to ask why more parents don't seem to care about play based learning being replaced with more formal learning in nurseries?

[teacherlikesapples]

I am at the end of my professional tether. I love my job, I love supporting children to reach their potential and helping parents understand how their children learn, so that they can support their learning as well. One of the most important aspects of my job is creating an 'enabling environment' where children play & learn.

With the Government's shift towards more formal learning, this approach is under threat.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23033496

Ignoring the tonne of evidence & research to say that would be a huge mistake (and that they should in fact be extended the play based curriculum to older children! news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8309153.stm )

This feels like a massive tragedy to me. Not only will thousands of children be missing out on some really vital experiences, on a real personal note- I cannot in all good conscience continue to teach in an environment that I consider to actually be harmful to children. So it looks likely that I will leave a job that I love.

I'm just wondering- why aren't more parents more upset about this issue? Do they consider formal learning at this young age a good thing?
I would really love to speak with someone who holds that belief. I need to understand it.

I have read that the more structured approach can get some initial gains with some academic skills. So sure, if the most important thing to you is that your child learns to read at age 4, then perhaps a case could be made.

I am not aware of any real advantage in learning to read early, as long as children make steady progress acquiring literacy skills throughout their time in nursery and any issues are flagged up early & dealt with, it all works out the same. I don't see why teaching these skills earlier is worth sacrificing other important learning opportunities.

Formal learning in the early years, is essentially telling children 'what, how and when' to think. When compared to a play based curriculum it is nowhere near as effective in promoting independence, creativity, critical thinking, problem solving, social skills... the list goes on.

It is IMHO a leftover approach from the Victorian era when children should be seen and not heard.

Am I being unreasonable to think parents should care about play being filtered out from UK nurseries?

Ok rant over. Does anyone care?

[CreatureRetorts]

Prehaps it shows the importance of having graduates in the pre school class room so that children have access to high quality learning experiences

Why? Graduates may be more academic but it certainly doesn't make it them better at engaging with children.

[nextphase]

Totally totally disagree with teaching more to little kids!
Please, let them be kids, and learn about how to move their bodys, interact with people, and mess about making mud and sand cakes.

Apples is there a way we can say early learning is NOT the way forward to the government, or is it too late? I saw this on the bbc earlier, and was horrified.

But then I'm one of the few mummies (in this pushy parent town), whos child can't write his name before he goes to school in Sept.

He does, however know what happens to caterpillars, as we read "The very Hungry Caterpillar", and have kept a caterpillar in a jam jar on the kitchen table, fed it, made sure the cut leaves were kept damp, and watch it pupate. So we were learning, but following something which fascinated 2 and 4 year old boys.

[3birthdaybunnies]

I think a mixture is appropriate. Ds started in a very play focused preschool which takes children from age 2. He is moving to a school based nursery with a qualified teacher for his final year which will give him a bit more formal teaching which he seems ready for being a Sept baby and youngest of 3. I think giving schools a bit more latitude to make their own unique settings and letting parents vote with their feet with the setting they want when they want it would be better. But perish the thought that we would risk putting someone in charge of making decisions about a child's education who has no experience as a teacher or in education...

[CreatureRetorts]

Tweet @Number10gov to register your discontent!

[HamsterDam]

don't understand the uproar. they can do both, its not that 3 year olds will be tied to desks what is the harm in introducing phonics and numbers?
some kids are capable and enjoy a challenge.
my ds can write his name and knows the alphabet that doesn't mean he isn't creative or doesn't get to play.
children's brains are amazing and adaptable things, if they are capable of learning it then teach it to them

[northernlurker]

To answer the OP's question - some parents think that academic achievement at the age of 5 is vital. These are the parents sneaking looks in book bags on play dates to compare reading bands and insisting the teacher 'stretch' their child. These are the parents sitting at home doing number bonds and phonics ad nauseum. As time goes on those are the parents threatening their kids if they don't get 5s in their SATS and stressing their children out about their GCSE results. Then eventually the child will leave home for university and what happens next is anybody's guess. What is for certain though is that the best part of two decades have been spent judging a child, your child, by attainment. It's pretty chilling tbh.
My youngest child is going in to Year 2 so will I deduce be minimally affected by this. I know though that it would be a disaster for her. SHe is a child that you need to seize the learning opportunities as outlined by OP. Motivation and involvment is everything. You cannot simply tell her what to think. She won't play ball.

