Reception - they've got to be kidding me...

[emy72]

I have just received DD's school profile. They assessed her in all 6 areas of learning in October and then again now, showing a wonderful progress from 2s and 3s to 6s, 7s, 8s and even a 9. Well it's absolute TOSH.
I am fuming. There is no way she was a 2 and 3 at the beginning of reception, looking at all the descriptors - and I have her nursery report to back it up (from the same school!), she was at least a 6 and 7 in everything. So what I am saying here is that she has made very little progress although looking at her report the school looks fantastic having brought her on so much...
This is an absolute farse. What am I going to do about this? It's really alarming as I already suspected that my DD had learnt very little - ok she is having fun, but she is the sort of girl that would have fun anywhere given a room full of children - I just get the feeling she has been left to fester, academically speaking - she has been on ORT level 2 since the beginning - not gone up a level at all, despite reading most books at home - and number work has stayed the same too since the beginning. I am absolutely fuming, what would you do?
Sorry for the long rant xx

I had 5 children in my reception class last year reading gold book band when they left me and one who had just moved onto white. Perhaps no one told them they shouldn't be learning to read after all no one told me I couldn't teach them. (before anyone asks the other 22 children were also reading just not at such a high level)

As I (probably) said before, I have three DC within the Foundation Phase.

The eldest is 7 (Year 2), and is on ORT Level 10 in Welsh. He hasn't officialy started reading in English in school yet (Welsh medium school, they don't do English until Year 3), but can read at a similar level in English too. He reads short novels (Horrid Henry, easier Roald Dahl etc) in both languages.

DS2 is 5 (Year 1). He can also read in both Welsh and English, is on approximately ORT level 5 in both, and is starting to read short novels.

DD has just turned 4 (will be leaving nursery school next week and starting Reception after hols). She knows all of her letters and has started to read simple words in Welsh.

All of which I think is pretty normal, and what would be expected of children of their ages. And all of which has been learnt through play.

I'm reminded of a conversation with a parent of multiple dc who was struggling with her dc's schooling. In the midst of all this, one of her dc told her "I didn't mind the school mummy, but I know that you didn't like it." This anecdote spoke to me about my own propensity for getting in the way of my ds's experience.

That said, I have to ask for more information about a five year old believing that an activity is not aimed at her particular needs, or not giving her enough understanding to build on. Is this the child's perspective, or the parent's perspective?

I think all this is so interesting as we all so obviously want the same thing; our children happy and able to be proficient in the 3R's. It's such a basic necessity. The only difference is in how that's best taught. beezmum fwiw I think your teacher sounds lacking, as of course your dd should be encouraged to count on. Seems bizarre to me if the teacher is actively stopping her. But still that doesn't negate her making flapjacks. After all you can count measuring out spoonfuls, using scales, adding up spoonfuls. Same activity, you can write a shopping list, recipe. You can do signs for the finished product. A good teacher can teach lots amidst play and sometimes from the outside it does look as if they're just making flapjacks.

• MrsGravy I agree - DS's school didn't push reading until Yr, so we had no reading scheme at all, just lots of books to bring home which the children chose or were guided to by teachers. Now after two terms they're reading and at the same levels as other children who learned more formally throughout reception. +finally mrz, regardless of the fact there was no reading scheme some of the children in my son's class could read really well by the end of reception. They read to teachers if they wanted to/ were ready to. It was encouraged, but it wasn't actively taught if the children didn't seem ready iyswim. All intriguing stuff though this. Amazing our schools are all so different.

By emy72 Thu 18-Mar-10 08:30:59
I have just received DD's school profile. They assessed her in all 6 areas of learning in October and then again now, showing a wonderful progress from 2s and 3s to 6s, 7s, 8s and even a 9. Well it's absolute TOSH.
I am fuming. There is no way she was a 2 and 3 at the beginning of reception, looking at all the descriptors - and I have her nursery report to back it up (from the same school!), she was at least a 6 and 7 in everything.
I agree absolute TOSH the nursery report I mean!
What I find every year is that nurseries assess children by sitting one to one working carefully through each statement and of course the child can do it for the adult but then the reception teacher has to assess if the child is able to do it alone without an adult and quite often the answer is no... which is the problem with the profile not with the school.

