Gov's response to e-pet to exempt childminders from EYFS law

Debbie Hepplewhite · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm **Posts:** 2159

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page20996

I signed this e-petition hence I was alerted to the government's response.

Of course I want every child to be well cared for, protected, educated and their development celebrated - but, in my opinion, the government has gone too far and demonstrates a great deal of hypocrisy by protesting that burdens placed upon childminders are not unreasonable.

I am not the only one who has felt that government goes too far in its notions of what is best for us as a society and as individuals.

I remind people with authority that they are there to respresent us - not to laud it over us.

Let's hope that politicians are really beginning to listen and respond - instead of this ethos of 'Do as I say - I'm right and you're wrong. What we expect from you isn't really such a big deal'.

Isn't it? :twisted:

Debbie Hepplewhite · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm **Posts:** 2159

Here is my reply - copies sent to some relevant people - including, of course, Ed Balls:

Quote:

Thank you for alerting me to the government's response to the e-petition 'anti-EYFS'.

My analysis of the situation, however, leads me to say that the government is clearly not listening to the views of many ordinary people - and the government's analysis of the situation for childminders does not appear to match the reality.

It is high time that the government did some time-management studies of the many laws and guidance documents it has rolled out even in recent years - and started to think hard about the realities for the ordinary carers and teachers in their various contexts.

What is it really like living in an era where we are subject to so many impractical, time-consuming - and arguably 'unnecessary' directives?

The government's policies are leading, without doubt, to a lot of unhappiness, overwhelmedness and disaffection.

Yours sincerely,

Debbie Hepplewhite

frances5 · **Joined:** Thu Mar 30, 2006 12:14 pm **Posts:** 198

The governant has very little faith in parents. Its why surestart was created to smash parental confidence further. There is a barage of "advisors" for parents and the number of health visitors has been cut to pay for it all.

I am sure that soon I will have to show that my care of my six month old daughter is conforming the EYFS.

kenm · **Posted:** Mon Oct 19, 2009 3:11 pm

frances5 wrote:

The governant has very little faith in parents. Its why surestart was created to smash parental confidence further. There is a barage of "advisors" for parents and the number of health visitors has been cut to pay for it all.

I am sure that soon I will have to show that my care of my six month old daughter is conforming the EYFS.

That would be a natural development of the recommendations in the Badman Review of Home Education, which has been accepted by Government: it proposes annual or more frequent visits by Local Authority staff to the homes of all home educated children between 5 and 16 and, if the visitor thinks it necessary, interviews with the child in the absence of its parents.

Barry Sheerman was on the Today programme this morning, and described Ed Balls as "a bit of a bully", who "likes to have his own way". This was in connection with the appointment of the new Children's Commissioner, the CSF Committee having recently declined to approve Balls' choice for the appointment. We have yet to see the Committee's report on the Badman Review (more evidence to be taken at today's hearing), but previous form suggests that Balls will ignore any unfavourable comments within it.

Debbie Hepplewhite · **Joined:** Mon Aug 29, 2005 4:13 pm **Posts:** 2159

Quote:

Balls will ignore any unfavourable comments within it.

Hmm....

Does Balls ignore anyone and everyone who questions his ideas?

What would that make him?

Gov's response to e-pet to exempt childminders from EYFS law

Who is online