They should also do SATs to ensure they are up to standard, in a formal setting. No talking, no looking at others papers. We need to weed out the stupid ones early.
don't give this evil lot any ideas,they would like to put downs stupid ones.
The trouble is that if you make it optional, the very children who need it most will be left out because their parents won't want to go out each day to take the child to school.
It's the same issue that has affected Sure Start which has been taken up by the middle class even though it was targeted at poorer families.
I see this as a kind of play group, certainly for the two year olds, and it will gradually move into more formal teaching as the child gets older.
It seems to me that if people got behind this scheme and said exactly what they want it to be and what they want it to achieve it could be a better response than simply saying no to it, or going on about what wonderful parents they are.
Surely every child deserves to have the same opportunities for playing, learning new skills, learning nursery rhymes and generally having a good start in life - or should we just leave that for the middle classes who appreciate the benefits of teaching their children these things?
I agree making it optional would create it's own problems. However there are always those children hanging on to their parents legs and refusing to go in to nursery, and forcing them to go in may make them hate school from a very early age.
Yes all children deserve the same opportunities, but parenting should be more than giving birth, changing nappies then shipping your kids out to be taught by others at 2. Maybe forcing parents to attend classes on how to teach their kids at home is a better option. ;-)
Surely the government can do better, drop the kid on monday and you should be able to dump it at school the week after assuming the paperworks done in time and if the childs ill at birth they'll fine you for not taking your child to school so if you're not paying your taxes via wages they'll get it back by fines
Surprised the tories don't reestablish the coal industry as then there will be plenty of chimneys to send kids up
Definitely not school but think nursery would benefit all children, I also think depends on the child (and parent) whether it would be all day or just half a day.
My grandchildren (in Holland) start school on their 4th birthday or as near after as possible but literally just play and socialise until they are 7 when the proper learning begins. I thought it was very strange but it seems to work and they come out well in the Europe education leagues and happiness leagues.
Definitely not school but think nursery would benefit all children, I also think depends on the child (and parent) whether it would be all day or just half a day.
My grandchildren (in Holland) start school on their 4th birthday or as near after as possible but literally just play and socialise until they are 7 when the proper learning begins. I thought it was very strange but it seems to work and they come out well in the Europe education leagues and happiness leagues.
Ironically, the lowering of education standards correlates with the lowering of school admission age. But we keep falling behind Europe, so the answer must be to lower it even further. Or perhaps, we need to follow their example, and realise that there needs to be a balance between early education and parental love and security.
There is probably a segment of the population where the children would benefit from being in a structured learning environment; children who are at risk of not getting enough stimulation at home, children who are neglected, etc. I'm not sure those parents would be the first ones lining up for it though.
Both of my children went to preschool (nursery) and I think it was great for them in terms of socializing with other kids their age and having a routine.
I caught a bit of the talk on Daybreak this morning suggesting that there should be testing done for maths and English. I don't agree with that, but the teachers would be observing the children anyway, informally, and hopefully discussing any concerns with the parents.
Children develop at their own rate so I don't give much credence to anyone that states any particular child is behind their peers. My health visitor tried that on with my when my 3yr old son couldn't draw an X, she wanted to send him off for tests and insisted he had speech therapy because he didn't talk a lot. I told her I would trust my own instincts and my own instincts were telling me that he was absolutely fine and was concentrating on his motor skills, he was pretty awesome at climbing and could ride his bike.
I didn't start him at school until he was 6 1/2 because I knew he wasn't ready, the hoo haa I got from the HV and LEA about my decision, you'd have thought it was some sort of child abuse!
I was right though, he settled straight into school and is well above average in most things. I reckon if sent him to school at 4 he would have been troubled because of his lack of speech etc and unwillingness to write and read. He was still peeing his pants at 4!
So in short, no I wouldn't start a child in school or any sort of nursery at 2.
