Never heard anything so ridiculous. In many European countries children don't start school until they are 6 or seven and they end up better qualified than kids in this country.
Why can't we just let babies be babies and enjoy them. I took several years off work to be at home with my children and I loved it and look back on it fondly.
My nieces son is 2 and a half and no way would he be ready for school. He can't sit still a minute and is in to everything.
My son didn't start school until after his 5th birthday because of the part of the country we lived in. We moved to another county not long afterwards where he was with children who had been at school since they were 4 and they were no further forward than him.
I think they start at 6 or 7 in Finland - and yes, does them no harm whatsoever.
.
Yes they do and they have a far more superior system. Kids learn more quickly because they are ready for education, both mentally and physically. Prior to 7, the emphasis it entirely on play, there no formal assessment. Its a good system.
Yes they do and they have a far more superior system. Kids learn more quickly because they are ready for education, both mentally and physically. Prior to 7, the emphasis it entirely on play, there no formal assessment. Its a good system.
Exactly, by the time our kids get to this age they must be on the way to burn out-tested for this, tested for that. Seems you have to pass a test for every little thing now. I've always thought well of their system.
Exactly, by the time our kids get to this age they must be on the way to burn out-tested for this, tested for that. Seems you have to pass a test for every little thing now. i've always thought for their system.
I wrote a dissertation based on this subject for my Masters, its a very interesting subject. The Channel Four Dispatched programme 'Too Much, Too Young' gave me the idea for the paper.
Well a well educated mind gets you places. No harm in starting young. I'm not saying they should spend all day at school at that age. Nothing too taxing. Just a little gentle learning. No pressure.
What has "well educated" got to do with "a little gentle learning"?
I wrote a dissertation based on this subject for my Masters, its a very interesting subject. The Channel Four Dispatched programme 'Too Much, Too Young' gave me the idea for the paper.
I think I will go and find that programme, I vaguely remember it. I bet you uncovered some interesting research, sounds like a brilliant subject for a dissertation-well, if there is such a thing where dissertations are concerned.
Let's just hand them over to the state at birth, much easier
Or maybe they could have baby day outings to the Houses of Parliament. They could learn from the language of our leaders with such educationally vital words as 'muppet' and 'dunce'. ;-)
Or maybe they could have baby day outings to the Houses of Parliament. They could learn from the language of our leaders with such educationally vital words as 'muppet' and 'dunce'. ;-)
Well a well educated mind gets you places. No harm in starting young. I'm not saying they should spend all day at school at that age. Nothing too taxing. Just a little gentle learning. No pressure.
No, they have enough time to learn when they are older. Let them play about for few years before misery falls upon them for the next eleven years of their lives.
The thought of my daughter being in school in like 8 months time is horrific
She is still a baby. I can teach her things (as much as you can teach a 16 month old) at home. I don't want to be carting her off to school at this early age.
No, they have enough time to learn when they are older. Let them play about for few years before misery falls upon them for the next eleven years of their lives.
Surely it's worth investing in schools if it's going to be a prescribed misery?
Surely it's worth investing in schools if it's going to be a prescribed misery?
Schools don't have to be like that.
Investing in schools yes, chucking them in school at 2 years old so people don't have to pay for childcare and parents who stay at home can go back to work part time and pay tax rather than actually spending time with their children, no.
Sir Michael was interesting to listen to on Radio 4. They had someone with an opposing view saying children were too young to go to school and be taught. Sir Michael repeatedly denied that it what he was advocating. His comments were that some nurseries (and some parents) were letting their children down by not teaching ANY basics..
By this he meant a substantial number of children arriving at reception classes not able to recognise their own names, hold a pen, recognise the words stop or no or go to the toilet unattended.
He suggested a structured learning system, though play, could be used to teach these basic skills drawing for example to teach children how to use a pen m
He then suggested that in some cases a school would possibly be better at doing this than an child minder or private nursery.
Nothing about frog marching a child to school at two to learn maths, which is how it has been translated.
