According to Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (2006), although reducing social inequality and educational disadvantage remain key drivers of government policy, there is increasing concern that the EYFS emphasis on preparing children for school and the proposal to extend education to two-year-olds, may constrain other aspects of their development, and is leading to increasing ‘schoolification’ of early childhood. What can Early Years Leader do in this situation to initiate a positive change?
I think there as many things an early years leader could do in this situation, if they were unhappy with this change they could find out how the rest of the team feel, how other settings feel and come together to petition against this change. They could evidence how what they are currently doing with children is benefiting their development or on the flip side if they are leading this change to extend education to two year old they need to evidence the benefits of doing so to get other teachers and parents on board with the idea. They would need to lead this change by ensuring it doesn't effect other areas of development and instead work in a holistic way.
ReplyDeleteSome really good points here! Early Years leaders can also make some changes to their practice to ensure that all aspects of children's learning are play-based?
ReplyDeleteI think if Early Years Leaders are to lead this change, adopting a play-based approach may be the best way forward. Evidencing how a less formal style of learning is more beneficial for a two year olds holistic learning and development could help others, such as parents and the government, understand how placing emphasis on 'school readiness' may constrain aspects of a child's overall development. This could therefore initiate a positive change.
ReplyDeleteI agree. Adapting early years practice to the needs of young children should be the basis for the change.
DeleteI think EY leaders should take into consideration the individual needs of the child to support their learning and development. By working with the child's parents practitioners can develop a plan that not only supports the child in being "school ready", but still supports the other areas of their development. It may be worth considering how they can incorporate supporting the child to be school ready whilst still meeting the personal developmental needs of the child. I think it is important that EY practitioners come together as team to consider how the child benefits from the approach that is being considered.
ReplyDeleteI like the point about the team approach - this is most definitely one of the conditions of positive change.
Deletepractitioners should focus on learning through play to allow 2 year olds to discover the world themselves before focusing on school readiness. Education and school readiness are already adding enough stress to children under 5, to propose education for 2 year olds would be an absurd suggestion. Practitioners should lead change and protest against it to protect children in early childhood from government expectations
ReplyDeleteI can appreciate the theme of an active political stance appearing in the comments. This indicates to me the maturity of your principles!
ReplyDeleteit is ridiculous wanting to get the children of the age of 2 ready for school. why cant the Government take note of other countries and allow the children to develop until they are ready to make the next step, such as Sweden, the leave children to develop up until the age of 6. Think, why do we need to keep pushing children younger and younger to develop faster just to gain results and statistics.
ReplyDelete