“We start school too early in the UK!”

What we need is excellent early years practitioners everywhere to guide our young children and then we would be ok in the uk.

There are lots of excellent early years practitioners already in the UK, doing exactly what you describe pigsmayfly

The snag is, that according to those excellent early years practitioners and backed up by the knowledge from all those countries whose education systems we are encouraged to believe are *so much better,*you need a higher staff/pupil ratio than 2: 30 (1 teacher and 1 teaching assistant per 30 children) to get the most out of the variety of play opportunities that give access to a variety of learning opportunities that are in place in most EYFS classrooms.

I’m waiting for a government who puts money into that before they, or parents beat UK teachers with the could do better if you copy other countries e.g. Italy or Finland etc stick.

AuntieE

Some children are ready to start school at five, I was, and have always been thankful we were living in Scotland then, and not in Denmark. I would have been bored out of my mind if I had had to stay day in and day out at home until I was seven.

Some children are ready to start school at six, and some not until they are seven.

What we should consider in all countries is assessing children at age five, six and seven and letting them start school when they are ready.

And NO: teachers teach, parents and grandparents SHOULD NOT.

There is nothing worse when teaching either a kindergarten class or Primary 1 then discovering that a third of the class can already read, some well, others very badly because adults with no knowledge of how to teach have attempted to teach the alphabet or primary reading skills.

And while you are trying kindly to teach children the ministry-preferred method, instead of their parents' no method at all teaching, you also have another fifteen or sixteen children who start school with none of the skills it is the school's purpose to teach them.

Well....how do you stop a child learning to read by itself? I could read when I went to school, so could my children, they worked the basics out by themselves
Is it right to hold children back if they're working it out on their own?
Said son thankfully didn't start school until statutory age, because of where his birthday was, he wouldn't have been ready has he been born 3 months earlier and started shortly after his birthday
I'd never prevent any child teaching herself to read, it's the key to so much knowledge and enjoyment
I also have memories of my son rightly correcting me when I misdescribed a shape while we were out, no mummy, it's a sector...and it was

If a child is reading before they are 5 and they are comfortable with it, then they were not taught by a parent and grandparent they taught themselves.

Born in wartime when books were few and far between, my mother sat me on her lap and read the same half a dozen books to me many times. it did not take me long to connect word spoken with word written and then recognise the same words in different contexts, to noticing similarities between words I knew and words i didn't. By the time I started school. I was a fluent reader.

DH was the same - except that his mother was a reception class teacher - This is also how my children learnt.

When DS had a half day at school the term before he started I simply gave him the book he was reading at home to take in to school and told the teacher that is what it was. I never spoke to the teacher again on the subject, nor did I ask DS whether the teacher had asked him to read it, but when he started school, after a few days, the teacher told me he was in the top ability group with the children who had started the previous term.

Children working out the basics really only happens with input from others, whether direct teaching, or from being read to frequently and making the connection between the symbols on the page and the words they are hearing , or being with siblings and following what they do.
Even turning the pages in a book is a learning experience.

Funnily enough my bed time reading by an American author contains this quote,
My granny . . . started teaching me my letters when I was three years old. It wasn’t long before I was reading. She said I took to it like a duck to water.
When she enrolled me in kindergarten, I was so far ahead of the other kids that they put me in first grade.

So even the US isn’t against pre-school learning.

All of us who sang nursery rhymes or counting songs or even just the simple 1,2, 3 and jump were teaching our children.

All adults who spend time listening to and chatting with children are teaching them.

And why not?

I often think that I am totally out of kilter with the rest of the world on this.

I am contributing to a thread on Mumsnet where a parent is worried that their child might be "below average", as assessed by some stupid computer administered test in school - he is 7. So he is being judged from this young age - a poster said that he was probably bored by the test and more interested in getting out on the playground or getting his lunch and said that he "has his priorities wrong" - what the heck?! No he doesn't - those are the valid priorities of a 7 year old! That is who he should be! This poor child has now picked up his mother's concerns and that he has somehow "failed" - I find this utterly appalling!

And what does it matter if this child is "below average"? - one of my DDs (who was below average in loads of stuff at school) has a good degree from a Russell Group university and also an MA - oh, and she still has not passed GCSE maths! She was herself - a total delight - and we cared not one jot that she showed no academic prowess at that stage.

Reading all the contributions on this and other threads there I feel so sad for some of these children. One SAHM is worrying that her 2 year old should be at nursery as he might be missing out on his education - but says she is doing educational things with him at home. Leave the poor child be!

