment and link their own experiences through their play.

This quote from Margaret McMillan, a pioneer of nursery education, is over 100 years old, but is as true today as it was then.

‘Most of the best opportunities for children’s achievement lie in the domain of free play, with access to varied materials’. Margaret McMillan 1914

This means offering a variety, not just of resources but also of textures, possibilities, problems to be solved, excitement, motivation, curiosity, familiarity and challenge through real objects and natural materials.

So maybe it’s time to review your environment, tidy up and sort out your continuous provision to ensure all your two year olds are motivated to engage and learn.

Some of the photos used in this blog and many more can be found in the HFL Education publication ‘Places to Play for 2 year olds’.

This exciting resource complements ‘Places to Play for 3-5 year olds’ and shares good practice in several areas including the adult’s role, vocabulary, children's voice as well as many ideas for enhancing your places to play for 2 year olds, covering 20 areas of provision.

This is a question that comes up a lot – understandably: after all, if we are in the business of education then we are all about children making progress. But it is apparent that there still remains a variety of interpretations of that word ‘progress’. For many, many years, school leaders have been used to a systemic view of progress as being something that could be measured and expressed using numbers, and that these numbers could be used as evidence of school effectiveness at every stage in a pupil’s journey. The DfE and Ofsted changed their mind about this notion over 2 years ago now, but some school leaders still feel wary about letting go of their detailed data spreadsheets. Again, this is entirely understandable. It is a huge culture shift to move from the old world of constantly trying to convert learning into a numerical measure, to this new world where we talk about progress in a different way. But it’s a step worth taking, as I will explore in this blog.

Firstly, let’s try to define progress. As far back as 2018 (before the publication of the current Education Inspection Framework) Sean Harford (in this blog post) defined progress as “pupils knowing more and remembering more”. This is still the working definition used by Ofsted, and is supplemented by the view that the school’s curriculum is the progression model – i.e. the progress of learners is evident through exploring the journey that they are taking through a well-sequenced curriculum.

So we have shifted from a position of trying to measure progress (quantitatively) to trying to demonstrate progress (qualitatively). Or rather, a position where school leaders ultimately need to be able to reassure themselves that learners within their care are making progress through the curriculum, mainly for their own internal accountability, but also (occasionally) for external audiences.

There are just three points in time where we still attempt to express progress using numbers: once in primary school (KS2 progress scores) and twice in secondary school (Progress 8 at Key Stage 4, and value added measures at Key Stage 5). It is only possible to justify expressing progress numerically at these points in time because these measures are based on very large (national) datasets, where statistically valid correlations can be analysed, meaning that we can indicate, with a statistically significant degree of confidence, in which schools the progress made by learners was above average and in which schools it was below. At no other points in time do we need to try to express progress using numbers and attempts to do so are not worthwhile.

The question that we really want to be able to answer is ‘how well are children learning (the intended curriculum content) in this school?’  We have to accept the reality that it is never possible to truly and completely know the answer to this question with 100% accuracy. We can make good attempts at answering the question, but there will always be margins of error. This is because we can never know with absolute certainty what is going on inside the minds of learners. We use assessment to try to find out what children have learnt - the knowledge they have gained, skills they have developed and their ability to apply their knowledge and skills in various contexts. Some assessment techniques will be more reliable (and valid) than others when it comes to ascertaining the learners’ knowledge, but however effective that assessment is, it will always be a proxy for the actual learning. If we then try to boil down all our assessment knowledge into a grade or a number, we are losing even more accuracy and useful detail. So we might end up with a nice precise numerical progress measure, to several decimal places, giving an illusion of accuracy, but the reality is that it is not as meaningful as it might appear, in terms of answering our question ‘how well are children learning?’

It’s like taking a sentence written in English, translating it into German using a basic English-German dictionary, then putting that into an online engine to translate it into Swedish, then finally translating back from Swedish to English. It would not be surprising if the final result had deviated significantly from the original input. Some meaning might have been lost, or perhaps altered, so that it now implies something different.

Of course, I accept that, for my part, I have contributed to the ‘data machine’ over the years, helping to develop tools that schools could use for internal tracking and spreadsheets to analyse. At the time, schools seemed to need such systems and I was happy to help meet that demand. But now that the external need for data has gone, the opportunity really is there to re-evaluate what data we actually need - what is useful and serves a genuine purpose - and to strip away the things we don’t need or which are not helpful. In terms of the ongoing, day-to-day assessment which lies at the heart of good pedagogy, I discuss a range of important ideas in this blog: The place of assessment in the new Ofsted framework. As for data tracking systems, we definitely now advocate a ‘keep it simple’ approach (hence our Easy Tracking approach which we launched in 2020) - acknowledging that there is a huge wealth of assessment information that teachers will hold in their heads, derived from all their classroom interactions with learners, but that it is not necessary or desirable for electronic data systems to attempt to hold all such information. The most important purpose of this professional knowledge is that it should shape what happens next, i.e. teachers use the results of their assessments to either make necessary adaptations to the current lesson, or to a future lesson, or to the curriculum plan itself, or provide targeted support to particular learners. The ‘evidence’ that this is happening will be in the pupils’ learning outcomes.

