The Impact Of The Foundation Stage Upon Education

[Guest]

Hi,

I am working on a foundation degree assignment. I would like to know your views upon how the introduction of the foundation stage had an impact on pre school education. How has the change from the desirable learning outcomes to the early learning goals affected education? What impact has it had on training and delivery? Are there any grey areas? Have any new policies been put in place as a result?

 

Please waffle as much as you like, your experiences will be of value to my essay.

Thanks

[AnonyMouse_1027]

Hi

 

I would say from a personal point of view that changing to the ELGs with the foundation stage file has helped my staff learn the goals more effectivly. we use them every time we do our planning every other week. We have now implemented IPPs for each child on all the steeping stones and its helped us enormously when unsure how to observe the goals. Having said that we do struggle occaisonally with a few of the stepping stones as they seem quite obsure and some are duplicated quite a bit too.

[Guest]

Thanks Hali, Alot of the stepping stones are repeated, and some are vey broad. Did you ever work with the Desirable Learning outcomes? Someone told me they were much more vague than the ELG?

[AnonyMouse_1490]

Yes I have used the desirable learning outcomes. A child could either do them or they couldn't. I see the stepping stones as a natural progression to a learning goal(desirable learning outcome) To me someone has analysed the way a child thinks Usually they work through the stepping stones before they reach the learning goal but some get their before they reach all the stepping stones.

[Guest]

Hi

The introduction of the foundation stage and early learning goals means we are all now working towards the same aims. This gives staff a sense of security-we always say that as long as we are all working towards the same outcome then how each member of staff approaches it is upto them. This gives them flexibility.

I would agree with Hali that some of the stepping stones are obscure and seem to be duplicated. When I broached this with one of our teacher advisors she said that practitioners needed to look at the section "What does the practitioner need to do?" more than looking at the stepping stones in isolation. But sometimes even that doesn't help!!! I think one of the things I disagree with is in Knowledge and understanding. In the ss and goals for cultures and belief it states that children should gain an awareness of the cultures and beliefs of others then begin to know about their own cultures and beliefs and those of other people. I would have thought that children would know about their own beliefs and cultures first because this would be learnt at home from a very early age, especially in homes where belief and culture is very important.

There is perhaps more pressure on settings to "deliver" more of a curriculum and that some groups have fallen by the wayside because they either couldn't or didn't want to go down this road. I, personally, think our pre-school has gained a lot from both the desirable learning outcomes and the early learning goals. We are definitely more organised than we were before and we are more aware of the needs of individual children.

We haven't put any new policies into place, other than a curriculum policy, as a result of the changes.

Hope this is some help to you. If I think of anything else I will post again.

Linda

[Guest]

Thanx Linda, some useful points, and many I agree with.

[AnonyMouse_1195]

In school settings the ELG's have given support to teachers to deliver the curriculum in the way they know to be appropriate for the children. However. and this is a real biggie, many Class R teachers are expected to plan as if they were KS1 and deliver the curriculum in a more formal way. Some are depressed by this and frustrated, feeling that they are failing the children. Others need training and support to change their philosophy. Where there is a school nursery life is easier as now a continuous assessment record can be kept which informs planning for learning. Senior Management are more likely to understand the needs of young children in these settings.

I have been out moderating the Pupil Profile and have been quite despressed about what I have found. Many teachers could lean a lot just by coming onto this site and reading about other settings. I am most impressed by non- maintained settings reporting on this site.

I was happy with the DLO's when they came out, but that is because I interpreted them as leaning through play, even 'tho that was not emphasised. The problem with the DLO's was that they were open to abuse - that is, they could be interpreted as reinforcing formal practice.

[AnonyMouse_79]

Hi,

 

A significant difference which hasn't been mentioned is age.

Desirable outcomes were applicable up to a child's fifith birthday.

FS & ELGs are until the end of the Reception year ie the school year in which the child is 5.

 

So KS1 now starts in yr1, previously a child entered KS1 at the start of compulsary education.

This has made the reception year and teaching of this much more child friendly and play based. If formality still exists it is because of the DLO transition and the need to introduce literacy hrs in particular and to a lesser extent numeracy hrs.

NNS always recognised that children would have differing times in reception classes and therefore different experiences.

NLS never did this and was quite dogmatic. Its language is not user friendly and although on analysis Reception year objectives do match to CL&L goals they are not always aesy to see.

NNS uses exactly the same language as Maths Goals and is therefore easier to relate to!

 

Does that help?

 

Susan

[Guest]

That was something I had thought of before, which went out of my head at the time. I now feel that the foundation stage brings reception into an area of the curriculum which they didn't really do before. They were neither early years or KS1 and now they have a definate place. Or at least they should have but viewing what a lot of teachers say on this forum there are still some brick walls they have to face and break down.

Linda

[Guest Candy]

I agree that there are a lot of brick walls still out there, however I believe a lot but people are "waking up" to the needs of the youngest children in our care. In my experience, because the FS did not receive as much publicity and funding in its introduction as the NNS and NLS many school based practitioners (particularly those in management) were slow to grasp the implications.

 

But thankfully, because of the status and funding the whole of early years has received in the past few years (unfortunately not always recognised in our pay), the theory of the Guidance is now beginning to be put into practice.

 

Like Linda says with the introduction of the Curriculum Guidance and the ELGs and Stepping Stones, Reception classes have a place and that place has been firmly linked with pre-schools. The one benefit I see is the common language between schools and pre-schools and the expectation that we should both be communicating regularly as we working toward the same agenda.

[Guest]

You are absolutely right candy, I think there are still alot of people who do not reognise that schools and pre schools are working to the same agenda, and being in a private setting myself, it is very difficult to get across that infact we are all working towards the same goals at the end of the day. Thanx for all of your comments so far, keep em coming x

[AnonyMouse_79]

Hi Candy,

I'm not sure you're right about lack of funding and publicity. Certainly not my experience.

Practitioners and headteachers have recieved tremendous input.

 

Problem is, schools are driven by targets and target setting and while we should be expecting lots from our children in order for them to acheive, the pressure on the teacher is tremendous and it is too easy to be formal and work in a way which allows you to meet the targets, but a manner that is not directly relevant to the child.

At least that is what I am battling against in the constant drive to show value added and progress against the profile statements- a wholly inappropriate use of the document in my opinion, and in a school environment where the FS ethos is supported.

 

I can provide a play rich environment and work meaningfully with the children or I can target curriculum areas for assessment at the expense of the play rich experiences. I am expected to produce halftermly figure for maths and CLL. That becomes overburdening and those not operating it can not see that. I am SMT and my views have been ignored.

 

Susan