1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    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.

    Dismiss Notice

Nursery PSRN performance mgt observation!!

Discussion in 'Early Years' started by ineedsomehelp, Mar 5, 2011.

  1. Well, like getting yourself to the toilet or not it is not one of those things you've either 'got' or 'not got'. It depends on circumstances (very absorbed in what you are doing - might not get to toilet), state of health and well-being (sad or poorly - might not get to toilet), amount of support (noone to see me wriggling - I didn't get to the toilet). You might have it one day (Hurray at last little Fred is toilet-trained) and not have it the next (Oh no, he's regressed). Of course you do end up, at last, getting it.
    So, you can play a game that demonstrates conservation of number and some children will know it (probably already got it), with others it will click (within the context of the game but maybe not for ever), while others will be introduced to it (it might click next time),and some may not even notice or follow it at all, but they will have fun and do a bit of counting. They will all be somewhere on the continuum.
    Don't set too much store by Piaget. Read, 'Children's Minds' by Margaret Donaldson.
     
  2. I'm not defending having this point as a set assessment but...
    Msz, there's really nothing fearful and cruel about playing a game with a child. Nobody is advocating anything forceful or demanding, just a bit of finding out in a fun context with children who are happy to be involved and free to go away at any point. Of course assessment happens with 3 year olds but it doesn't have to be a painful process.
    I don't agree with tracking children (extrapolating from what a 3 year old can do to decide what they should do at 11) but I do agree with finding out what the 3 year old can do so that i can provide well for her/his development tomorrow.
     
  3. NellyFUF

    NellyFUF Lead commenter

    Play the same game with four sheep?
    We're going to run out of sheep!
     
  4. Nelly, we'll let you use wolves. [​IMG]
     
  5. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    I use food for lots of maths but will send the food police screaming if I suggest using 4 chocolate buttons
     
  6. Msz, this is what you said: "mystery10 children will be doing this naturally at all ages it's the
    fact some teachers are Assessing 3 year olds that makes me want to cry!" I won't be the only one who read this as a condemnation of the idea of assessing 3 year olds.
    The OP said nothing about thinking the children would not be able to cope with this activity, which can be regarded as a demonstration of conservation of number. As I understand it, the children will be working with a set number of sheep and sharing them out in different ways. There is no need for them to understand conservation of number to participate but it may scaffold their emergent understanding. Remember the statement says "..begining to understand that the number remains the same"
    It really all depends on how it is done and whether the OP can make it engaging. It could be boring, it could be fun. I would imagine she will give up on it now she's been told it is stupid anyway.

     
  7. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    mystery10 children will be doing this naturally at all ages it's the
    fact some teachers are Assessing 3 year olds that makes me want to cry!

    I still do see any mention of "fearful" or "cruel" but to clarify Thumbie it does make me want to cry that teachers are setting up senarios to assess 3 year olds against learning stages that they can either meet naturally or aren't ready to meet simply because they are afraid to tell the powers that be the children can't do it yet!the word is stupid!

     
  8. Where did the OP say she thought the children were not ready to meet this or that she was afraid to say so to the powers that be? I'm not sure if she was given this objective or if she chose it, but either way she has not said that she thinks it is beyond the children. I think she just wanted a bit of friendly advice and a few extra ideas and inspiration so she could enhance the bare bones of the activity. I doubt she'll bother posting on here again.
     
  9. NellyFUF

    NellyFUF Lead commenter

    so how do we assess "beginning to understand"?

     
  10. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

     
  11. Yes, Msz I read that too. It was a response to Yohana's post and I think the OP was trying to point out that even with experience this is a difficult area to tackle so, as an inexperienced nursery teacher, she felt it right to ask for advice. Where does she say that she thinks it is unreasonable to teach to this objective?
     