[grumpalumpgrumped]

Very true northernlurker

[HamsterDam]

i disagree completely nothernlurker.
some parents might be like that but just because i want my child to achieve academically and we do number work and practice phonics at home doesn't mean i will threaten or force him. nor do i care what other peoples kids are doing i just want my own to reach his full potential.
if i believe my ds has the potential to be reading when he starts school why wouldn't i help him to achieve that?
i do want him to be stretched at school , bored kids can be just as disruptive in classes as the ones that struggle

[AmyFarrahFowlerCooper]

teacherlikesapples, I'm aware that free play encourages learning having worked in childcare. Note that I said "free play with no toy rotation" which implies no thought about environment or the children's changing needs and said this was a "rubbish nursery". So basically what you said in your last paragraph in different words. So don't lump me in with people who don't understand what learning through play is :)

[ReallyTired]

The early years curriculum is nothing to do with academic achievement at five year old; its about setting a child up to learn for the rest of their life. As a parent I am keen that my child is happy at nursery.

Before the EYFS nurseries and childminders had far more freedom to offer a curriuclum that suited their children's needs. Parents were able to pick a setting which provided the type of early years curriculum that they believed was best. OFSTED concentrated on making sure children were well looked after.

I feel that the EYFS has a ridiculous stranglehold over British Schools, nurseries and pre schools. Its ironic that state funded schools ie; academies are being allowed to ditch the national curriculum but private schools are forced to follow the EYFS.

[bunnybing]

Quite surprised things are getting more formal.

When DD1 started preschool in 2006 there was lots of playing both inside and outside, but every child encouraged to do complete a couple of specific activities - differentiated according to their ability - eg using building blocks to make a pattern/make a card or write their name.
By the time DD2 was at preschool in 2008 all structure had been blown out of the water - according to govt EYFs guidelines the children were now to pretty much do what they wanted for the 3 hours, so if they wanted to do sticking/gluing all the time they could etc.

I preferred the former way.

[SHarri13]

For this very reason I have kept my older two sons at a playgroup rather than pre-school. They've got plenty if time to learn when they start school.

There are mothers of others in my eldests class that complain that they play far too much, they are in reception.

[morethanpotatoprints]

Surely preschool means before school, which should be play. Why are people referring to classrooms?
Also do you realise that when your dc are digging in the garden, making a model, using plasticine, experimenting in sand etc. This is play, even if the key worker is leading your child to meet some objective.
Yes Gove is talking about formal education for 2 year olds.

[northernlurker]

Hamster - why does your child need to be reading when he starts school? There are plenty of ways to keep bright children engaged without that. Nobody thinks they're going to pressurise their child but my oldest is 15. I've seen a lot of kids and parents and some do go way, way too far. It's as well to be aware of that risk don't you think?

[pianodoodle]

What's the harm in learning to read at four alongside playing etc...?

Saying they don't need to doesn't mean it won't be enjoyable or beneficial.

You can take enjoyment from lots of things.

I was asked by an independant school as an instrumental teacher as lots of their parents had shown an interest in having their children learn.

The average age was 7-8 and many of these hadn't started to read properly. A complete shock to the system for me as my usual students (some as young as 5) all had these skills.

I was having to teach some their left from their right hand. I had to teach a few the alphabet up to G. Also they couldn't read their own practise notebooks, the titles of pieces or the words to sing along.

After a while I had kids who could now read music quite well but still could read words, and that apparently caused some muttering among the teachers who considered them too young to be doing it.

None of them were unhappy in their lessons, or showed signs of any particular hardship at having learned something for half an hour!

According to the school, the students have "caught up" with the average state school pupil in academic terms by the age of 14 or 15 but TBH from what I saw, I sincerely doubt it.

Lots of parents were also paying for extra tuition outside school as well. I was pretty bewildered as to why they decided to chuck so much money at a school that seems to teach bugger all then chuck more money away playing catch up.

I'm sure they all had a lovely time at the school but I'm not sure they'll have such a lovely time with their job applications.

Maybe I'm old fashioned :D

[pianodoodle]

Having said all of the above, I should add that there were aspects of the school life that I thought were great. There was a good atmosphere and the children were great.

Coming from a grammar school background I did feel like I'd been lured to summerisle for the first few weeks though - and Mayday was coming up.

[ReallyTired]

pianodoodle
Lots of children being unable to read at 7/8 is very extreme. I assume it must be a steiner school.

I feel that when market forces dicated what children learnt with childminders, nurseries, schools etc there was a better balance between formal learning and learning through play. Most parents aren't stupid, they want their children be mentally stimulated with a range of interesting activities rather than hot housed.

What bunnybing described in 2006 sounds ideal.