I think that parents think children need more academic input than they really do.

When our dd was in reception we made a point of not doing reading books over the holidays, but she made progress anyway.

She is now in year 1 and about to become a free reader.

Children are designed to learn; look at pre-school children. They take it all in and learn to talk without any formal parental input; just participating in life.

And we all have to remember than many children in the past (me included) weren't even in school until 5.

By the end of reception by dd had learned to play with other children, learned to write in the correct direction with perfectly formed letters (and we did nothing at home with her previous to her starting school) and was at book band purple.

So, though they did loads of play (which they need to, they are only 4) she learned tons.

Now, in year 1, she is doing perfect joined up.

The only thing I would be cross about would be if we were given pointless homework or reading books at the wrong level.

The first message was from a disgruntled parent who was frustrated because her child was not making any progress in reception. Replies said that it did not matter as she was playing and developing in other important ways. As I've said, I disagree and think its lovely for children to have the chance to learn lots and to read in Reception.
My daughter isn't having that chance.She can't form any letters correctly and isn't taught anything she doesn't know already which is boring for her, sad and frustrating for me as her parent.
Later posts have argued that play without much time devoted to teacher instruction actually leads to good learning outcomes. This is a separate point. Of course children in reception should spend the bulk of their time playing and if those activities are carefully crafted they will learn from them. Having said that, to imply that children have 'played' their way to ORT level 7 etc is farcical. They may well hae learnt in a fun and age appropriate way but they will have spent time practising this skill by looking at text - not sitting in the wendy house.

If she's really bored beezmum, I'd go and talk to the school as they're doing something wrong. If they're using play as a route to learning/ being, no child should be bored surely.

If she's really bored beezmum, I'd go and talk to the school as they're doing something wrong. If they're using play as a route to learning/ being, no child should be bored surely.

oops, didn't mean to send that again. Brain dead Friday..

Hi Smee.
I think she is happy enough when its free unstructured play as its a fun way to pass the time and I would agree she is learning social skills etc etc from that. But when it comes to literacy and numeracy her only response when asked if it was fun is that 'its all easy Mummy, easy numbers easy letters, easy easy easy' (I quote). I promise I didn't feed her the 'easy' word - her big sister will have taught her that!
I don't think shes fundamentally unhappy but I do think she finds the numeracy and literacy parts of the day boring and it would be nice if something was more at her level (as I said its not like shes a genius). I do agree that its a weakness on the schools part but don't agree with people that say it doesn't matter as its 'only reception'. Hence why I initially joined this thread.

beezmum - in your message at 12:03 you say that she cant form any letters correctly. Bit confused about this; surely she has plenty to aim for if this is the case?

Yes you'd think so. But when I asked about it at parent's eve recently I was told that they are shown how to form the letters on the white board and then when they are doing writing (e.g. about My Weekend) the teacher will correct mistakes with letter formation she sees. It seems therefore that they don't really do any formal practice. Dd doesn't form any letters correctly from what I can see except C. I think they are against more formal practice - but as I had already made myself a very awkward parent there was just no point trying to criticise the methods they insist are working!!! Dd is actually pretty conscientious and fine at drawing but she can't be getting practice.

DCs reception was probably quite formal compared to most. Certainly there was play and carpet time etc, but there were also proper sit down lessons. They learned to read, write and do basic numeracy very quickly indeed.

That said, I know quiote aq few people who home educate their children and have never done any formal lessons with them and they too can read, write and do basic literacy.

Beezmum, I understand where you are coming from, but I don't have the interest in early formal learning for my dc.

I believe that a "one size fits all" educational system does not serve the public. The system that I would be happy with is one that you most likely would not be, and vice versa. I'd love to see some clear and varied choices around teaching methodology offered, instead of the govmt choosing a single tack and then trying to convince everyone through their self-generated statistics that it's the right way to go for all children. What you are hearing from your school is obviously not working for you.