My instinct on reading all this is to say "Enough with all this darned education!" - just let them be!!!

What also comes across is that nowadays (I thought I would never use that word and sound like an old git!) children's time is constantly structured by adult input, very often at "attractions" - they are doing workbooks in the holidays, going to museums, going to zoos etc. All fine in moderation but when do they get to just be? - to do what children do best, which is to make their own learning fired by their own curiosity and imagination?

We funnel children down this one-size-fits-all chute and wonder why so many feel failures, or finish up with diagnoses of various kinds, or join the epidemic of teenage mental ill health sufferers.

That wonderful period of boundless curiosity and imagination is funnelled into tests and workbooks and assessments and inward facing activities; and an obsession that academic achievement and collecting bits of paper like charms on a bracelet is all that matters - it isn't!

It honestly makes me so sad.......

That wonderful period of boundless curiosity and imagination is funnelled into tests and workbooks and assessments and inward facing activities; and an obsession that academic achievement and collecting bits of paper like charms on a bracelet is all that matters - it isn't.
I agree about the funnelling not just in school chasing paper, but out of school with endless classes and occupations requiring practice to achieve yet another medal, badge or place in a team.
Contributing to the lack of chance to enjoy That wonderful period of boundless curiosity and imagination

Sadly, many of the sort of activities that we recall, or our children enjoyed, are being replaced with electronics.
Sitting hunched over a device trying to achieve success in the same way as is expected in education, or communicating in the ether instead of actual human contact.

Our local early years classes have sandpits, toys and picture books, lego bricks etc. They learn to sit quietly, to listen, to share. They build a community. If they want books with words they can have them, but no pressure.
Some need toilet training, and they learn to take themselves, and to wash their hands.

But what is important is identifying those who may potentially need additional help or monitoring going forward as opposed to simply slow in development and independence.

I will quote a Jesuit priest "Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man." It highlighted that small children are sponges. My own daughter could recite the 7 times table at 3 years of age - because I was playing the tape to her older brother.

"Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man."

It is interesting you should quote this. I think I probably have a different take on it! We have lots of under sevens engaged in formal learning leading to the "man/woman" who has been programmed to achieve and to be competitive and to learn that they are failing in some way..... who potentially becomes part of the epidemic of mental health problems in teenagers and young people, or finds themselves diagnosed with a condition because the narrow channel decreed for them does not suit their young brain.

My own daughter could recite the 7 times table at 3 years of age - because I was playing the tape to her older brother. My honest take on that ... and we must agree to differ here I expect ... is that this is not remotely surprising as she was simply repeating what she had heard ... but with no understanding, so it might seem impressive, but actually has no purpose.

I was always led to believe this was about character.

Integrity, resilience, empathy, compassion, anxiety...
I thought it was basically saying this is like a psychological blueprint.
Changes made later in life are modifications built on that architecture.

But yes, the Jesuits believe in education and the power of early years education, with the specific philosophy that if you could instill religious faith, discipline, and moral values then the child will have that for life.

Casdon

Would lax parenting be more of an issue if school was not compulsory before the age of seven? I’d worry that some children would receive no education and would be even further behind their peers than they are now when they start school - unless nursery education was compulsory?

Ideally they’d start at 4 or 5 in the same way, but formal education would only start at 6 or 7 - play based until then. There will almost certainly be a 12 month age range in any intake anyway.

FranP My own daughter could recite the 7 times table at 3 years of age - because I was playing the tape to her older brother.

Luckygirl13
My honest take on that ... and we must agree to differ here I expect ... is that this is not remotely surprising as she was simply repeating what she had heard ... but with no understanding, so it might seem impressive, but actually has no purpose.

I don’t think FranP was claiming her 3 year old had any mathematical skill when reciting the 7x table.
No one ever said that a child who could sing Hey Diddle Diddle knew about the impossibility of a cow jumping over the moon, or really believed that silver bells and cockle shells actually grew in a garden.
They were simply learning to repeat what they heard.

We can agree to differ, but IMO both singing nursery rhymes and reciting the 7 times table serve a purpose.
They mean children are acquiring vocabulary and patterns that they can use in the future, regardless of whether they understand the words or rhymes that they are repeating.

My son could read and understand numbers at 3. I think a lot of children can.

I think we often underestimate just how much small children can understand if they are given a chance. We have got obsessed with the idea that children should only learn at school and should present themselves to teachers at 5 with a mind that is totally blank. Indeed some seem to think that that it is impossible to learn before they start school.