The Finnish example of starting school at seven is often quoted, but their education system is set up differently to ours. Formal education starts at 7, but nearly all parents send their children to some form of formal, structured learning through play to "learn how to learn" most from age 3 but a substantial number from 8 months.
The Finns have recognised (as other countries) that the vast majority of brain development occurs before school age and they harness that.
Sir Michael was interesting to listen to on Radio 4. They had someone with an opposing view saying children were too young to go to school and be taught. Sir Michael repeatedly denied that it what he was advocating. His comments were that some nurseries (and some parents) were letting their children down by not teaching ANY basics..
By this he meant a substantial number of children arriving at reception classes not able to recognise their own names, hold a pen, recognise the words stop or no or go to the toilet unattended.
He suggested a structured learning system, though play, could be used to teach these basic skills drawing for example to teach children how to use a pen m
He then suggested that in some cases a school would possibly be better at doing this than an child minder or private nursery.
Nothing about frog marching a child to school at two to learn maths, which is how it has been translated.
The Finnish example of starting school at seven is often quoted, but their education system is set up differently to ours. Formal education starts at 7, but nearly all parents send their children to some form of formal, structured learning through play to "learn how to learn" most from age 3 but a substantial number from 8 months.
The Finns have recognised (as other countries) that the vast majority of brain development occurs before school age and they harness that.
This sort of stuff should be what parents do automatically and most (or a lot) do. The children who are not getting this early support and encouragement are at a distinct disadvantage when they start school and more often than not they lag behind for their whole school career.
It isn't the children that need 'educating' - it's the parents. Too many people have kids and do very little to help, encourage and stimulate them. There should be parenting classes.
This sort of stuff should be what parents do automatically and most (or a lot) do. The children who are not getting this early support and encouragement are at a distinct disadvantage when they start school and more often than not they lag behind for their whole school career.
It isn't the children that need 'educating' - it's the parents. Too many people have kids and do very little to help, encourage and stimulate them. There should be parenting classes.
There is no set rules on how parents should bring up their kids is there.and there should not be any set rules on parenting as everyone is an individual who has their own ideas on how bring up their own kids,
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
That option should only be available if you can afford it. It shouldn't be a right that the state pays your bills while you stay at home.
That option should only be available if you can afford it. It shouldn't be a right that the state pays your bills while you stay at home.
Iain Duncan Smith is looking at the possibility of abolishing tax credits in the future, stating that parents spend their money on drink and drugs whilst their children go unfed as a reason for doing so. When Universal Credit comes in, part time workers paid less than the gross wage of a minimum wage worker will be forced to undertake the same jobsearch requirements (inc. workfare - yes, they'll be forced out of their existing job(s)) as someone currently on JSA.
IDS could well abolish state funds for parents because cutting benefits from parents who "should only have children if they can afford them" is a very popular soundbyte with voters they'll be wishing to woo for a 2015 Tory majority come the next election. Labour too.
There is no way I would have let my daughters start School at the age of 2. My younger daughter goes to Nursery and loves it and can count, and read some simple words and can write her name but I wouldn't have wanted her taught her these things at the age of 2. It's far too young and anyhow, most 2 years old I know are not yet toilet trained, at least not when they turn 2. The whole idea is ridiculous. They should sort out what is wrong with the education they give our older kids.
Iain Duncan Smith is looking at the possibility of abolishing tax credits in the future, stating that parents spend their money on drink and drugs whilst their children go unfed as a reason for doing so. When Universal Credit comes in, part time workers paid less than the gross wage of a minimum wage worker will be forced to undertake the same jobsearch requirements (inc. workfare - yes, they'll be forced out of their existing job(s)) as someone currently on JSA.
IDS could well abolish state funds for parents because cutting benefits from parents who "should only have children if they can afford them" is a very popular soundbyte with voters they'll be wishing to woo for a 2015 Tory majority come the next election. Labour too.
you had to mention IBS didn't you. That's me in a bad mood for the rest of the day!
