Limitations Of Curriculum Guidance For Fs

[Guest]

=Topic: Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage... what limitations does this provide? please help!!

 

I am a nursery nurse training on a HND Early Childhood studies course and i'm havingg touble with one of my assignments.

Has anybody got any ideas. I need to evaluate some more strengths and weaknesses of the Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stafe and i've run out of ideas. I need more ideas to get that top grade as i am in the middle between a merit/distinction? I've made links between theory and the Curriculum need to say the strengths of the document and weaknesses.

Please can anyone help??

 

Emma xXx

[Guest]

Just off the top of my head, maybe you could look at why they are having a re-write of the CGFS- to become the Early Years Foundation Curriculum.

Look at the proposed changes to give you a clue as to what they think hasn't worked.

 

They have changed the name from mathematics to problem solving and something else ( not got it to hand).

 

Also they are integrating BTTM and Regulatory standards and the 5 outcomes from Every Child Matters with CGFS.

 

Also to consider, is whether the requirements of the current CGFS is able to be implemented in every type of early years setting, including childminders, private, voluntary, and maintained sectors, to the same standards.

 

The EPPE research ( I think) has evaluated that CGFS is better accomplished if qualified teachers or graduates lead the implementation of it.

 

Hope this gives food for thought.

 

I personally feel that any curriculum which is set out in different area / aspects, will lend itself to being delivered as seperate rather than holistically, especially true because we are expected to show emphasis on CLL & Maths, which I think can be detriment to the most important area, which is developed holistically across any "academic" learning, which is PSED. This is paramount to me for young children. ( phew, I'm renowned for long sentences)

 

Peggy

[Guest]

p.s. Welcome to the forum, and thanks for a very interesting 1st post, which I am sure will bring many more comments.

 

Peggy

[Guest]

Thank you so much for your response, i have been reading other forums which you have posted on.

 

I no a heavy subject and thank you for re-jigging my memory to a lesson we did have on the new proposed Eary Year Curriculum.

 

This is of very good use!! and will improve my assignment!!!!!

 

Thank you peggy, i'm now part of a new community

[Susan]

Hi and welcome,

 

the FSG was not written to be literacy or maths biased but rather gave equal weighting to all curriculum areas. The literacy /maths bias that we find in schools is due to the impact of SATs in KS1.

 

PSE underpins all the guidance and with its place at the front of this docuement is well placed!

[Guest]

Hi and welcome,

 

the FSG was not written to be literacy or maths biased but rather gave equal weighting to all curriculum areas. The literacy /maths bias that we find in schools is due to the impact of SATs in KS1.

 

PSE underpins all the guidance and with its place at the front of this docuement is well placed!

46751[/snapback]

 

 

Unfortunately, how the FSG was written and how it is interpreted are two different things. I am often frustrated whenever I read articles in early years publications, the media, even training handouts on the subject of the EY curriculum, you will almost certainly get a paragraph or two highlighting the Maths / CLL areas of learning, but other areas are not always mentioned, these two are.

Whenever I read reports of how the Ofsted Inspections have affected the quality of provision, there is ALWAYS comment on maths/CLL. Our whole educational culture is judged by how well children can read or understand mathematical concepts.

In my experience of Ofsted Inspectors and EYATS, their focus has been on these areas. In fact during my last educational inspection the Inspector picked up a piece of paper on my desk, looked at it and said, "that's a good resource". It wasn't for the preschool staff, It was the handout for my students I was teaching that evening, (which I had left out ready to photocopy), the content was about the different teaching styles for numeracy strategy, Key stage 1.

 

Peggy

[Guest]

Taking a slightly different line, I think there are times when the FS, if adhered to too rigidly, gives a very limited perspective of what children are capable of. How many times have you observed something, perhaps made anecdotal notes on something that strikes you as very interesting, only to find that it doesn't fit comfortably with any particular goal or stepping stone? And yet you know what you've seen is evidence of deep learning. Can't think of an example off hand but there must be loads. I've particularly noticed it in CLL, where sometimes what they say & do in play seems far more complex than anything the FS asks for.

 

What would you list as its strengths?

[Guest]

I agree weightman. There have been many occassions when you see learning taking place, but can not fit it into any of the categories in the guidance!

 

I've also struggled with explaining to parents how the guidance works, as unless they are involved in teaching FS it's too big a document to easily go through with them. Spent an hour at one parents evening with one parent explaining how it works and that just because her child goes to gymnastics and dance, i still can't sign off things if i don't have the evidence for them.

 

FS guidance is helpful to guide your planning and help ensure that you dont miss out areas of learning, but i think because some areas are quite restricted in the criteria, it makes it hard to plan all the areas equally at times.