If you're a single parent, you can claim income support (equivalent to JSA, but you don't have to be seeking work) until the child is 5 - the logic being that you're available for work because your child is at school. So there may be an agenda here of trying to push single parents back into work earlier and to hell with what's best for the children.
I'm very uncomfortable with this idea, I don't believe it is the role of a teacher to teach a child to use the toilet, use a knife and fork etc. This should be taught in the home and if these children starting school at 4/5 haven't got these skills then intervention in the home needs to be looked at. At 2 they are still babies and should be encouraged to play and play should remain the focus of any learning.
How long to a government pass a law on parenting with a set of rules on how to bring up your own kids.like set bed times for each age groups,having to read books to them,what to feed them,and many other rules to take away freedom off the parents decide for themselves in how to bring up their kids,
How long to a government pass a law on parenting with a set of rules on how to bring up your own kids.like set bed times for each age groups,having to read books to them,what to feed them,and many other rules to take away freedom off the parents decide for themselves in how to bring up their kids,
If you're a single parent, you can claim income support (equivalent to JSA, but you don't have to be seeking work) until the child is 5 - the logic being that you're available for work because your child is at school. So there may be an agenda here of trying to push single parents back into work earlier and to hell with what's best for the children.
Which is quite funny as there are not enough jobs out there for the unemployed we have now, so it shouldn't be the end of the world if people want to stay home with their kids, most of them would only be able to do around 4 hours due to school pick up and drop off. They do drag you into the jobcentre every 6 months though and make you feel like shite for wanting to stay home with your child. I personally think you should be able to stay home whilst your children are at primary school, I also think women would have less babies that way I know a few that are trying to get pregnant now as their children are turning 5.
My son was invited to attend pre-school at 2 but we attended for 2 morning sessions and he was nowhere near ready, he was more interested in opening and closing the doors and playing with the electrical sockets, he was also teething and kept putting things in his mouth and with a 1 -4 or 5 ratio I wasn't comfortable leaving him there as they cannot watch him all the time 1 on 1 like I can and its too late if something happens he is not replaceable, I was certainly not reassured when I asked the nursery assistant they said well obviously if we see him with something in his mouth we will tell him to take it out. He was disruptive in the fact that he doesn't have the attention span yet to sit down and enjoy a story etc he also tires easily and still requires a good day time nap he was nowhere near ready. I will try him in another 6 months but it will only be for a morning session a few times a week as I do feel he is better off at home with me
Let them be bairns as long as you can is what I think.
Mine only do a year of preschool rather than 2 because that's what I preferred and IMO it hasn't done them any harm, in fact my eldest is top of the class in most subjects.
I think all children learn at different paces anyway, just because they are meant to read at x age or be able to write their names at y age, if a child doesn't want to do it yet, they won't.
Aren't all measures at their base level down to providing children with what is second best to what children need/want?
The ideal for a young child is having at least one committed parent with them at home, enough money to enable going out and taking part in activities, a good extended family back up, a parent with friends/family who also have children the same age to socialise with.
That's the ideal, all the rest are attempts to make up for what's lacking.
Which is quite funny as there are not enough jobs out there for the unemployed we have now, so it shouldn't be the end of the world if people want to stay home with their kids, most of them would only be able to do around 4 hours due to school pick up and drop off. They do drag you into the jobcentre every 6 months though and make you feel like shite for wanting to stay home with your child. I personally think you should be able to stay home whilst your children are at primary school, I also think women would have less babies that way I know a few that are trying to get pregnant now as their children are turning 5.
