Convince me of the merits of Learning Through Play...

[FreudianSlimmery]

And the problems that may be caused by an overly structured approach?

I was discussing the two local infant schools with a friend and she was very excited about how academic one is, apparently even in yrR they aren't big on Learning Through Play.

Now obviously I won't choose until we've visited both schools, but I need some advice/info here. I am an absolute geek and I know that my natural instinct is Ooooh let's get the 4yos sitting down and LEARNING STUFF. Even though my brain is screaming nooooo, play-based is better.

So. Please can you tell me why it's so much better?

Thanks all, great info :)

Don't suppose anyone knows of good books involving vygotsky's zone of proximal development? It's something I keep in mind when I play with my dc but I struggled to explain it well to DH.

Or any books for primary teachers? Wouldn't mind getting some anyway as I'm hoping to be one in a few years.

How Children Learn: From Montessori to Vygotsky - Educational Theories and Approaches Made Easy by Linda Pound

Sounds good thanks :)

faileddoctor: "(Sidetracking

Or is it a case of: 'There are the toys. Do something. Or just run around like nutters... as long as the adults can get on with x (cleaning, paperwork, chatting...)? This type of play is CR*P."

Is that not what I'm supposed to do at home "

colditz: "It's fine at home, but not as a substitute for an education."

I know this sounds shocking, but that is a recognised form of education, and those who have tried it for any length of time report that it is quite an effective one. It's called "autonomous education" and it's how my daughters learn. No one could deny that it worked well in my older dd's case. She went to school briefly just before she turned ten and was not "behind" her peers even on the measures which schools find important.

The only exceptions were that she couldn't write very fast by hand (she could type like crazy) and her spelling wasn't up to much (it is now, a year later). People are often impressed with the skills and motivation of children who have learned under their own steam: "He seems to understand xx very well despite never having had any instruction in it." I'd say it is "because of" and not "despite"!

Before the advent of mass education that was the method most children used to learn the skills they would need in their society: they played, they watched, they tried things out, they helped. Adults would answer questions and help children if they had time, but "teaching" wasn't a discrete activity, and - in the early years especially - it wasn't thought necessary to set aside six hours a day for "learning."

People argue that times have changed and children now need different skills, but I don't think the nature of children has changed enough to invalidate this form of education which has always worked so well.

My daughter has learnt through play at school - she has really had any enjoyable time - she is now in year 2 and I feel they are behind in writing etc compared to my other daughter who went through a more traditional teaching method( at the same school). My daughter who learnt through play is far more likely to research on her own ( books and internet) - the trouble it is difficult to compare as is I think she was more likely to be like anyway due to her personality. My worry is what happens this year when she moves on to a different school(she is at an infant school)where they teach by different methods? (she has never had a formal spelling test as yet)

Do you think though the problems most schools and parents face is the transition from the learning through play to a different system?

I am saying this as in our school they are very focused on learning through play in foundation and Y1 - but all the parents say that the Y2 teacher is then a massive shock to everyone as she wants/needs good SATS and the children get masses of homework to catch up.

I was brought up in Italy in the 70s where Montessori was hot and a lot of people sent their children there for their primary years. It was great but all reported problems/massive shock when going then for the very traditional middle/secondary schools they inevitably had to feed into.

If learning through play is really to be effective, shouldn't it be implemented all the way through? Or maybe I've missed the point, but happy to be enlightened further.

have you seen this?

I'll take a look thanks!

why does the 8op8 consider learning to be pposed to 'learning through play'?

I found that the kids i taught could do much much more 'work' with twice as much free play, and more learning games. The parents weren't convinced until they saw three times as much written work coming back. all produced without being sat down for more than 5 minutes. (a bugger to prepare the lessons though, in little 2-3 minute chunks..)

people comparinmg scandanavian education to ours are massively comparing apples and oranges though.

That's my point really Edgar :) until recently I would have been one of the parents convinced that yrR kids had to do oodles of writing and homework instead of 'just playing'

Hanging out on the home ed and primary ed boards has really taught me a lot (i basically started this thread to consolidate it) and I'm so glad it's happened now while my kids are young.