[teacherlikesapples]

HamsterDan- If an individual child is ready to learn something academically, then good practice in a free-play nursery would have the staff planning suitable activities to extend that learning, be it phonics, writing, mathematics etc... Most of my school leavers (4 year olds) know their letter sounds, can read/write their own & friends names- some are reading much more than that, all have a 1:1 correspondence, all can count & recognise numbers beyond 13, all learnt during free play.

The point that is being made here is that the formal learning approach relies on EVERY child being ready at the same time. That doesn't fit with reality.

pianodoodle- there is no harm in learning to read through play. Many children do. The issue I have is with the alternative. Many children are taught before they are ready or in a way that is boring or puts them off wanting to learn more. I want the children in my class to have intrinsic motivation, to be so excited about their learning that they just want more- I don't want me to be doing all the thinking for them.

There are several literacy concepts a child needs to understand before they are ready to read- not all children learn these at the same time. So it makes more sense to bring the literacy teaching to where that child is in play- be it the block area, home corner, sand pit- until they are ready for more formal teaching.

A bit fed up with assumption that just because we want to promote learning through play that means children won't be learning anything academically. Quite the opposite- especially if you can accept that there is more academically that the 3 Rs!

[HamsterDam]

he doesn't need to be reading when he starts school but if i can encourage him to get there then why not?
im not talking about sitting him down for hours threatening him or punishing him.
we do the alphabet he says a letter then i say the next one until we get to the end then start again the other way round so he says all the letters. then we do it with sounds. same for numbers, its a game and its helping him learn.
he enjoys reading loves books as do i so its just while we're enjoying a book we sound the letters of the last word of a sentence, im not making him try to read whole books he's not even 4 yet

[HamsterDam]

maybe im selfish not to be concerned about the changes because i think my child will cope with them and reach his potential.
i would rather my child be stretched than bored in a class being taught to the lowest common denominator

[teacherlikesapples]

HamsterDam- I think you are misunderstanding what is being discussed here. It seems you believe that the only way for a child to learn something is if they are sat in front of an adult. i.e Being 'taught' something.
That is just not true.

Also if the teacher is teaching everyone at once (i.e Teacher led formal learning) - do you think it will be as easy for them to 'stretch' each child & differentiate as needed?

Compared to a free play curriculum where the teacher ensures they observe & plan for each child as an individual. Make sure each child gets the opportunity for 1:1 & small group work, engages in child led & adult led activities. Through that they figure out where each child is & extend their learning for the ENTIRE curriculum (i.e not just literacy) all day. Every day. Just in a way that is relevant to that child's interests.

Rather than just hoping your child is ready when literacy is scheduled to be taught on Wednesday mornings between 10-11am.

[teacherlikesapples]

CreatureRetorts- maybe those that care could ask @Number10gov why they choose to ignore the comprehensive research & findings of the Cambridge primary review which recommended delaying formal learning until age 6.

There are loads more research that shows this of course, but when the Government is attempting to argue the case for improving academics- why ignore the findings of the UK education elite?

www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/16/scrap-sats-school-home-work

[HamsterDam]

i understand kids can learn through play not just being sat with an adult, you would have to be completely thick to believe that which im not.
im not saying 4 5 and 6 year olds should be taught in this way all day everyday i just don't see the harm in encouraging kids that are capable to learn to read and write

[teacherlikesapples]

No one does though. Both the quality free play curriculum & structured formal approach would promote that. Just in very different ways and arguably -very different outcomes.

The Cambridge University research had this to say "There is no evidence that a child who spends more time learning through lessons ? as opposed to learning through play ? will ?do better? in the long run. In fact,
research suggests the opposite; that too formal too soon
can be dangerously counterproductive. In 14 of the 15
countries that scored higher than England in a major
study of reading and literacy in 2006, children did not
enter school until they were six or seven. And more
children read for pleasure in most of those countries than
do so in England."

www.primaryreview.org.uk/Downloads/Finalreport/CPR-booklet_low-res.pdf

So while there may be a belief that children taught formally will gain skills earlier, those from a free play curriculum quickly catch up and tend to read more for pleasure and end up scoring higher in actual general literacy attainment. This is without even looking at the research on other areas of development such as emotional, physical skills, communication & social skills (all of which btw favour the free-play approach)

[Blu]

I care, OP. The whole thing makes me boiling wild.

I don't even think we should be encouraging 'learning through play' in nursery, with targets and a curriculum and achievement monitoring. think tiny children should simply play. And be offered high quality play oportunities which give them lots of scope for imagination, creativity, building, finding out, seeing, balancing, speaking, using their hands, physical games.

Through which they happen to learn things.

But it is the quality of play that should be kept up to scratch, and play for play's sake should be sacrosanct in the life of a 3 year old.