Should children start school aged two?

AnnaliseZ · 03/04/14 - 10:10

I'm not into this at all.

http://news.sky.com/story/1236249/children-should-start-school-from-age-of-two

annette kurten · 03/04/14 - 10:11

no, i`m very uncomfortable with it.

cjsmummy · 03/04/14 - 10:17

Absolutely not! I have a two year old and she's coming on in leaps and bounds (health visitor's words), she's far too little for school. Personally I think my five year old could havedone with another year before he started school (four at the time).

spanglerokapi · 03/04/14 - 10:17

I can only assume that the head of Ofsted is a pal of that derange ****wit Gove. No, children shouldn't be in a structured education system until they are at least five. It is bad enough that now it is expected that children should go to nursery, let them have a childhood for goodness sake. Any failings in the education system of this country are the results of successive governments meddling with it and nothing to do with the children.

Pandora 9 · 03/04/14 - 10:17

I think 2 years is far too young to start an education. My own son was just 4 when he started school and he couldn't even fasten his own trousers so I had to get him a pair with an elasticated waist. Every time I collected him from school he would have his shirt hanging out and his jumper on back to front. Bless him....

mildredhubble · 03/04/14 - 10:18

Let's just hand them over to the state at birth, much easier

Pisces Cloud · 03/04/14 - 10:20

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.

juliancarswell · 03/04/14 - 10:22

I think they should go straight from the bith canal into school. That way they will get the full 18 yrs preperation training for the life of a corporate drone/consumer that will be their next 70 yrs.

mildredhubble · 03/04/14 - 10:22

Dan Fortesque wrote: »

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 all about is child-care and getting more people into work.

We need parents in full time work as soon as we can, slaves to the state

AnnaliseZ · 03/04/14 - 10:24

Dan Fortesque wrote: »

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 all about is child-care and getting more people into work.

I think they start at 6 or 7 in Finland - and yes, does them no harm whatsoever.

If children in this country aren't getting the best opportunities to develop in this country then I'd say there's a bigger picture to look at - not just shove them into school earlier and take away their entire childhood.

shelleyj89 · 03/04/14 - 10:25

Two? That's ridiculous. When I was at school, I did my work experience ion the nursery of a primary school. This was three and four years olds, and they were treated like children of school age, and you could tell most of them couldn't cope with it yet. I couldn't imagine two years olds trying to cope with it.

designer84 · 03/04/14 - 10:27

Two is way too young for kids to be starting school. Let them be kids. The problem (I think) is that the Govt & Ofsted continually tinker with the education system. Every year there is some sort of change. They never let the new ideas settle and it means constant changes for teachers in the curriculum. it's like someone keeps moving the goal posts. There is too much emphasis on exams and personally I think there are too many exams/tests handed out throughout the years, especially the early years of school

AnnaliseZ · 03/04/14 - 10:30

Article from last year outlining recommendations for children to delay the start of education until they're 6 or 7 and warning that they current system causes damage.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418281/Children-start-school-age-seven-say-education-experts.html

Absolutely ludicrous to suggest starting them at 2.

annette kurten · 03/04/14 - 10:31

the move away from parental nurturing is very disturbing and seems rather incompatible with the idea of the inclusion of emotional neglect [rightly] in child abuse laws. it`s not like there`s no research on the subject of parental separation damage.

Watcher #1 · 03/04/14 - 10:36

annette kurten wrote: »

the move away from parental nurturing is very disturbing and seems rather incompatible with the idea of the inclusion of emotional neglect [rightly] in child abuse laws. it`s not like there`s no research on the subject of parental separation damage.

You can't be introducing evidence in to Government policy. Everyone knows the best way to run a country is based on ideology, not careful consideration of those pesky facts.

gashead · 03/04/14 - 10:51

Two seems to me to be far too young to start a formal education, but I see no problem with, as he's quoted as saying "....a discrete early years setting which teaches them the skills they need to start school," , although it doesn't say what 'subjects' they're taught or how discretely. A kid that knows the alphabet, can count to, say, twenty, and has a good grasp of reading will likely get on at school better than a kid who's had no exposure to the three Rs. Having said that, I think four's too young to start school in the first place, so maybe the Govt. could also look at that.

justatech · 03/04/14 - 10:59

It depends on what the children will be doing. Most two year olds go to play group. They learn to socialise with other children and gain skills needed for school such as learning to listen and follow instructions.

Although most parents are good at teaching their children this sort of thing many of them simply don't. And the result is that by the time the children get to school they are already behind their peers.

Bringing all children into a stimulating environment should help all children to be better prepared for school regardless of their background.

lightdragon · 03/04/14 - 11:06

So the solution to poor children being far behind their rich counterparts when it comes to starting school is not to help poverty in any way, but to make kids start at 2?

Isn't this just a covering the cracks approach?

Summer Breeze · 03/04/14 - 11:12

Mine all went to play school/nursery at aged 2, but that was part time for 3 hours only on a morning.
It was a form of cheap child care for me as I was working part time back then.
I feel the thrived on attending play school.
It was not just play as the leader there was an ex primary school teacher.

I know all kids are different and have different needs, but IMO proper school at aged 2 is way too early.

CravenHaven · 03/04/14 - 11:12

I love this. Has "Sir Michael" even met a two-year old
I think I was still gummily biting people at two... Unless it's a nursery for pit-bulls, I would say no. As for the square block in the square hole, it would probably instead have gone in your face.
Still, statistics say if you get enough two-year olds on typewriters, they might eventually knock up "50 Shades Of Grey"

Alex_Davies1973 · 03/04/14 - 11:13

the younger they are, it be easier to program them.

justatech · 03/04/14 - 11:15

lightdragon wrote: »

So the solution to poor children being far behind their rich counterparts when it comes to starting school is not to help poverty in any way, but to make kids start at 2?

Isn't this just a covering the cracks approach?

It's not just poor kids who fall behind. Kids of working parents dumped in nursery for twelve hours a day can also lose out on developing skills as well.

How do you suggest helping poverty? Parents have far more money given to them by the state than ever before in the form of benefits and tax credits and child care allowances and yet children are less prepared for school than ever. So money is not the answer.

lightdragon · 03/04/14 - 11:23

justatech wrote: »

It's not just poor kids who fall behind. Kids of working parents dumped in nursery for twelve hours a day can also lose out on developing skills as well.

How do you suggest helping poverty? Parents have far more money given to them by the state than ever before in the form of benefits and tax credits and child care allowances and yet children are less prepared for school than ever. So money is not the answer.

I didn't say I had the solution, and throwing money is probably the wrong answer. There must be reasons, for example family size, education of the parents, things that would put children behind in the first place.

Children entering school at 4 is young, and some children love early start programs, some don't. It's a step up from the TV parenting your child, but it would have to be optional, and might have negative consequences to those children that just aren't ready to be in that environment at such an early age.

justatech · 03/04/14 - 11:37

lightdragon wrote: »

I didn't say I had the solution, and throwing money is probably the wrong answer. There must be reasons, for example family size, education of the parents, things that would put children behind in the first place.

Children entering school at 4 is young, and some children love early start programs, some don't. It's a step up from the TV parenting your child, but it would have to be optional, and might have negative consequences to those children that just aren't ready to be in that environment at such an early age.

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?

Alex_Davies1973 · 03/04/14 - 11:41

What next having to make kids go to after school activities and be on a sports team

Stormwave UK · 03/04/14 - 11:42

I think they should.

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.

Maybe even one to be honest. Mine could talk some words at one, that should be enough for formal education.

Hey there!

Quick Links

Should children start school aged two?

Comments