My son was invited to attend pre-school at 2 but we attended for 2 morning sessions and he was nowhere near ready, he was more interested in opening and closing the doors and playing with the electrical sockets, he was also teething and kept putting things in his mouth and with a 1 -4 or 5 ratio I wasn't comfortable leaving him there as they cannot watch him all the time 1 on 1 like I can and its too late if something happens he is not replaceable, I was certainly not reassured when I asked the nursery assistant they said well obviously if we see him with something in his mouth we will tell him to take it out. He was disruptive in the fact that he doesn't have the attention span yet to sit down and enjoy a story etc he also tires easily and still requires a good day time nap he was nowhere near ready. I will try him in another 6 months but it will only be for a morning session a few times a week as I do feel he is better off at home with me
But nothing comes free. While every mother stays at home for however many years they have kids at primary school who pays the bills. I was a stay at home mum for a few years when mine were babies. I was fortunate in having a partner who could afford to support all of us. Later when my kids were at school and I was a single parent I had to work hard to pay the bills and put food on the table. Staying at home while kids are at school is a luxury, not a right.
But nothing comes free. While every mother stays at home for however many years they have kids at primary school who pays the bills. I was a stay at home mum for a few years when mine were babies. I was fortunate in having a partner who could afford to support all of us. Later when my kids were at school and I was a single parent I had to work hard to pay the bills and put food on the table. Staying at home while kids are at school is a luxury, not a right.
if one parent can stay at home and the other parent work what's wrong with that ?
And then that's one less person in the workplace and another person needs a job a take could that job.
if one parent can stay at home and the other parent work what's wrong with that ?
And then that's one less person in the workplace and another person needs a job a take could that job.
My Mother never worked again once we came along.
It was just the way it was for a lot of women back then.
I worked as a young parent, but would only work when mine were at school or play school.
I was lucky to be able to work that way I suppose.
It seems to me that nowadays many young Mums do go back to work, and chatting to them it is as they have to financially but also as they do not want to be full time stay at home Mums.
Don't they start later than ours in some countries, and find that both children and parents are happier that way? It doesn't do them any harm with regards to their education, either. All this is really about child-care and getting more people into work.
In Poland they started at 7 until a law came in earlier this year that said they would start in the September of the year they turn 6.
But nothing comes free. While every mother stays at home for however many years they have kids at primary school who pays the bills. I was a stay at home mum for a few years when mine were babies. I was fortunate in having a partner who could afford to support all of us. Later when my kids were at school and I was a single parent I had to work hard to pay the bills and put food on the table. Staying at home while kids are at school is a luxury, not a right.
No-one is saying its a right, I think everyone should go out to work when they are able to and kids are at school but there aren't enough jobs for everyone and I think staying at home with a child is a good reason to be unemployed if that is what the mother wants whether they rely on benefits or not. I would prefer the jobs to go to young people and other people who are out of work than mothers feeling forced to leave their kids when the option is available to stay at home
Comments
don't give this evil lot any ideas,they would like to put downs stupid ones.
I agree making it optional would create it's own problems. However there are always those children hanging on to their parents legs and refusing to go in to nursery, and forcing them to go in may make them hate school from a very early age.
Yes all children deserve the same opportunities, but parenting should be more than giving birth, changing nappies then shipping your kids out to be taught by others at 2. Maybe forcing parents to attend classes on how to teach their kids at home is a better option. ;-)
Surprised the tories don't reestablish the coal industry as then there will be plenty of chimneys to send kids up
My grandchildren (in Holland) start school on their 4th birthday or as near after as possible but literally just play and socialise until they are 7 when the proper learning begins. I thought it was very strange but it seems to work and they come out well in the Europe education leagues and happiness leagues.
Ironically, the lowering of education standards correlates with the lowering of school admission age. But we keep falling behind Europe, so the answer must be to lower it even further. Or perhaps, we need to follow their example, and realise that there needs to be a balance between early education and parental love and security.
Meaning most of the kids will be 4 and X amount of months.
My son is a November baby so will be 4 years 10 months when he starts, whereas my BIL (31st Aug) was just 4 years and a week when he started.
My child has learned a hell of a lot in his short life but I cannot imagine him being ready for school anytime in the next few years
same here for me i was born november,and was one of the oldest in my class
Both of my children went to preschool (nursery) and I think it was great for them in terms of socializing with other kids their age and having a routine.
