Analysis of the Pros and Cons of the Concept of Early Years Foundation Stage - Research Paper Example

THE EARLY YEARS CURRICULUM: A COMPARATIVE VIEW Introduction This paper aims to present the concept of Early Years Foundation Stage (EYFS)/Curriculum Guidance for the Foundation Stage through two contrasting settings in which the quality of provision on offer as well as how the curriculum is implemented shall be analyzed. Such analysis shall be linked to relevant theories mentioned in the course. The EYFS is built upon the foundation that fulfilling the full potential and acquiring the best possible start in life are important to each child, in which the child experiences a secure, happy, and safe childhood. Such childhood is viewed as necessary to provide the foundation for realizing children's abilities and talents as they grow up. The EYFS assures parents that their children achieve this goal. The EYFS undertakes several tasks in ensuring that the outcomes of Every Child Matters are achieved by setting the standards, providing for quality of opportunity, creating the framework for partnership working, improving quality and consistency, and laying a secure foundation for future learning (Statutory Framework 2008). Learning through EYFS is done through a principled approach which the following are embedded: a unique child, positive relationships, enabling environments, and learning and development. The Comparison of Two EYFS Settings: Odessa Primary School and Montessori Day Nursery The observation on curriculum took place on Nov. 7, 2008 at Odessa Primary School while the other one was at Montessori Day Nursery which opened in 1998. It was noticed that both settings recognized the areas of learning and early learning goals of the EYFS which include personal, social, and emotional development, communication, language, and literacy, mathematics development, knowledge and understanding of the world, physical development, and creative development. However the delivery of these goals differed in the two observed settings, which will be mentioned in this paper. The Quality of the Provision on Offer in Odessa primary School and Montessori Day Nursery One of the underpinning policies of EYFS is "every child matters," which seemed to have been overlooked or neglected by the Montessori Day Nursery in that staff ignored other children who bullied others and threw objects on them, such as the incident in which one boy threw a metal car and hit another boy, to which a staff treated it as we don't hit our friends, which was contrary to her appeasement of the other child as it was an accident. Based on the observation, the Montessori Day Nursery did not seem to follow in practice the overarching aim of EYFS, which is to help young children achieve the five outcomes of Every Child Matters which include, staying safe. The bullied children seemed to experience lack of safety by the bullies, in which the staff tended to treat the situation lightly. Enjoying and achieving seems a lacking element in the setting, since there were plenty of distractions while the class teacher was reading a story, affecting the quality of the experience as well as other's desire on the activity. Most staff members ignored the children's bad behavior as if nothing happened, resulting in non-absorption and disturbance on the part of other children who were willing to listen and learn from the story. In fact, when the boy who hit another with a metal toy car was told we don't hit our friends, the teacher started to read the book again, in which the boy started to punch and push other children to which she did not pay attention and just carried on with the reading. When asked if she planned the activities in advance, the activity sheet shown did not match the actual activities conducted since according to the teacher, the activity sheet only served to guide her. The Montessori Day Nursery however heeded to the provision set by the EYFS in relation to housing young children of varying ages, from birth to the end of the academic years in which the child has his/her fifth birthday. The setting catered to these ages of children, in which its first unit involved babies from 3-20 months old, the second with 2-3 years old in one section and 3-5 years old in another. The nursery also supported children who speak English as an additional language as well as children with special education needs. The physical environment conveyed by the center was the same as that of Odessa Primary School, which was very colorful, indicating the center's attention to how important visual appreciation was for children to condition their mood and way of thinking towards learning. Children's works were on display, which was a good indication of recognizing their small achievements. The floor was made up of colorful lino tiles; there was a large rug, some cushions, a child-sized book case, and a comfortable adult-sized sofa all serving as aids to children in their learning and enjoyment. The center however relied heavily on what the children wanted in conducting activities, such as the one observed in which the teacher asked the children about what activity they wanted to be doing that day, in which the children shouted out painting, playing with the water, playing with Lego, and jigsaw. It indicates spontaneous planning on the part of the teacher, which did not follow what had been written in the weekly activity sheet. On the other hand, all the resources in the center seemed stimulating and reflected diversity, a condition aligned to the intent of the EYFS about a richly resourced environment with play materials