APPENDIX 1: EARLY YEARS FOUNDATION STAGE
(EXEMPTIONS FROM LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS) REGULATIONS
2008 (SI 2008/1743)
Further information from the Department of Children,
Schools and Families
Q1: In 7.10 etc, the
EM refers to extensive consultation on the EYFS from 2005 to 2007.
It seems that the possibility of exemption (c) was acknowledged
by DCSF only at a late stage in this process. Did no interested
parties argue for such an exemption at the earlier stages? If
they did, what response did the Department give at those stages?
A1: Regarding the responses
we received to our consultations, the Department consulted on
the subject of exemptions from the learning and development requirements
as part of the formal consultation on the EYFS which ran from
5 May to 26 July 2006. The consultation explained the rationale
behind making provision for exemptions:
"It is important that EYFS is compatible with
parents' rights under the European Convention on Human Rights
that their children are educated in accordance with the parents'
own philosophies and beliefs. It is intended that EYFS will be
fully inclusive of all children, regardless of their ethnicity,
culture, religion or belief, home language, family background,
special educational needs, disability, gender or ability. Its
primary focus is to meet the individual needs of children, and
there is significant flexibility to deliver the six areas of learning
and development in a way that reflects the needs and circumstances
of every child. In most cases, therefore, it will be possible
to deliver EYFS in a way which is compatible with parents' philosophies
and beliefs. However, it is not possible to predict every circumstance
that may arise.
"Therefore, the [Childcare Act 2006] provides
for regulations to enable an early years provider, in prescribed
circumstances, to disapply the learning and development requirements,
or to apply them with specified modifications, in respect of a
particular child."
Consultees were asked:
- Is our approach to exempting individual children
the right one?
- What are other grounds on which children might
be exempted?
The response was mixed, as indicated in the government
response to this consultation, the relevant part of which is reproduced
below:
Exemptions
1. We received varied views on exemptions under
the learning and development requirements; a recurring question
was why exemptions are necessary under the new framework. 58%
of respondents did not agree with the approach to exempting children,
including a majority of early years/childcare services and schools.
44% of respondents felt more clarity was needed, although 36%
felt ethical, cultural, religious and parental beliefs could be
grounds for exemption ...
2. The EYFS framework will be fully inclusive
of varying children's needs, regardless of ethnicity, culture,
religion or belief, home language, family background, SEN, disability,
gender or ability. There is significant flexibility to provide
the six areas of learning and development in a way that reflects
the needs and circumstances of each child.
3. In most cases, therefore, it will be possible
to deliver the EYFS framework in a way which is compatible with
providers and parents' philosophies and beliefs. However, it is
not possible to predict every circumstance that may arise and
the ability to allow exemptions builds in further flexibility
to the statutory framework. As a result of the consultation it
is clear we will need to engage further with representative early
years organisations to consider carefully the grounds for exemptions.
We will consult formally on the regulations and supporting guidance."
(excerpt from "The Early Years Foundation Stage
- Consultation on a single quality framework for services for
children from birth to five")
This consultation was followed by a further more
detailed consultation into the EYFS Learning and Development Exemptions
which ran from 1 March 2007 to 24 May 2007. The consultation asked
whether we had got the right circumstances to be considered as
grounds for exemption. The proposed circumstances were:
a. Providers who lack the capacity to meet the
full requirements, but should be able to do so within a specified
time period, given access to the necessary support and/or training.
b Providers who base their provision on alternative
approaches which conflict with the statutory requirements with
respect to learning and development.
c. To meet the needs of individual children in
provision which otherwise provides the full EYFS to all other
children.
46% of respondents agreed that these were the right
circumstances, 36% disagreed and 18% were unsure. However, it
is notable that 17% of respondents disagreed with these circumstances
because they felt that the EYFS was sufficiently flexible not
to require any exemptions.
The government response to this consultation indicated
the following next steps:
"A number of respondents expressed surprise
that any need for exemptions was felt, given the flexibility of
the EYFS and the entitlement to early learning, development and
care which it allows children. One respondent noted that it was
"difficult to see when there could be grounds for exemption
that are in the best interests of children".
"While we support the view that the EYFS should
be delivered wherever possible in the best interests of children,
we do not feel it would be appropriate to rule out exemptions
altogether. We must acknowledge that we cannot foresee all possible
circumstances and there may be instances where providers are temporarily
unable to deliver the EYFS, but are making every effort to do
so within a short period. In such circumstances, our view is that
it would be disproportionate not to allow for a time-limited exemption.