Comments
Why can't we just let babies be babies and enjoy them. I took several years off work to be at home with my children and I loved it and look back on it fondly.
My nieces son is 2 and a half and no way would he be ready for school. He can't sit still a minute and is in to everything.
My son didn't start school until after his 5th birthday because of the part of the country we lived in. We moved to another county not long afterwards where he was with children who had been at school since they were 4 and they were no further forward than him.
You could also say that filling their heads with knowledge might make them more likely to question the way things are run. ;-)
Yes they do and they have a far more superior system. Kids learn more quickly because they are ready for education, both mentally and physically. Prior to 7, the emphasis it entirely on play, there no formal assessment. Its a good system.
Exactly, by the time our kids get to this age they must be on the way to burn out-tested for this, tested for that. Seems you have to pass a test for every little thing now. I've always thought well of their system.
Edited-rubbish grammar.
I wrote a dissertation based on this subject for my Masters, its a very interesting subject. The Channel Four Dispatched programme 'Too Much, Too Young' gave me the idea for the paper.
I think I will go and find that programme, I vaguely remember it. I bet you uncovered some interesting research, sounds like a brilliant subject for a dissertation-well, if there is such a thing where dissertations are concerned.
Or maybe they could have baby day outings to the Houses of Parliament. They could learn from the language of our leaders with such educationally vital words as 'muppet' and 'dunce'. ;-)
or............Pleb
In the face of these onslaughts, any sensitive, responsible government would see its duty as doing all within its power to enact policies that protected early childhood from these ‘adultifying’ tendencies, so as to preserve children’s childhoods for as long as possible.
But extraordinarily, the current Government is doing exactly the opposite – in direct contradiction to what David Cameron said several years ago; that children are having to grow up too quickly in modern society.
At 4, England already has one of the earliest school starting ages in the world; but rather than doing all it can to mitigate the impact of children being forced into quasi-formal learning at too young an age, the Government is doing the very opposite.
She is still a baby. I can teach her things (as much as you can teach a 16 month old) at home. I don't want to be carting her off to school at this early age.
Surely it's worth investing in schools if it's going to be a prescribed misery?
Schools don't have to be like that.
Investing in schools yes, chucking them in school at 2 years old so people don't have to pay for childcare and parents who stay at home can go back to work part time and pay tax rather than actually spending time with their children, no.
By this he meant a substantial number of children arriving at reception classes not able to recognise their own names, hold a pen, recognise the words stop or no or go to the toilet unattended.
He suggested a structured learning system, though play, could be used to teach these basic skills drawing for example to teach children how to use a pen m
He then suggested that in some cases a school would possibly be better at doing this than an child minder or private nursery.
Nothing about frog marching a child to school at two to learn maths, which is how it has been translated.
The Finnish example of starting school at seven is often quoted, but their education system is set up differently to ours. Formal education starts at 7, but nearly all parents send their children to some form of formal, structured learning through play to "learn how to learn" most from age 3 but a substantial number from 8 months.
The Finns have recognised (as other countries) that the vast majority of brain development occurs before school age and they harness that.
This sort of stuff should be what parents do automatically and most (or a lot) do. The children who are not getting this early support and encouragement are at a distinct disadvantage when they start school and more often than not they lag behind for their whole school career.
It isn't the children that need 'educating' - it's the parents. Too many people have kids and do very little to help, encourage and stimulate them. There should be parenting classes.
No...its totally ridiculous.
There is no set rules on how parents should bring up their kids is there.and there should not be any set rules on parenting as everyone is an individual who has their own ideas on how bring up their own kids,
That option should only be available if you can afford it. It shouldn't be a right that the state pays your bills while you stay at home.
IDS could well abolish state funds for parents because cutting benefits from parents who "should only have children if they can afford them" is a very popular soundbyte with voters they'll be wishing to woo for a 2015 Tory majority come the next election. Labour too.
Thinking long-term, though, a well fed/clothed/educated/happy child is probably better for this country.
you had to mention IBS didn't you. That's me in a bad mood for the rest of the day!