The first registered childminder in England to apply for exemption from the Early Years Foundation Stage has spoken of her disappointment at having her application rejected by the Qualifications and Curriculum Authority (QCA). Pat Adams, a childminder in Warrington, Cheshire for almost 22 years, had applied for total exemption from the EYFS just before Christmas but only learned last month that the QCA had turned her down. She admitted that even though she expected to be turned down, she is still “quite upset about the rejection”. Mrs Adams explained why she is unhappy about having to work under the EFYS, which was made statutory in England last September, “The EYFS encourages an audit culture and a 'tick-box' method of working,” she says.

“Writing down observations and then using those observations to plan what you will be doing next with that child won't make the child any cleverer or cause them to progress any faster. I have always observed the children in my care and made sure they have access to toys, books and activities that are appropriate for the stage they are currently at.

“Although I take many photographs and share them with the parents, I do not intend to take photographs, write post-it notes or write up daily diaries as evidence for the child's profile. I will not link my observations to the relevant section of the EYFS or make written plans of what I will be doing next with the children.

“The paperwork is not there to help the child. It is there to be used as an audit trail by Ofsted when inspecting childminders and nurseries.

“I am only prepared to do things which will directly help the children in my care.” In its letter turning down her application, the QCA told Mrs Adams, ‘You must therefore continue to follow the requirements of the EYFS in full and you must inform your parents and your children in your setting. We will notify your local authority and Ofsted of this decision.

” But she had the full backing of the parents of the three young children she minds. In their letter of support one set of parents wrote, “We do not believe introducing formal assessment in this type of setting as they will get all this from school at an age which is more suited to their development.”

“They don’t feel the need for it as well,” Mrs Adams adds.

She found the exemption application process time-consuming, laborious and bureaucratic, having first had to go to her local authority to get its permission to apply for EYFS exemption. Mrs Adams adds, “On my application for exemption I wrote beside each goal, ‘I accept this is a goal and helpful guidance. I may decide to use them for each child as appropriate according to my professional judgement, but I am opposed to the statutory nature of learning and development goals.’

She supports the welfare aspect of the EYFS, but not its statutory goals, and believes that “in many ways the EYFS is an extension of SATs testing”. Mrs Adams says,. “If they were guidelines rather than statutory it would be much better and would allow people like me to go ahead and care for the children the way I have always done.

“Other childminders who don’t mind doing paperwork or feel they have to do it to show to the parents what they have done (with their children), let them go ahead. But to blanket it and say we’ve all got to do the paperwork is wrong.” She gave a copy of the QCA rejection letter to both sets of parents and received further support for her stance. One set of parents wrote to her, “We are completely satisfied with the way that you have cared for Adele and Zoe since you’ve looked after them, your priority being their welfare.

“During the period when you have applied for exemption from the EYFS we have supported your application and the level of care that you have provided has remained as we would expect. Should you wish to reapply for exemption, then we continue to support you in doing so and would like you to remain as a childminder for our daughters.”

Mrs Adams says she doesn’t want to be forced to compete as a professional with day nurseries and playgroups. The recognition she wants is to be seen as doing an excellent job by the parents whose children she cares for, rather than that of Ofsted or the Government.

She is going to reapply for exemption. Should her second application be rejected, she believes she will be forced reluctantly to quit the self-employed job she has enjoyed doing for so long. “I don’t want to go on and on forever fighting, “ she says. “It’s not just for the children I’ve got here. If I say to the parents that I’m giving up they’re going to have to find a childminder they don’t want who will be doing paperwork. That’s wrong.

“If I can continue to give the care that the parents want, why am I being put in this corner?”

As the number of registered childminders in England continues to fall for the ninth successive quarter to their lowest ever at 60,915 from 72,700 in June 2004, Mrs Adams wants other childminders who are unhappy with the EYFS to be more vocal and get the backing of the parents of the children they care for. “Childminders are not voicing their feelings publicly,” she says. “More parents should turn around to the Government and say, ‘This is not what we want for our children.’”