Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.
Don't forget to look at the how to guide.
Discussion in 'Early Years' started by giraffe77, Nov 12, 2010.
Department for education, the click early years
I found it there.
I think whether it is called the EYFS, or whatever, it will always be with us and in a sense always has. For anyone who trained / specialised in work with children aged 3-8 as a distinct phase then, when most of the unecessary and distracting material of the guidance material -regarding planning, record-keeping and assessment- is removed, the stripped down essentials relate to the ways children learn through their early years. Given a good grounding of experience of their characteristics and interests a teacher can them put the rest of it together in their own way given the chance. The essential is to look at the children and work directly from them in their own familial and cultural milieux. It is child's play and it was long the realm of nurses or whoever looked after children. We should not let ourselves get to important nor let any one set of documentation become a bible. Children all over the world grow and have grown to be happy, learned or otherwise, self-fulfilled or not, human beings either going to school at three (or two) as we do, or not going until seven or eight. There is no science can make it exact, no handbook to follow. Interaction with engaging adults has been the simple key always and forever will be.
I could not agree more that there is no exact science, and I think if you cannot do this job (on the whole- I mean we all have days when we want to jack it all in and go work in tesco) with passion and a belief in what 'you' are doing then it is not the right place.
I know what works for the children I teach. I know that the children I teach make good progress. I know that I will continue to do what works for my children regardless of what a new piece of paper comes out saying. I will find a way to interpret it and make it work for me, because, that is my job. It is not a job that you do for the money, you don't think 'ooooh- i'll be a teacher, they always become millionaires.' it's a job you do to make a difference.
So yes I hope we don't move towards a more formal style- it will not work for the majority of 'my' children, the ones it works for already have more formal learning tasks in the day. Yes I believe in the notion of the EYFS. Yes I despair over my work load. No I am not a maytar (nor can I spell today it appears!) I am just doing my job.
thumbie,I thought TAs were precisely for putting things away, etc, so that teachers, who are unlikely to feel "above" such tasks, didn't waste their expensive education, training and time, but parents are at least as likely now to find their children in the charge of a minimally qualified TA as of a teacher. Hurrah for English education!
Sadly, carried to extremes this is the major flaw in the keyworker system i.m.o.
EYFS requires a higher adult to pupil ratio to be successful and in the current economic climate one way to achieve this the increase the number of staff who have lower qualifications.
The other solution would be to abandon EYFS and return to a more formal curriculum for FS2.
TAs play a more important role in FS classrooms these days (and in primary classrooms in general). In fact, when it comes to tidying up, teachers and TAs tend to muck in together. TAs lead focus activities, have their own key groups, observe, and contribute to planning and assessment. Teachers take a lead role, but day to day teachers and TAs do the same things in the classroom. It is to be hoped that teachers provide the expertise that the TA will follow and learn from, although teachers tend to get squeezed these days between the TAs with their enhanced role and the advisers with their heavy-handed interventions (at least I have sometimes felt squeezed).
The point I was making is that TAs, not having had the benefit of teacher training sometimes approach their job with the same mistaken ideas that Brain Jim has expressed. They want to 'teach' and try to do so in their interactions with the children. Their definition of 'teach' is narrow and very didactic, and they are not always sensitive to the children's developmental needs, weighing in at an inappropriate level. I would reiterate, not all TAs.
If TAs ran reception classes (BJ said they might as well, because no real teaching goes on under EYFS) they would probably make it much more formal - more like the type of classroom BJ seems to want.
I was struck by the irony.
I always felt mine and the TAs time was valuable so we both put things away and set up for the following day <u>after</u> the children had left for the day
I thought that both the TA and I would exhort the children to put things away at tidy-up time. I'm sure you do too, Msz, along wiht most fellow-practitioners.
I didn't understand polyglossy's remark. Was it sarcastic?
By the way, cleaning tables and setting up gets done AFTER the children have gone home in our setting. I can't imagine an alternative.
So often people knock what is a complex job in EYFS -maybe it's lack of understanding and often these people don't have the bxxxx to do the job themselves!
And often these people are doing the job themselves.
Brain Jim pops over to the headteacher forum from time to time to do a spot of headteacher bashing too.
Fwiw, it's being reviewed, I'm hoping we keep the good bits and we certainly will in my school ( I'm a head with 14 years teaching experience in early years) I've always argued with sips and ofsted about the correlation between eyfsp and ks 1 outcomes ( citing the Northamptonshire study, which amazingly few have read).
For the record app was never compulsory, and we didn't introduce it in my school. Still came out with a good judgement on assessment.
I do feel that it was very short sighted not to dovetail the eprofile with yr1 assessment.
There is a total correlation between FSP and SATs. A child getting straight 9s in the maths and Lit ones will get a level 3. Anyone with 4 or less will be SEN.
It is silly to suggest otherwise.
Actually there was a huge research project which ran for 3 years in Northamptonshire which proved otherwise. 9s are a strong indicator in specifically related subjects. Anything below a 9 is not. The greatest indicator is d and a
but point 9 is technically NC in that it is beyond ELGs
But since you'll argue that black is White, we'll agree to disagree. I'll let you have the last word, because I know it means so much to you, so go ahead....
I meant brainjim by the way msz, not you
I've read the Northampton research and I'm also aware that the last government decided to "smother" the findings about "super scale" points and the links between D&A and future success but there is no getting awat from the fact that scale points 1-3 are the old stepping stones, 4-8 are ELGs and scale point 9 is beyond ELGs and it doesn't matter what colour you choose...
I appologise for my final phrase
I shouldve been clearer with my quotes.