A Question For The More <ahem> Experienced Of You!

[Guest]

I have been doing some research into the historical context of planning for individual needs and interests and I have been directed to the Rumbold Report. Having read through it, I have found lots in there to support my essay but I am a tad confused about what came next!

 

In everything I have read so far, it seems that the report paved the way for the CGFS. However, in between the report being published and the CGFS being published, there were Desirable Learning Outcomes. So my question is, did the DLO's come about as a result of the recommendations from the Rumbold Report or was it the CGFS?

 

Also, before the DLO's, how was planning managed in settings? I didn't join the profession until 2000, and even then I was a student for a while (stop, start, stop, start) so didn't really have a working knowledge of the CGFS. Again though, through my reading it seems that settings were pretty much able to teach the children what they wanted but I am wondering how it was managed and if it was anything like we have to do now.

 

Thanks, I'll be interested to hear your views!

[catma]

First came DLOs - very sketchy and just gave a programme of study - children must be taught to etc etc

 

Then Statutory Baseline I think.

 

Then CGFS

 

Then EYFSP - removing the need for statutory baseline

 

We could pretty much devise our own curriculum with little reference to what children had done before so there was often much replication in terms of activities and it was activity focused rather than learning focused.

 

Cx

[Sue R]

Basically Catma has had my say for me!

I was in a pre-school (playgroup, we called it back then) and there was more emphasis in the very early days on simply keeping the children entertained. When I was a volunteer (circa 1982, that is) that was certainly the case, but by the time I was a new staff member (1986-ish) things were beginning to gravitate towards preparing for school. At least, in the setting I knew. I started my qualifying training in 1992 - DPP.

 

Sue

[Guest]

when I first started in pre-school (or playgroup as it was then) there was no planning or profiles. We just used to go into our rooms and try to remember what we had done yesterday and aim not to replicate it. We did eventually start using a diary and plan what we were having out/doing every day, then came the introductions of DLO's and things became very formal.

[Guest]

Thanks for the replies so far! So basically the Rumbold Report came out, made recommendations and from that, the DLO's came about? This basically told practitioners what children should be taught, in preparation for starting school?

 

Previously to that, it was a case of "entertaining" children rather than focussing on learning, progression etc?

 

I don't mean to sound stupid, but I need to get it straight in my own head before putting pen to paper (or rather fingers to keyboard!)

[Marion]

Rumbold was 1990

DLOs 1998

Baseline later same year

CGFS 1999

[JacquieL]

I am an ‘ahem’ person.

To understand what came after the Rumbold Report a little of what happened before helps. I’ll attempt a précis.

As you know the Rumbold Report was called ‘Starting with Quality’ and this was a Government commissioned report in response to the Education Reform Act (ERA) of 1988, which introduced the National Curriculum for schools. There were concerns about young children in Reception Classes as the NC was a top down curriculum, and young children were being pressurized into formal schooling which was, as we all know, inappropriate to their needs. Research from other countries supported this view (as we know). In 1989 The Children Act was introduced and implemented in 1992, and one requirement of the act was that Local Authorities plan in a co-ordinated way, so LA’s had to audit the services they provided. At the same time The DES produced a report on the Education of Children Under Five in 1989. Starting with Quality followed in 1990 and this report was to investigate the range of provision and quality of experience offered to 3 and 4 year olds. Recommendations were made for the training of staff, adult to child ratios and the curriculum.

The ERA required that test results should be published in the form of school league tables. This needed to reflect the progress of individual children to measure school effectiveness, as raw results could be misleading. Baseline Assessment was required and became compulsory from September 1998, although I was doing an LEA one well before that.

 

Guidelines for an Early Years Curriculum were required to support an appropriate curriculum and in 1996 SCAA published the Desirable Outcomes for Children’s Learning on Entering Compulsory Schooling. This coincided with the Nursery Vouchers Scheme! Children were entitled to these in the term after their 4th birthday. Unfortunately, although well intentioned, the DLO’s were open to misinterpretation by those not trained in good early years practice, so the next step was the EYFS where the guidance is more explicit. That is of course what we have now.

