School checking out home before 4 yr old starts school

Bags it does not prevent children from going to school the first week. Reception children don't start school in that first week any more. Certainly at least from the 1970s when mine started school at least.

This has been said several times ergo. It's a good use of the teacher's time.

You should know this....I thought you trained as a teacher???

One pupil's point of view as against professionals who have had perhaps 900 pupils through their classes in a 30 year career? Not saying your view is invalid but that's exactly what everyone thinks...until they try it.

Most of the positive comments on this practice have come from teachers who have exoerience of this and have found it to work. Q.E.D.

And Rose you'd be surprised the number of people who try to tell you how you should do your job.

by being, not was being

BTW, I'm arguing for the hell of it, but I really do think proper evidence of benefit must be shown before any school policy is justified as strongly as this one is being. If something doesn't make a significant difference, does it need to be done? It would appear that some education authorities have other methods of easing children into school. Let's hear about some of those?

Minibags was eased into her new school (we moved house between her English reception and Scottish Primary 2 years) was being invited to a birthday party by one of her new classmates. I don't think she cared two hoots about the teacher.

I suggested that some measure of proof that the policy is worth the time it takes—half an hour of travel and visiting time per child is a low estimate if tea and biscuits are offered at every house. For a class of thirty, that's fifteen hours of teacher time minimum. Someone said it uses up the first week of term, preventing children from going to school for that week. That is worthy of careful consideration as much as the 'policy' is.
I don't call preventing a few tears justification when other, less time consuming activities (see below) could probably do the job just as well.

I agree that some children (not many if my experience is anything to go by—some of you may think it isn't) will benefit from a teacher visit, but I very much doubt if most kids actually need it. That many of them will like it is another matter. They'd probably like a communal teaparty at school just as much. That way they'd see some of their classmates before starting school too.

I called the visits pussyfooting because it seems to me it is mithering away at the edges of real problems—classes too large, schools too large, not enough teachers, etc.

In addition (and I'm aware that I'll be slammed by some for this), I don't have a lot of sympathy for the weepy parents. For goodness' sake! they've had four+ years to get used to the idea, to prepare themselves and their children for the inevitable*. I don't believe I'm the only one who went home after the younger children were installed for their first half-day, sat down, put my feet up, and immersed myself in a good book, joyous at just over two hours peace and quiet.

*except for home schoolers, natch.

Aka I say that because everyone has been to school themselves they think they know it all and that teaching is something anyone can do and years of experiences doesn't mean a thing.

I don't think that is necessarily the case and I don't think most people think that teaching is something anyone can do or is an easy option. I deliberately did not choose teaching as a profession.
However, the vast majority of us have been through the education system so we can look at it from a pupil's point of view.

Or that all national policies were good

And thatbags - if only it were true that all good policies became national ones - if only. That's a surprisingly illogical comment from you

As Mice said, how could this be properly researched? There is much in all fields of human knowledge that is accepted as good practice which has not been the subject of research because it is undoable either ethically or from a research design perspective. At an extreme, of the Nazi experiments were absolutely fascination in what they wanted to establish as evidence based knowledge. And I think it was Peter the Great who carried out an experiment as to what happened to babies who were given no human contact other than provided with food. The first starting point with an idea like home visits is can it do any harm? If it seems not, and certainly I've found nothing online that says it does, then I trust the professionals to carry on doing it because they think it has a positive value . Of course that doesn't mean all professionals will share that idea but I wonder if those who believe in it are the sort of people who make it work because they believe in it. There are comments on this thread redolent of the one about the letter - ie lets just knock teachers whatever they do and as Aka says, we all know all about teaching because we went to school. And home visits and settling in visits and phased starting are NOT mutually exclusive

But where it is not done, is there a noticeable difference in outcome at primary schools? If so, I'll be convinced. If not then what's the point?

I think that would be the ultimate test of whether or not home visits are worthwhile; I also remain unconvinced.

Most children are bound to feel apprehensive and if they have met the teacher in school, learnt a bit about the school and where everything is located, they will feel on more sure ground.

That also sounds more logical.

Sorry but I just don't understand the logic of it all.

I say that because everyone has been to school themselves they think they know it all and that teaching is something anyone can do and years of experiences doesn't mean a thing.

Teaching is pretty unique in this way as you don't get the general public setting themselves up as accountants because they can balance their bank account or as a nurse because they can put a plaster on.

I used to get that attitude all the time from mature students entering the profession because they saw it as an easy option. By the end of their teaching practice they had certainly changed their opinion.

So that's why I reposted MiceElf's very apt post.

Could it be that not all early years specialists agree as to its usefulness?

Some early years specialists.

Since it's not a universal policy.

What do the others say?

Are all early years specialists teachers with lots of experience? Genuine question because when the National Curriculum was being installed, there were no geographers on the geography 'consultation' and decision-making body, and when maths teachers saw how many boxes they were going to have to tick their response was, more or less, "not bloody likely!"
That's why I tend to be sceptical of groups with names like Early Years Specialists. I've nothing against individuals who actually are early years specialists.

Another question. If "early years specialists" recommend this action of home visiting, why isn't it a national policy rather than a piecemeal one?

Ending what I will call the pussyfooting around of teachers (which is not slagging off teachers but expressing sincere doubts about the need for a certain 'policy') and making infant schools less scary places to be is perhaps what needs to be done instead.

But of course, that would cost money—more buildings, more teachers and teaching assistants and school cleaners and caretakers and what have you. Stupid idea, obviously.

Sometimes, I think it's a good idea to listen to the professional Early Years specialists and accept what their years of experience tell us.

Well said.

I still think that having schools big enough to need four reception classes is, to put it bluntly, bonkers. Maybe that is the real problem—huge, overwhelming primary schools.

You may be right, mice. I must always have mixed with well-adjusted kids and parents and nice schools that didn't traumatise kids anyhow. Lucky me.

BTW, don't put that down to the middleclassness or well-educatedness of me or the people I mixed with. It wasn't.

thatbags I was referring to your post of Wed 27-Aug-14 12:42:39 (so many posts in between)

I imagine the benefit would be fewer tears when starting school, more secure children, less anxious parents, more cheerful children.

But is that measurable? Are you going to set up a control group? And how many variables would you have to consider?

Sometimes, I think it's a good idea to listen to the professional Early Years specialists and accept what their years of experience tell us.

thatbags I agree with your post.

I haven't said that I disagree vehemently with the idea of home visits, just cannot see the point.

It is much better, in my very humble opinion as a mother, grandmother, mother of a teacher, sister of a teacher, (and someone who was once a child) to meet the child with the parents/carers in the school environment: for the child and the family to meet the teacher, for the child to get acclimatised to the new environment and also to let the parents/carers get a feel of what will be happening with their children when they set out on this new stage of their lives. Most children are bound to feel apprehensive and if they have met the teacher in school, learnt a bit about the school and where everything is located, they will feel on more sure ground.

I have never heard of it before, and we have lived in different locations in the UK so it is obviously not a universal policy.
Others will not agree and they are entitled to their opinion.

Oh Rose we really are feeling defensive now aren't we? Not at all, if you dish it out you really have to learn to take it, G2

I know this has been done for a long time in some places. I know the people involved in doing it (at least those on this thread) think it a good idea and think it beneficial. I accept all that.

But where it is not done, is there a noticeable difference in outcome at primary schools? If so, I'll be convinced. If not then what's the point?

A weighing up.

Or at least "assessed", which is a kind of measuring.

I think value can be measured, which is not to say that everything that can be measured is valuable.

But if it's valuable, should there not be a noticeable beneficial effect?
Otherwise, how can it be assessed as valuable?