I caught a bit of the talk on Daybreak this morning suggesting that there should be testing done for maths and English. I don't agree with that, but the teachers would be observing the children anyway, informally, and hopefully discussing any concerns with the parents.
I didn't start him at school until he was 6 1/2 because I knew he wasn't ready, the hoo haa I got from the HV and LEA about my decision, you'd have thought it was some sort of child abuse!
I was right though, he settled straight into school and is well above average in most things. I reckon if sent him to school at 4 he would have been troubled because of his lack of speech etc and unwillingness to write and read. He was still peeing his pants at 4!
So in short, no I wouldn't start a child in school or any sort of nursery at 2.
I'm not comfortable with children being constantly assessed at age four either.
Gotta get those statistics up somehow.
**** happiness.
Which is quite funny as there are not enough jobs out there for the unemployed we have now, so it shouldn't be the end of the world if people want to stay home with their kids, most of them would only be able to do around 4 hours due to school pick up and drop off. They do drag you into the jobcentre every 6 months though and make you feel like shite for wanting to stay home with your child. I personally think you should be able to stay home whilst your children are at primary school, I also think women would have less babies that way I know a few that are trying to get pregnant now as their children are turning 5.
My son was invited to attend pre-school at 2 but we attended for 2 morning sessions and he was nowhere near ready, he was more interested in opening and closing the doors and playing with the electrical sockets, he was also teething and kept putting things in his mouth and with a 1 -4 or 5 ratio I wasn't comfortable leaving him there as they cannot watch him all the time 1 on 1 like I can and its too late if something happens he is not replaceable, I was certainly not reassured when I asked the nursery assistant they said well obviously if we see him with something in his mouth we will tell him to take it out. He was disruptive in the fact that he doesn't have the attention span yet to sit down and enjoy a story etc he also tires easily and still requires a good day time nap he was nowhere near ready. I will try him in another 6 months but it will only be for a morning session a few times a week as I do feel he is better off at home with me
Mine only do a year of preschool rather than 2 because that's what I preferred and IMO it hasn't done them any harm, in fact my eldest is top of the class in most subjects.
I think all children learn at different paces anyway, just because they are meant to read at x age or be able to write their names at y age, if a child doesn't want to do it yet, they won't.
The ideal for a young child is having at least one committed parent with them at home, enough money to enable going out and taking part in activities, a good extended family back up, a parent with friends/family who also have children the same age to socialise with.
That's the ideal, all the rest are attempts to make up for what's lacking.
freedom to choose? more like forced to
But nothing comes free. While every mother stays at home for however many years they have kids at primary school who pays the bills. I was a stay at home mum for a few years when mine were babies. I was fortunate in having a partner who could afford to support all of us. Later when my kids were at school and I was a single parent I had to work hard to pay the bills and put food on the table. Staying at home while kids are at school is a luxury, not a right.
if one parent can stay at home and the other parent work what's wrong with that ?
And then that's one less person in the workplace and another person needs a job a take could that job.
My Mother never worked again once we came along.
It was just the way it was for a lot of women back then.
I worked as a young parent, but would only work when mine were at school or play school.
I was lucky to be able to work that way I suppose.
It seems to me that nowadays many young Mums do go back to work, and chatting to them it is as they have to financially but also as they do not want to be full time stay at home Mums.
In Poland they started at 7 until a law came in earlier this year that said they would start in the September of the year they turn 6.
No-one is saying its a right, I think everyone should go out to work when they are able to and kids are at school but there aren't enough jobs for everyone and I think staying at home with a child is a good reason to be unemployed if that is what the mother wants whether they rely on benefits or not. I would prefer the jobs to go to young people and other people who are out of work than mothers feeling forced to leave their kids when the option is available to stay at home
I also think this is damaging to childrens emotional health.