 

Good luck with your assignment emma_2585

[Guest]

Hi and welcome,

 

the FSG was not written to be literacy or maths biased but rather gave equal weighting to all curriculum areas. The literacy /maths bias that we find in schools is due to the impact of SATs in KS1.

 

PSE underpins all the guidance and with its place at the front of this docuement is well placed!

46751[/snapback]

 

just a note, would it be possible to explain your idea on PSE in the guidance? I am still a little unsure of what you are implying?

 

Thanks

Emma xXx

[Susan]

Hi Emma

when the guidance was written it was intended that all curriculum areas should be equally important but that if any area should be given a higher priority than any other, then it should be PSE and it was placed first within the folder!!

 

As peggy has said interpretation, and I would maintain that perhaps that is because of the predominance of literacy and numeracy in school and SATs results, has tended to increase the dominance of these subjects. Indeed a certain element of numeracy and certainly of literacy is necessary to access the rest of the curriculum so society at large places great store on these.

 

Perhaps therefore, it is interpretation that is the weakness of the document but all and every document must be open to interpretation?

 

The FSGC is certainly better than its predecessor---Desirable Outcomes--- which gave little to practitioners in way of guidance and stopped at the childs fifth birthday, hence the formality of many reception classes pre 2000.

The new guidance when it appears will encompass a greater age range and will I suspect still be open to intrepretation?

 

Good luck with your essay, you certainly have lots to think about!

[mundia]

Hi Emma I thinks this is a really interesting essay title and Im sure you will end up with far more information than you can actuallly put in it.

 

Both Susan ans Peggy make good points about the emphasis of CLL/MD at possibley the expense of others. This is certainly often the case in schools due to top down pressure. A quick glance through topics in the reception forum will give you an idea how many memebers here have concersn about target setting/ key stage 1 predictions etc. However, teh school SEFs, on which OFSTED now base their inspection in schools, do make specific reference to PSE in the FS and no other curriculum area. All other questions are general, and in ours we make reference to all areas not just CLL amd MD. This could be the interpretation then?

 

In my own view, the CGFS is only as good as the people working with it. In my school team of 11 in FS, 3 are unqualified FS practitioners, their undersatnding is far more limited than those experienced and qualified practitioners. Im sure we arent the only setting in which this is the case?

 

I hope you have got enough ideas to add to your essay, do let us know if you hit that distinction.

[JacquieL]

Hello there Mundia so glad to see you, you seem to have been absent for a while.

Jacquie

[mundia]

Thankyou Jacquie, thought Id sneak back whilst noone was looking....

[Guest]

Well sorry it has taken so long to finally tell you my grades got distinctions for both assignments i was so pleased, and thankyou for all your help it was truely appreciated gave me ideas which i hadn't even thought about.

 

Thank you

 

Emma xXx

[Guest]

Congratulations, well done

 

Peggy

[Guest]

I would find it interesting to read your conclusion, if you wouldn't mind sharing, on here or send me a pm.

 

Peggy

[Guest]

Yeah sure, i can send you the whole assignment if you like have a good read.

Thanx for your help, it was much appreciated.

 

Emma xXx

[Marion]

Unfortunately, how the FSG was written and how it is interpreted are two different things.  I am often frustrated whenever I read articles in early years publications, the media, even training handouts on the subject of the EY curriculum, you will almost certainly get a paragraph or two highlighting the Maths / CLL areas of learning, but other areas are not always mentioned, these two are.

Whenever I read reports of how the Ofsted Inspections have affected the quality of provision, there is ALWAYS comment on maths/CLL. Our whole educational culture is judged by how well children can read or understand mathematical concepts.

In my experience of Ofsted Inspectors and EYATS, their focus has been on these areas. In fact during my last educational inspection the Inspector picked up a piece of paper on my desk, looked at it and said, "that's a good resource".  It wasn't for the preschool staff, It was the handout for my students I was teaching that evening, (which I had left out ready to photocopy), the content was about the different teaching styles for numeracy strategy, Key stage 1. 

 

Peggy

46757[/snapback]

 

 

Our new head is very keen to value emotional intelligence (much to the horror of some of the staff) I think the SEAL materials might help to address things esspecially as they are given the same status as Literacy and Numeracy in both KS1 and KS2. Well I can hope cant I

[Guest]

Your Heads approach is good to hear. On a positive note research and subsequant documents such as SEAL and EPPE have enabled a closer look at all aspects of the curriculum in a more child centred way, away from SAT's pressure. But how many people actually know about these publications and resources?

 

Peggy