Lots of Primary Schools do have an "active" (for want of a better word) curriculum throughout the school where children are taught by doing and exploring rather than the passive acquisition of knowledge they are taught skills so they can discover for themselves.

I agree with Edgar it isn't realistic to compare our education system with that of Scandinavian countries or to take a Scandinavian model and expect it to work here.

But don't you think that aspects of the Swedish system are already working really well in this country (particularly in Early o in itemulate it Years)?

I mean you wouldn't want to in it's entirety due to the lacks in Maths & Science; but outdoor learning, risk taking, dedicated Key people & learning tho' play would be good things to focus on?

The Key worker/person system works in Scandinavia because there are small "family" groups each with a well qualified teacher whereas in England the system has been imposed on teachers with large classes sometimes with a TA sometimes without. Even in private settings because staff work shifts and rotas children may have a number of key workers over a week (sometimes well qualified sometimes not) so they continuity can vary greatly.

It isn't any good taking a system that works well in one country and trying to impose it on an existing system without staffing and funding to match the requirements.

I only hope whatever is going to follow EYFS is carefully thought through before 2012...

The funding is a major issue; my brother has told me
"each kommun ( smaller than a council, larger than a
parish) has their own rates - but they fall within 10% of these figures.
Irrespective of whether it is a private childminder, or state pre- school the price per child does not include the ownership, maintenance, or running of the building. Private Childminders must cover their costs from the fee per child, and are limited to 6 children. "Kommun" owned pre-schools buildings costs are covered by an entirely seperate funding process.
Private pre-schools? Don't know, still working on it.
A child-minder, or pre-school, recieves approx 770 GBP per full-time child per month. Part time is ( as I understand as long as there are some hours 5 days a week) 550 GBP.
Parents are means tested and contribute up to a maximum of 109 GBP per month Hope this clarifies the costs"

Which is bloody amazing imo

mrz, we were discussing what may follow the EYFS at work some time ago, and wondering what will happen.

I think the EYFS has some very good points, and it has worked well in our setting.....though I know not everyone feels the same

WRT play - children play naturally (NT children), they can explore and challege themselves through play without the fear of failure, or fear of "not doing it right". That's why play is so essential to learning.

we still have parents who ask their 3 year olds - what did you do today - child replies "play" - parent makes face.

I think given the current state of the country and school's expected negative rise in funding it's unlikely that such systems can be effective

littlerach I'm not a huge fan of EYFS (I actually thought the CGFS did the job well) - mainly because staffing ratios don't allow schools to deliver it as well as they would like and from a personal belief that there is something wrong with a statutory curriculum for children from birth... I believe it would have been better to take a similar route to Wales and Scotland and leave birth to three out of the equation.

The Wales foundaion phase works well but IAO the training in my county has been poor to say the least. The children I work with love the freedom to try things, work out what works well and then try again.

I also think in the settings(I have more than 1 job so work in the Foundation Phase range from 3yrs to 7yrs) that the outdoor classroom is key, children come alive outside and if I am compleatly honest we get better results particularly from the boys.

I think it's the word "play" that puts me off. Perhaps if they could change it to "learning through experiencing" or something similar it might make it easier to understand. I also think this is the natural way for children this age to learn.

One point though. Those that are against children learning to read and write until they are older: what do you do with those who are so keen to learn that they do it anyway? My dd1 is reading really well and has just started reception. I wouldn't want to put her off. Hopefully there is room for all abilities.

Again in Wales where I work it seem to me to be when the child is ready to read is when they start to read and take books home...

according to my mum I learnt to read of the course of a weekend going from struggling to read 'cat' 'mat' etc to reading whole Enid Blytons (great choice!!) when my brother started to read - this was at 6.5

I think children should be left to discover it - some at 3 and some at 6 or 7

Children in Wales are given many oportunities both in free play and adult focused tasks to "write" right from the age of 3.

It's very sad when the idea of very young children spending their day playing is seen as negative. I wonder when play became a dirty word ...

I don't see play as negative at all. But it's a word I associate with what they do at home. I like to think they get a different experience at school. Otherwise might as well keep them at home.