Similarly, there may be circumstances in which the EYFS, or some
element of it, cannot be delivered for an individual child. We
would wish to allow sufficient flexibility for such circumstances
to be considered and responded to at a local level, although we
believe that the EYFS is broad enough to accommodate most circumstances.
However, we do acknowledge the feeling among a significant proportion
of respondents that exemptions should be minimised, and will therefore
revise the proposed circumstances for exemptions to allow them
only on a short-term basis for providers who lack the capacity
to meet the full requirements or to meet the needs of individual
children. We will be issuing guidance later this year which will
make it clear that the EYFS should be broadly interpreted and
that it can accommodate a very wide range of educational approaches
and philosophies. We will keep this policy under review and, if
necessary, we will consider revising it at a later date."
The full government response to this consultation
can be found at the following link: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/consultations/conResults.cfm?consultationId=1448
In the consultation response we indicated that we
would keep EYFS implementation under review. Following ongoing
discussions with parents and stakeholders we have laid regulations
that will mean that early learning and childcare providers who
can show that particular elements of the learning and development
requirements are in conflict with their established principles,
will be able to apply for a two-year exemption.
Q2: Can you set out
in more detail how exemption (c) will be sought and granted? What
guidance is being provided for this process? And why may this
type of exemption be granted only for a maximum of two years?
A2: In terms of how the
exemption process will operate in practice, the Department has
published detailed guidance which can be found at the following
link: http://www.standards.dfes.gov.uk/eyfs/site/requirements/exemptions.htm.
This includes a flowchart which details the process for applying
for exemptions.
You asked why there is a limit of two years on exemptions
on the grounds of a conflict between the established principles
governing a provider's practice and the learning and development
requirements of the EYFS. Where such an exemption is sought, the
provider must obtain the support of the majority of the parents
whose children attend the setting. The reason for setting a limit
of two years on the duration of this type of exemption is that
after two years it is highly likely that there will have been
a substantial change in the parent body of children who attend
the setting. It would therefore be appropriate to consult this
new parent body again before seeking a renewal of an exemption,
recognising that these parents may have different views from those
whose children attended the setting at the time when the previous
exemption was sought.
Q3: Who are the main
interested parties who either favour or oppose exemption (c)?
Are their arguments publicly accessible?
A3: Finally, you asked
which interested parties either favoured or opposed the notion
of exemptions from the EYFS learning and development requirements.
Some of the main bodies representing the childcare sector, such
as the National Childminding Association, the Pre-school Learning
Alliance, 4 Children, the National Day Nurseries Association,
and the Daycare Trust, have expressed some reservations about
exemptions from the learning and development requirements being
granted, on the basis that the EYFS should be an entitlement for
all children.
Recently the Times Educational Supplement featured
an extended discussion of the EYFS (01/08/08). As part of this
they surveyed 1,480 teachers on the subject of the EYFS and found
that 88 percent were in favour of the EYFS. In response to the
survey Professor Ted Melhuish said: "What I have found fits
with the survey very closely. The objectors are those who aren't
dealing with the run-of-the-mill provision. EYFS is modelled on
current best practice."
The article also argued that "our best early
years education is the envy of the world. This curriculum is modelled
on that best"
The TES found that teachers were evenly split over
whether there should be exemptions with 40 percent in favour of
exemptions and 42 percent opposed.
Those who have argued in favour of exemptions represent
a small minority of providers, predominantly those who follow
a specific alternative educational philosophy such as Steiner
Waldorf. Even within this group, it is only a small proportion
to our knowledge who feel that an exemption is necessary, given
the flexibility offered by the EYFS. The views of individual schools
vary, but those of the Steiner Waldorf Schools Fellowship are
available publicly on their website: http://www.steinerwaldorf.org/2007_12_01_archive.html
In addition, there has been a campaign under the
banner of "Open EYE", which has argued that the EYFS
should not exist as a statutory framework at all, and which has
on occasion argued in favour of exemptions. Supporters of Open
Eye have been very active in publicising their view and received
wide coverage by the media. Open EYE's arguments are available
publicly on their website: http://openeyecampaign.wordpress.com/
August 2008
| 