As far as planning was concerned, those of us working in good LEA’s with good training and staff were planning well for children’s learning, many activities/themes were chosen by staff, but also considering the interests of children. Literacy and Numeracy were planned according to schemes of work laid down by schools to lead into the NC and to reading schemes. There was much less written planning and teacher’s judgements were trusted. We had areas of learning but not organised into CP as it is now. Outdoor play in the nursery was available but not for reception. We all had role-play and so did KS1. In fact we seem to be returning to some things from then with this new discovery, the creative curriculum!

Nurseries were in schools in poorer areas, and for many schools in the country these had been there for years. Remember that the ideas of Froebal, Montessori and Steiner have been around for a very long time, and also the wonderful Macmillan sisters and Susan Isaccs. All these people looked at the ‘whole child,’ and teachers of young children studied these pioneers and their practice, as well as Piaget etc. It was in 1967 that the Plowden Report recommended that there should be part time places available for all children who wanted it by the age of three. It called for the designation of Educational Priority Areas where those in need would have access to Nursery Provision among other things. In 1972 Margaret Thatcher promised universal Nursery Education, but in the end it only happened in the EPA’s, but there was growth in the private sector. Now we do have it for all those over three who want it.

 

Well you did ask and I hope you can follow all that.

[Sue R]

Jacquie,

 

Thanks for that!!!

 

Although an ahem person myself, much of my early experience was as an enthusiastic amateur, so your precis was brilliant.

 

Sue

[Guest]

Previously to that, it was a case of "entertaining" children rather than focussing on learning, progression etc?

 

A very sweeping statement.Starting myself in 1979 its was never a case of this except in 0-3 years in a SS day nursery I worked in.

 

As far as planning was concerned, those of us working in good LEA’s with good training and staff were planning well for children’s learning, many activities/themes were chosen by staff, but also considering the interests of children. Literacy and Numeracy were planned according to schemes of work laid down by schools to lead into the NC and to reading schemes. There was much less written planning and teacher’s judgements were trusted. We had areas of learning but not organised into CP as it is now. Outdoor play in the nursery was available but not for reception. We all had role-play and so did KS1. In fact we seem to be returning to some things from then with this new discovery, the creative curriculum!

 

Excellent answer especially this section.We have come full circle.Good provision has always been planned and considered childrens learning and interests.We did have outdoor provision for reception in 1982 but its was not constant provision.

[emmajess]

That has all been so interesting to read - thank you very much to those experienced people!

[Inge]

also feel that it was more than 'entertaining' children .........

 

I started late 80s.. and it was more than that.. but could depend on the training the supervisor had.. or didnt have... (PVI Playgroup.. )

 

I trained after I was running a group... we did plan ahead, we used topics, can had a focus activity each day.. we had freeflow to outside and free play all session, milk bar and all that we do now really.... just never had to justify it or write it all down.. we did monitor children and development, we had scrapbooks with children's work in it.. and when I think back it is all that is expected today.... just we did it without recording, spending hours justifying why and when, and hance played and spent time with the children... we knew them all very well because of this.

 

 

 

DLOs I was not in a setting when introduced but do remember on returning to one the pressure put on the children to be able to write before leaving us, when they really were not ready... worksheets coming in... (must admit to avoiding them and losing them whenever I could!)

 

 

As Biccy says.. when I look back at what we did then and now it really has come full circle.. just have to record it all

 

Inge

[JacquieL]

...and when you've been in it as long as I have it is really just a case of 'what goes around comes around.'

[hali]

...and when you've been in it as long as I have it is really just a case of 'what goes around comes around.'

 

 

i agree ......

[Guest]

Thank you all for your replies. Jacquie, I have read your reply briefly and will return to it properly in a second but first, I would like to apologise to anyone I may have offended with the term "entertain". I am in no way insinuating that was all you did then, I was just hoping to clarify a point further up the thread. I hope I haven't offended anyone and if I have I apologise.

 

Ok, now off to read the rest of the thread properly!