I think of the millions of parents who today will cuddle a child on their lap while reading a book to them, counting the flowers, or rabbits, talking about the story , looking at the numbers or letters or words and that child will when they are ready start to recognise and understand them. For some they may be only 2, others may not get there until they are 7, but most will grow up competent readers, with happy memories of reading as being surrounded by love.

I think of the millions of parents who today will cuddle a child on their lap while reading a book to them, counting the flowers, or rabbits, talking about the story , looking at the numbers or letters or words and that child will when they are ready start to recognise and understand them. For some they may be only 2, others may not get there until they are 7, but most will grow up competent readers, with happy memories of reading as being surrounded by love.

Indeed - just what we all do. But I think there is a huge difference between that and what happens in school. At home we are just sharing the fun together and somewhere along the way some learning happens, or doesn't - either way is fine. At school they have standards to meet and are tested and compared to their peers. This is so inappropriate for small children.

Some of the posts on Mumsnet are really creepy. From the tiniest age the parents are programmed to educate, educate, educate with the distorted idea that if they are not keeping up or excelling they will be failures in life and not get a job. It really does seem to be a prevalent attitude. The idea of children doing parent initiated workbooks during their holidays seems to be common, as if the only purpose of childhood is to learn testable stuff.

Parent initiated workbooks are also prevalent on the continent, even for young children in those countries that advocate a later start.
But then parents are also responsible for the comparison between children, right from boasting about
the earliest first smile,
the earliest first roll over,
the earliest first sit up,
the earliest first tooth,
the earliest first word,
the earliest first crawl
the earliest first step,
the earliest counting,
the earliest reading,
and even the earliest potty training.
You can read about that even on Gransnet, never mind Mumsnet.

It's grim isn't it?

Ha ha... my most mobile child - an early walker was not really a talker until quite a bit older than any of her siblings.

I think they each have their own "time" and the best job we can do as parents is to love them and be the best facilitators we can be.

Really, when you think about it, full time education is actually still quite a new invention in the history of mankind's development.

Really, when you think about it, full time education is actually still quite a new invention in the history of mankind's development.

That is very true and I think it is throwing up lots of problems.

Luckygirl3

*Really, when you think about it, full time education is actually still quite a new invention in the history of mankind's development.*

That is very true and I think it is throwing up lots of problems.

But the growth of formal education has grown alongside the industrial revolution and onwards.

It is (mainly) human beings who have initiated every single development of education since they stood on their feet and learned to cook food. Children had to be taught how to make stone tools, how to farm crops, how to smelt metal and so on. learning went from home to the specialist to the factory and now the school.

I bet every group and period complained about it.

Yes M0nica but really I meant (and should have said) full time education in terms of the education acts.

Obviously "education" in the broad sense is not only full time but (I hope) life-long... for most of us.

M0nica
It is (mainly) human beings who have initiated every single development of education since they stood on their feet and learned to cook food. Children had to be taught how to make stone tools, how to farm crops, how to smelt metal and so on. learning went from home to the specialist to the factory and now the school.

I bet every group and period complained about it.

Certainly some of the better off complained about the lowly masses learning to read and write - getting above themselves.

... and plenty off the better off approved and built the schools and the colleges and funded the scholarships. In fact, like nearly all social movements, they started with the better off wanting to improve the lives and conditions of the less well off.

There has always been formal learning whether being carefully trained to make stone tools, sew a fine seam or anything else. Different times necessitate different methods.

I do find the GN tendency to blame all society's ills on those who earn a couple of pounds a week more than they do tedious.It is worth remembering that the middle classes have grown from a very small group in the past to being the majoirty of the population now and all that growth came from upward social mobility. My roots go back to the migrations of Irish to this country and London dockers. My DHs family come from a long line of agricultural labourers deep in the shires and later factory workers. I know very few people with family histories much different to mine.

How do you define middle class M0nica?

No idea. It is a phrase that seems to mean something to lots of people, especially politicians so I use it now and again.

Personally I think in income terms and the middle class means those earning the central third of incomes, one third earn lower incomes, one third higher.

There used to be a time when it could be tied to clear life styles. Bottom third worked with their hands and lived in council houses, middle class worked at a desk and were buying a house, upper class were the rest who did all or nothing.

Nowadays none of that applies any more. Many skilled tradesmen earn high wages, own big houses, teachers live in social housing.

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.