As smee says, we all want what's best for our dc, but we don't all agree on what that is, and I don't imagine it should even be the same for everyone.

Its funny but the experiences of primary education I and my friends have had have been so varied that it seems very far form 'one size fits all'. My dds were in a school that changed to play-based learning throughout the primary years. Down the road is a little primary with a very formal approach by comparison. Both seem to be approved of by Ofsteds. It seems possible to offer very different styles and still jump through the ofsted hoops.
I do agree that people often want very different things for their children. DD2 changed schools (not because of her reception experience). Her new school is much more formal in Yr1 and 2 and I have no problem with lots more play in reception anyway as long as they are learning something. But she is not learning, I think because the NQT teacher is just not coping and so the children's experience is far from top notch. I feel sorry for the teacher and frustrated that she isn't being given much more support.
My point remains that I do feel justified in being bothered about the standard of my dds education even though she is only in reception.

beezbum, I think you're right about the huge variety in primary. We happen to live in the inner city, so lots of primaries within walking distance. We visited the four closest for DS and they were poles apart. fwiw, I don't think anybody's saying you shouldn't be worried about the standard of your children's education are they? We all worry and probably far too much. I know I anxt over the smallest things. I think what many are saying is that it doesn't matter if learning in reception isn't too formal as they're still learning masses.

But learning through play isn't just playing in the wendy house... play activities are planned around the child's individual needs in order to develop their abilities (or at least they should be if early years practitioners are doing their jobs properly!)

Having said that my DD has just started Reception, I mean literally just started - she is doing afternoons this week and next before starting FT after the Easter hols - and tonight she has brought home her first piece of homework!

She was delighted to have homework like her big brothers, and to be fair it only involved cutting out pictures of things starting with the letter "P" and gluing them onto a piece of paper, but I was still shocked!

I think we all have equivocations around the term play. For me, play is indeed perhaps sitting all day in a wendy house, or in the case of ds, building three versions of wendy houses in an afternoon. I interpret play as free play, and therefore the ideas of learning outcomes of play, or goals of a play activity don't make sense.

I think you could also interpret play to mean activities designed with just these learning outcome goals in mind. I wouldn't consider this free play, perhaps directed play.

It's just such equivocations and unclarity that lead to beezmum's frustration, if I may, that perhaps her dd's teacher is not quite up to scratch, and hiding deficiencies under the umbrella of "but they all learn anyway through play."

I agree that there is a great deal of variety amongst schools, and even between classrooms, but the state curriculum is learning goals and outcomes in the early years. So if I'm looking for a free play early years environment for my son, I'm not going to find it in a state school in England. This is what I mean by not having choice.

Zazizoma I understand and pretty much agree!

Hey, guess what. On average, when you assess children at 18 it makes absolutely no difference when they start to learn to read and write. (In fact, educationalists would argue it harms kids to start too early and that is why loads of countries don't start formal schooling until 7)......if she is happy and learning to play with other kids I wouldn't worry too much.

I agree Indaba, that a case can be made for early years education centered around free play. However, that's not what the current system advertises, which is learning goals and outcomes. If we're going to have a free play early years curriculum, then lets say so, otherwise teachers should stay on top of the curriculum advertised unless they are claiming an exemption, and not muddle the two approaches. The muddling doesn't serve either the parent who wants the early learning goals or the parent, like me, who doesn't.

Does anyone know if it's a particular type of child that educationalists feel are harmed by learning to read at four or five or is it all children? I'd be interested to know what harm is done.

We deliberately picked our primary because of its positive attitude to freeplay, so no reading schemes, etc until yr1. Still though many parents were horrified in reception at the apparent lack of formal learning. I spent so much time reassuring people it was a deliberate policy and well thought out, that I sounded like a stuck record. A couple of parents even pulled their children out of the school because of it. Really sad I think. In Yr1 now, it's far more structured and surprise surprise all the kids can read. According to the LA they're easily of a level with kids in nearby schools which are far more traditional.

leadingquestions it isn't really a question of harm just that there isn't anything to gain long term.