Leading figures in the early years sector responded more in sorrow than in anger to Ofsted's report criticising the Foundation Stage Profile, describing the document as unhelpful and its timing as unfortunate.
Supporters of the Foundation Stage and its assessment mechanism argue that the survey is based on a small sample when the profile was new and that many of the issues it raises are being addressed.
However, there is annoyance at the headline-grabbing press release publicising Transition from the Reception Year to Year One - an evaluation by HMI. The comment by Her Majesty's Chief Inspector of Schools David Bell that the profile 'is bureaucratic and time-consuming and fails to provide parents and teachers with the inform- ation they need,' was denounced as nonsense by its supporters. Mr Bell's call for the Department for Education and Skills and the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority to look at the report closely because 'in its current form the Foundation Stage Profile does not fit the bill' was seen as unwarranted.
Lesley Staggs, national director of the Foundation Stage, says, 'There is some helpful information in the report. The messages in it were things we have tried to pick up - on implementation, training and support. The press statement comment was quite unwarranted by the report. There is no point getting upset about it - we have to get on.
'If last year had been a proper pilot year, it would have taken away a lot of the angst.'
Ms Staggs' new team of regional directors is visiting every local authority this summer and she will report to the DfES on what happens as teachers complete the first full year of the profile. Meanwhile, she is urging the Government to commission a full, independent evaluation.
The profile needs to be given time to bed down, says David Bartlett, co-ordinator for assessment at Birmingham Learning and Culture. 'It was not given a proper launch. They published it in January 2003, halfway through the school year. It would have been better to say, "use the rest of the year to familiarise yourselves, then use it properly from this school year". But they would not do that. Also, the QCA have not had an officer with the necessary experience to support the Foundation Stage Profile and the DfES has not promoted the e-profile properly. There were some program problems with this software, but these have largely been overcome.'
Making links
The report is a based on a survey of 46 schools over three terms in 2003, from when teachers started using the profile. One of its major recommendations is for officials at national level to look at the links between the areas of learning in the Foundation Stage curriculum and the subjects of the national curriculum.
'It is not a robust sample,' says Professor Christine Pascal, a director of the Centre for Research in Early Childhood. 'It was done at a very early stage when people were not well prepared.'
Professor Pascal says the blame for the fault-line between reception and Year One lies not with the profile itself but with the QCA. 'This problem was raised with the QCA during the development of the profile, although a suggested solution was not taken up.'
The proposed solution - to provide documentation cross-referencing the Early Learning Goals of the Foundation Stage on to the relevant element of the national curriculum attainment target to show progression routes - has since been developed by Birmingham education authority and published as a booklet, Making Links, says David Bartlett.
The QCA is looking at the issue, says Lesley Staggs. She will consult the sector but warns, 'You need to be careful that you are not losing much of the richness of the Early Learning Goals by trying to slot them into the assessment scale of the national curriculum.'
The report says that schools feel the profile stresses what pupils have not achieved, rather than what they are able to do. 'That is nonsense,' says David Bartlett. 'What you record is what children have achieved. I cannot begin to understand what they are saying.
'To call the profile bureaucratic and time-consuming is nonsense. It means that people are using it in the wrong way. It is simply woven into your day-to-day teaching.
'It is desperate that an organisation such as Ofsted should make such ill- informed criticisms and judgements based on a survey of a small number of practitioners at a time when the thing was just being put into place.'
Misconceptions
There are a lot of misconceptions about the profile, says early years consultant Margaret Edgington. 'I met a reception teacher who said she had been told to have three observations for every point on the scale. It is crazy. People for whom observation has been part of their practice find the profile a doddle.'
However, she finds difficulties arise when teachers are less well versed in good early years practice. 'You can find reception teachers planning and setting up work to meet the profile, rather than developing a good curriculum, making observations around it and completing the profile at the end. They get it all back to front.'
'A key benefit of the Foundation Stage Profile is that it is an immensely powerful tool for professional development,' says David Bartlett. 'A well- developed moderation process can not only ensure consistency in assessments being made, it can bring people together and give them the opportunity to discuss not just the assessments they are making but the way in which they are delivering the curriculum.'
Excess paperwork
The report says many reception teachers are keeping far too many records. The irony of this comment coming from Ofsted is not lost on observers.
'Schools feel under pressure from Ofsted to do this. They are afraid of throwing the baby out with the bathwater, so they are keeping everything they have recorded and adding the profile on top,' says Seona Ford, senior advisor in assessment at Essex County Council.
'There needs to be a distinction between assessment, which is a process, and record-keeping, which is a product. Schools get drawn into feeling that they need to be recording more because they are being told they need to assess more effectively. It is a maze. Assessing more effectively does not mean recording more.'
Professor Pascal queries how much effective training Ofsted inspectors have received on the profile. 'I only have anecdotal evidence, but you wonder about some of the mixed messages that come out of inspections. I think the Ofsted report is unhelpful at this stage. It does not really contribute in a constructive way in taking things forward.'
'Nobody has a problem with the Foundation Stage curriculum,' says Seona Ford. 'But the Foundation Stage Profile does not include all the Stepping Stones. It is a snapshot. It is not a document you can use easily as an overall profile from the moment the children start in their nursery. In Essex we have worked with practitioners to develop grids that include the whole Foundation Stage curriculum which supports practitioners in adding breadth to their judgements.'
This problem has been overcome at Claremont Primary School in Blackpool, which has a computerised profile running across the nursery and reception classes.
'For us, the biggest advantage is that it runs over the two years,' says the foundation unit manager, Helen Mitchell. 'The staff are able to input the data they need on the system. It can throw up a lot of information that gives us added value. You can see the Stepping Stones and you can see what a child or group of children have achieved. You can see that maybe they have missed out on something and what you need to focus on.'