As for tracking systems, the thinking behind our Easy Tracking approach is that it is a simple, light-touch approach to capturing internal summative checkpoint assessments: just enough to provide school leaders with the overview that they need, but without trying to imply a level of accuracy that would not be justified.  It should always be remembered that all this data does - all any data does - is provide a starting point for discussion. The numbers might indicate that, for example, attainment in maths in Year 4 is not quite where we would like it to be. But what does this mean? Can we deduce that this tells us that the teaching is not as good as it should be?  Of course not. We need to follow up and explore further before any firm conclusions can be drawn. We need to find out what assessment methods the Year 4 teachers have used, and how they have reached their judgements. Are their approaches consistent with other teachers across the school or do they vary significantly? We could explore for example (across all the classes in the school):

• what sorts of questions or activities have the teachers used to inform their assessment?
• how valid and reliable are these as assessment approaches, i.e. do they actually assess the domain of skills and knowledge that they were intended to assess (validity) and do they do so in such a way as to reliably determine the extent to which learners have secured that knowledge (reliability)?
• what was the timing of these assessment activities, i.e. how close to, or distant from, the point at which key concepts were directly taught? Does this show whether the relevant knowledge is in the child’s short-term or long-term memory?
• are the teachers looking for depth and application of knowledge, or a more surface-level regurgitation of facts?
• are the assessment activities closely matched to what the children should have learnt? (This would not be the case if, for example, a commercially produced test were used which included questions on topics not yet taught.)
• to what extent are gaps in pupils’ learning playing a part, where learners are at the ‘lower end’ of attainment? Are these gaps recent or from previous terms/years? How effectively are pupils supported to catch up?

The above list of questions is not exhaustive – it serves merely to illustrate that there are a great many variable factors underpinning any summative assessment.  Therefore it would be wrong to assume, from data alone, that we can deduce (for example) in which classes the most effective teaching is taking place.

There is an important message for school governors here too. Because governors are often not educational or curriculum experts, there could be a tendency to over-rely on numerical data as a means to monitor the effectiveness of the school. Again, data can play its part but is best seen as a conversation-opener, not as the be-all and end-all. “I noticed the data seems to show that…” is fine, as long as that is seen within the context of a line of enquiry, that needs to include gathering further information, e.g. talking to curriculum leaders, talking to children about their learning, asking children to show them their work and discuss what they learnt from an activity.

Children with Special Educational Needs

A genuinely frequently asked question is how best to evidence progress for children with SEND, especially within the context of our Easy Tracking system, where a child might be categorised as working at ‘Pre-Curriculum Expectations’ year on year. It is not possible to infer from that data whether the progress that child is making in their learning is acceptable, good, excellent – or not good enough. But the truth is, it was never really possible to make those judgements from data, even when we were using measurable P-scales or other tools. The reality has always been that, particularly amongst this group of learners (although you could argue this is true for everybody) each individual is completely unique. Their needs, their barriers to learning, are so completely unique that no ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach to defining ‘good progress’ numerically has ever been appropriate.

Just as is the case for all children, to be able to comment on such a child’s progress, we first need to have established what the curriculum expectations are, based on where they are now and where we are trying to get them to in the future. This might mean discussing appropriately ambitious curricular targets relevant to the child, perhaps thinking about the small steps and goals that we might want them to achieve across the next 6 weeks, say. And then reviewing the learning to see whether those goals have been achieved. That is what progress is all about. What could be considered slow progress for one child might be considered phenomenal for another, taking into account that child’s particular context. Attempts to produce a system that would quantify such progress seem both unworkable and unnecessary.  Once you accept that fact and embrace the reality that progress can only be described qualitatively, in curricular terms, it frees us up to focus on what really matters: using really good formative assessment to establish exactly where each child is in their learning now, and then planning really good teaching that is matched to the children’s needs, to get them to where you need them to be.