  12. Well, I didn't write the Development Matters and I despair of some of the woolly [​IMG] statements in it.
    I suppose if the child can observe that she is using the same sheep and the same number of sheep for each combination in this particular and practical concep, supported by the teacher's questions and comments, she is on the road towards generalising that idea to all similar situations.
     
  13. should be 'context'.
     
  14. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    She didn't ...I did
     
  15. NellyFUF

    NellyFUF Lead commenter

    Many sensible nursery children might suggest making a bigger field in the first place.
     
  16. But you attribute this to her Msz:
    But she thinks they can do it, and she doesn't think teaching it is unreasonable. So she's not stupid. She just differs from you in her opinion.
    Perhaps you might apologise to her now.
     
  17. I am afraid I am going to disagree with you thumbie. I am going to say it is totally irrelevant and unecessary and I don't care what the development matters framework says- yes i do know better and so does half the world where young children would never be exposed to such nonsense. Do you think that this is a vital piece of learning that if a child 'misses' it or a teacher fails to spot and assess it it will make a blind bit of difference in their lives? Well it won't. I never once tried to teach or assess this in all my classes be that nursery or beyond. It is an interesting aspect of numbers but it is not a concept you can be taught and assessed in nursery. Children passed on through primary school maths - and do now in my current school without any of this being taught or assessed in either nursery or reception. I say again it is a WASTE of teachers and children's time.

    It is limited, trite, superficial, unrewarding, fleetingly interesting if at all - to teacher and children- not rooted in the shared daily life arising out of real need but contrived, it shows a lack of undrstanding and valuing of children's play, and of the art and science of early years work. The fact that you seem to think it is okay and even do it in your classes suggests you have lost the biscuit or whatever they say, with all your early years experience how did you get convinced, or arm twisted, or just overwhelmed to even try to give this the time of day. If there is any point on a scale that requires a dot or a number, and you can't get away from it, then would say put it at the mid-point. Play safe but don't waste any time, effort or sleep over its authenticity or accuracy because it has no bearing on long-term development whatsoever.

    YES there are far more important things to do with children. It is like trying to teach them to flex the knee or they will never kick a football. They are subconcepts in a far wider scale of things - playing football or as mystery 10 says counting things at home. I think you need to get your nursery teachers head back on. The banality of the EYFS detail - which was supposed to bea an idiot-proof guide to teaching young children has now become gospel and is coming back to haunt those of us who thought it was a great idea, contributed to its development and welcomed its appearance. It was only ever a review of elements of teaching young children brought together in one place. Instead it has fallen into the hands of the data managers who see steps of development and have to put a scale point on it, who see a ladder and demand that everyone climbs up it the same way, rung by bl**dy rung.

    It is just not needed at all. That is why the poster got short thrift- in a loving sort of way I think, professionally speaking that is. NOt personal and not shooting the messenger, but if we don't pull up short and think sometimes we'll be up the hill and down the hill and neither one nor the other, ever, because the grand old duke of york in Education house or wherever it is now- cannot make up his mind nor see the simple virtue of standing still.
     
  18. Msz

    Msz Established commenter

    Perhaps you can point out to me where I am supposed to have said she is stupid?
     
  19. I am obliged to assess against this point by the assessment tool used in my LA. I do not find it onerous, irrelevant or difficult. I play a quick, fun game with a child, we smile! We have a chat! we do a bit of counting. I make it relevant by building up a role play or small world play scenario which the child likes (crisps to share at a picnic etc). I observe the child. If I judge them to be getting it I will tick the box, if they are not ready we have still enjoyed each other's company and had a laugh. I don't tick the box, but I will probably have evidence of something else from the encounter.
    What on earth is the problem!
    Yohana, I am not fiercely for or against having this as an objective. I could certainly live without it, but I have to live with it. It's not a big deal. What is a big deal is the reaction to the OP on this thread, which is as far from being kind and supportive as it is possible to get - re-read it if you don't believe me.
    And, thank you, my nursery-head is in the finest of health.
     
  20.  

Share This Page