The group, which campaigned against the EYFS becoming law, and is continuing to criticise the statutory nature of the EYFS, said that there will need to be 'a substantial number of post-implementation' Ofsted reports before it is known whether early years settings are being appropriately assessed and advised by Ofsted inspectors.
Richard House, spokesperson for the Open Eye campaign, said, 'There are severe doubts as to whether practitioners are prioritising the quality of their settings in relation to children's real developmental needs, rather than prioritising how many "brownie" points they can earn from Ofsted.'
He said major concerns about the literacy goals had not been addressed, despite ongoing controversy and the fact that many leading early years experts agree that the goals for reading, writing and punctuation should be reviewed.
While he acknowledged that the practice guidance could be 'a useful resource as long as the grids are not taken too literally', Dr House said there were elements of the framework that were 'highly contentious, have no evidence base' and that many practitioners and academics still took issue with.
Open EYE also said that the exemption process to the EYFS was too complicated and that following the recent concession given to some Steiner settings to opt out of some of the learning and development goals (News, 3 September), other non-Steiner practitioners should be able to apply for exemptions on the basis of 'deeply held personal convictions'.
Further information: www.savechildhood.org