Progress versus attainment

Putting all this talk of progress to one side, what we really need to be striving for is (at least) expected standards in attainment for all learners. One of the main arguments against the previous system of levels, sub-levels and point scores, was that it was possible for a culture to develop where we just focused on all pupils making a certain amount of progress (whether that be defined as ‘3 points’ or something else) and thinking that was ok. The result of this of course was that attainment gaps remained (and still remain) wide. A pupil working behind the expected level of attainment at the end of Year 3, say, could make the ‘expected amount of progress’ (whatever that is) across Year 4, but would still end the year behind where we ideally want them to be and could be forever chasing their tail – never quite securely achieving what is expected of them. Our aim ought to be that the curriculum in each year of learning equips the children with the knowledge and skills that they need to be able to successfully access the curriculum for the next year. We must therefore shift the focus of ‘Pupil Progress Meetings’ to become ‘Pupil Progress & Attainment Conversations’ and ask ourselves important questions, such as

• in which aspects of the curriculum are each of these children secure?
• in which aspects are they less secure?
• what specific measures could be put in place to try to enable these children to achieve the Expected Standard? (e.g. more practice in…, focused teaching on…, addressing gaps in…)

Ultimately, for the future life chances of our learners, attainment is the key.

Signs of spring… snowdrops blossoming, evenings becoming lighter and preparation for transition! At this point of the year, allocations for the new starters are now in process and by the time the Easter holidays have ended, parents/carers will be finding out which school their three- and four-year-olds will start in September. That means, early years practitioners will be beginning their juggling act of continuing to provide high quality provision for their current cohorts and be carefully monitoring the children joining them in the autumn term.

At this point, it is worth reviewing transition procedures to ensure there is sufficient time put aside to fulfil the induction, setting and home visits, taster sessions, stay and plays and numerous admin tasks that are required to enable smooth transitions. Where settings have children moving to school, it is beneficial to have conversations with parents/carers about transition and contact schools to exchange valuable information.

“Creating a smooth transition into school is vital to ensuring the child gets the best possible start in their new setting.”

Developing a smooth transition into school, Early Years Careers, 2016.

Here are a few things to consider when reviewing and planning the procedures in place to support smooth transitions for every child.

Top tips to support smooth transitions into school

1) Develop a transition timetable and make the whole school/setting aware of it

Transition procedures need to be robust and everyone involved should have sight over events/activities that are planned. It would be beneficial for early years leaders/managers to compile a list of the procedures involved with transition and plot them against the annual planner for the whole school/setting, such as when visits to feeder settings or stay and play sessions are scheduled. This will ensure that transition is embedded in practice, acknowledged by everyone, and establishes a clear expectation that every child will have a successful start to school.

2) Exchange meaningful information between professionals

Many of the children joining the school will have attended a previous setting or childminder and it is vital that time is set aside share information about the child and family. It is important to remember that some children may have been with the previous provider from as young as three months old and others may have only been with the provider for a term. Conversations between professionals will enable valuable information to be shared which will ensure appropriate provision is put into place to meet the needs of every child.

3) Build relationships with the families

“For Early Years settings, partnerships between parents are every bit as important at the end of their relationship as at the start.”

Hello, Big School – Managing transitions, Melanie Pilcher.

Many will be saying goodbye to early years practitioners that have cared for their child for a significant amount of time and they need to establish a trusting relationship with the next professional. Regardless of home background or circumstances, positive relationships must be formed. Parents/carers can be just as, if not even more, anxious about their child(ren) starting school, and as you will be aware, parents/carers are their child’s first and most important teacher. They will be able to provide you with a wealth of information about their child(ren). In some cases, children may have only been cared for at home, therefore gathering this information is even more pertinent. It can be very daunting for parents/carers to welcome teachers/practitioners into their homes. View home visits as a privilege that many are not privy to.

4) Plan and organise the learning environment to meet the needs of all children

The information gathered from conversations between professionals, parents/carers and children should be used to inform planning and organisation of the learning environment for the when the children start. Ensure that children’s interests and needs are catered for by reviewing the provision and making enhancements that will make children feel welcome. 

‘When small changes are supported by responsive, knowledgeable adults, children will gradually discover that their world is a safe and predictable place’

Seamless Transitions – supporting continuity in young children’s learning, DfE.

5) Be prepared for anything

Even with all the careful planning and preparation that are put in place, situations will always arise that were never expected. This would be great time to reflect on the procedures that have been put in place for supporting smooth transitions and to identify any developments that could be made. There will always be surprises and bumps along the way, unknown children will appear and staffing may well change but if effective transition procedures in place these can be referred to whenever required.

“A successful transition means children settle quickly into school, learning and developing from day one.”

Transition to Reception, Anna Ephgrave, Teach Early Years.

The key thing to remember with transition is that it is not an event, it is ongoing and will require personalisation for individual needs to be met effectively which will allow children, and adults, to settle into their new surroundings and routines. Information gathered prior to children starting will provide an insight into where adaptation may be required and will enable schools to be fully prepared for their new starters.

To ensure a smooth transition is facilitated, the Transition Level of Need Tool (TLoNT) has been used successfully through Hertfordshire and continues to support practitioners and teachers to meet the needs of new cohorts.