that can be adapted and used in different ways (The Early Years Foundation Stage 2007, p. 1). The children were led to outdoor learning which is viewed by EYFS as important in early years settings since "it supports the development of healthy and active lifestyles and offers children opportunities for physical activity, freedom, and movement." However it was observed that the freedom set out by the center to children was an absolute one in which they were free to choose what they wanted to learn. Rather, the teacher and the staff members must be the ones to direct what lessons and materials to be learned by children and monitor and evaluate their progress based on the objectives set out by these lessons. In the observed setting, the teacher asked the children what they wanted to do instead of telling them what they would be doing that day, an activity which should bear some instructional objectives and expected outcomes for the cognitive, affective, and psychomotor aspects of the children. If they decided for the children to choose their own activities, it would be merely letting them enjoy without setting objectives and intended outcomes for each, since they happened spontaneously and immediately. Learning should promote a sense e of confidence and well-being but such was not the expected outcome in the case of some children being pushed and bully ones. The teacher and the staff members should ensure that this sense of confidence and well-being is experienced by every child in the Montessori Day Nursery by paying much attention to the unlikely behavior exhibited by such children on their fellow-children and by not taking lightly such behavior since the children might regard it as something natural and fun. This setting is opposed to the setting exhibited by Odessa Primary School in which it was observed that the teacher looked very enthusiastic and welcomed each child individually. It might be inferred that the quality of provision on offer by the Montessori Day Nursery is not complementary with the intents of the EYFS, based on the observation. It was not enough that children were admitted to the center merely to enjoy their favorite play which they could choose as they wished, or allowed to exhibit bad behaviour without being reprimanded and properly corrected by the teacher and staff members. The only provision sufficed by the center was its ability to cater to children of 0 age to 5 years of age, and the colorful and richly resourced physical environment that promoted diversity. The intrinsic elements needed in pursuing an EYFS learning are however lacking, as already depicted in this paper. At the Odessa Primary School, there were a number of activities set out for children that day, which include painting, making cards, making party hats, playing with water, puppets, Lego, jigsaw, flour and water: feeling the texture, gluing papers, computers, and an interactive board for playing educational board. The children started to engage with the activities set out for them. Like the Montessori Day Nursery, there was also a display of colorful objects and materials needed for conducting activities, as well as richly resourced environment. The book read to them, which was called "Elmer," was based on the theme of the month, which was color, unlike the reading conducted in the Montessori Day Nursery which was basically chosen by children themselves without any objective-setting on the part of the teacher. The activities carried out by children were also aligned to the theme. In the story, Elmer the Elephant was to celebrate his birthday, for which the children had to prepare the celebration. They did a birthday cake made of clay dough and some birthday cards, whose objective is to improve their p[psychomotor ability. One of the teachers sang elephant songs with the children while counting elephants, which was intended to enhance their counting skills. These activities were aligned to constructivist learning posited by Vygotsky, Bruner, and Piaget wherein children negotiate meaning and create knowledge and intelligence (Lambert 2002, p. 30). The teachers also praised good behavior and recognized small achievements by praising the children on the drawings shown to them. The children were also encouraged to say please and thank you and were praised whenever they followed certain instructions. As opposed to the Montessori Day Nursery, the Odessa Primary School had an outdoor provision which was very colorful and had several activities from which children can enjoy and learn, such as bicycles, scooters, tows, and tents. The teachers were involved in the outdoor activities in which even one of them was riding a bike and played with the children. The outdoor activities were not only meant for enjoyment but for learning as well, in which it was apparently recognized that learning comes with enjoyment. This was exhibited by the little cups and plants at the edge of the playground in which every cup had a name label since children were growing their own plants. This is aligned to Bruner's conception of "quiet revolution" in which the child is seen as social being engaged in an activity that is situated within a cultural context (Lambert 2002, p. 30). Individual profiles were also created for each child in order to constantly observe children's development. The authority of the teachers on the children was felt when upon instructing them to stop the activities, they immediately heeded. The teacher told them to put their hands on their heads, than on their shoulders, and to put all the toys beside the wall and queue up to which they followed straight away. Socialization was conducted through Elmer's birthday party wherein crisp and juice were served. The teacher also taught the children to say, "may I have some more, please" whenever they would request for more food. All these scenarios were different from the ones at the Montessori Day Nursery. It was clear that the teachers followed the objectives set out in the curriculum and ensured that the well-being of each child was looked upon as well as their safety. The latter was seen in the teacher's involvement in outdoor activities who can monitor children's play. There was also parental involvement in the Odessa setting in which parents personally brought their children to the nursery and even one parent coordinated with the teacher about the food served in the party which was not allowed to be taken by her child for health reasons; hence the teachers prepared a different one for him. In the observation conducted at the Montessori setting, parental involvement seemed lacking or was not observed that day. Outdoor play was also apparent in Odessa setting, which was lacking in the Montessori setting. The EYFS recognizes the importance of outdoor environment as having equal value to indoor learning. This recognition requires the need for support of attentive and engaged adults enthusiastic enough to pursue outdoor learning for children (The Early Years Foundation Stage, 2007). The implementation of the curriculum in Odessa Primary School and Montessori Day Nursery There seemed to be a poor implementation of curriculum in the Montessori Day Nursery based on the one-day observation. The teacher did not perform the activities set out in the planning sheet, indicating that such planning sheet was only for satisfying the requirements intended to be submitted to the principal. Since the teacher stated that she did not need to follow the prepared activity sheet as this was something done only to guide her, it means such was not followed at all. Since the activity sheet was usually aimed at carrying out the objectives of the curriculum, its non-application to actual practice would mean that the curriculum is not followed at all. This analysis is also being sustained by the children's prerogative about what activities to play, which could not be certainly evaluated against set objectives for that purpose. Teachers are curriculum planners, in which activities are pursued based on students' needs. They play an intrinsic role in curriculum planning and development, a process considered central to teacher responsibility and activity (Connelly and Clandinin 1988). The Odessa setting apparently follows a certain curriculum that monitors children's improvement in several aspects of well-being as compared to the Montessori setting. The continuous process of observation and evaluation of children's activities is said to effect a constant modification of the curriculum to best meet the objectives set for each child's development (Page 2000, p. 61). This can only be done when activities are planned and according to set objectives based on the curriculum, such as the one undertaken in the Odessa setting. Piaget conceptualized that "development is similar to how all organisms function physiologically, adapting to and organizing the environment around them" (Essa 2003, p. 120) suggesting that it is best that such environment is shaped appropriately according to children's needs, and an effective instruction and curriculum would help in this end. Conclusion The EYFS applied to the Odessa and Montessori settings differed in practice. Although the Montessori setting admitted children within the age bracket depicted in the EYFS provisions, the intrinsic qualities of the service it provides to children are however lacking. There was no proper disciplining of children, resulting in bullying of some, leading to distraction from learning. The teachers and staff members exhibited lack of enthusiasm and dedication in activities, shown by their inattentiveness to distractions, noise, lack of cooperation, and unruly behavior of children. There was also lack of parental involvement in the setting as observed in the one-day observation. The curriculum was not followed based on the activities that just come up spontaneously, which the children themselves decide. In the Odessa setting, the teachers displayed enthusiasm and eagerness to engage in activities with children. Children were not given an absolute autonomy to decide on what activities to pursue, but activities were rather based on the given curriculum and planned instruction. Children behaved positively, showed obedience, and enthusiasm in cooperating in activities. This is because the teachers were enthusiastic themselves and showed that each child is special and appreciated. The activities pursued had some objectives and were not done spontaneously and for mere enjoyment alone, but were based on the given curriculum for early years development. References Connelly, Michael F. and Clandinin, Jean D., 2008. Teachers as Curriculum planners: Narratives of experience. New York: Teachers College Press. Essa, Eva, L., 2003. Introduction to childhood education. Thomson Delmar Learning. Lambert, Linda, 2002, The constructivist leader. Teachers College Press. Page, Jane M., 2000. Reframing the early childhood curriculum. Routledge. Statutory Framework, 2008. Statutory framework for the early years foundation stage: setting the standards for learning, development, and care for children from birth to five. Department of Children, Schools, and Families. The Early Years Foundation Stage, 2007. Effective practice: outdoor learning. Crown. Read More