Nurseries not preparing children for school!

[snips86x]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26853447

I think this is an interesting article. My son is now 3 and 1/2 and from an early age, we've the time to read to him, as this invoked curiosity into how to speak & to teach him alphanumerics.

Now, he is able to count to 60 in singles, 10's and 20's. He can also recite the alphabet, identify letters in name and form letters into words using visual aids.

Personally, I think they should be doing more teaching in nursery's and preparing them for school. It's not unreasonable and makes educational sense.

What are your views?

 

[Skidder]

I am not so sure. I think the social aspects, learning to be away from parents and be relaxed with other adults and getting a first taste of an institution are all very important. Having fun and being happy in that environment have their merits.

All children are different, my daughter (soon to be 4) is much more interested in learning before school than my son was, coming up to the end of his first year of school and doing well. I didn't force it on him before and I'm glad his nursery didn't.

 

[Xordium]

Learning is not about metrics it's about being able to put knowledge into practice - this is done through play at that age. All the research shows this. Complaining because children don't do what is best for your political flavour rather than what is actually best for them is retarded.

Teaching a child to learn things by rote is pointless if that is all the can do and don't have the ability to apply anything they have learned. Their are enough hoops to go through in life without placing a burden on those so young. The problem is such achievements are often met by thunderous applause of the proud and pushy parents. Strangely enough the countries that provide good educational standards seem to realise this. By good education standards I don't mean getting a narrow demographic to meet narrow goals whilst damning anyone and anything outside the narrow criteria.

The amount of children (to mainly middle-class oh so ambitious for little Johnny parents) I have met, through my own children's schools, who think their kids are going to get a medal because they have achieved this and that is frankly shocking. They beam with pride because little Johnny can recite his 4 times table perfectly - however when you say to little Johnny 'you have 4 ladybirds each having 6 spots, how many spots in total' that little face draws a blank.

Not everyone needs to be or could be an engineer, doctor or literally genius. But by experimenting through play without pressure then everyone can, at an early age, find out what they can and can not do. This is what the evidence shows and what current trend seems to be dismiss for political reasons rather than what is in the best interest of children.

 

[snips86x]

Learning is not about metrics it's about being able to put knowledge into practice - this is done through play at that age. All the research shows this. Complaining because children don't do what is best for your political flavour rather than what is actually best for them is retarded.

Teaching a child to learn things by rote is pointless if that is all the can do and don't have the ability to apply anything they have learned. Their are enough hoops to go through in life without placing a burden on those so young. The problem is such achievements are often met by thunderous applause of the proud and pushy parents. Strangely enough the countries that provide good educational standards seem to realise this. By good education standards I don't mean getting a narrow demographic to meet narrow goals whilst damning anyone and anything outside the narrow criteria.

The amount of children (to mainly middle-class oh so ambitious for little Johnny parents) I have met, through my own children's schools, who think their kids are going to get a medal because they have achieved this and that is frankly shocking. They beam with pride because little Johnny can recite his 4 times table perfectly - however when you say to little Johnny 'you have 4 ladybirds each having 6 spots, how many spots in total' that little face draws a blank.

Not everyone needs to be or could be an engineer, doctor or literally genius. But by experimenting through play without pressure then everyone can, at an early age, find out what they can and can not do. This is what the evidence shows and what current trend seems to be dismiss for political reasons rather than what is in the best interest of children.

I completely see where you are coming from and understand that. However, my view maybe a little bit skewed as my mother-in-law put effort into my son's initial stages of learning, while my wife and I were working, until he started pre-school at 3. Pre-school is obviously different, but I still don't think it would hurt.

There are nurseries in my local area who don't give a monkeys about the children and how they behave. They run riot and are basically ran by the children. Numerous warnings from Ofsted have said they need to clean up their act, but the fact remains, they do no "development" with the children.

Sorry, slightly off track! It wouldn't hurt to put in this effort. Children will do their best to learn and pick-up these skills, but like adults, will loose interest when they've had enough, that's when you stop.

 

[Zethor]

Children should only hear the Word at that age, preferably from their parents. Heaven knows what indoctrination they would be subjected to if nursery workers started reading them blasphemous content.

I prefer Genesis 6:19 and Genesis 7:2 because the stories often feature animals which tend to capture the child's interest.

 

[estebanrey]

Personally, I think they should be doing more teaching in nursery's and preparing them for school.

Yes, especially English grammar

 

[Xordium]

There are nurseries in my local area who don't give a monkeys about the children and how they behave. They run riot and are basically ran by the children. Numerous warnings from Ofsted have said they need to clean up their act, but the fact remains, they do no "development" with the children..

So that is a problem with implementation not methodology. The current goal from the administration is to attack the methodology. It is notable the standards we seem to be aiming for are from Singapore not Sweden.

 

[snips86x]

Children should only hear the Word at that age, preferably from their parents. Heaven knows what indoctrination they would be subjected to if nursery workers started reading them blasphemous content.

I prefer Genesis 6:19 and Genesis 7:2 because the stories often feature animals which tend to capture the child's interest.

Really?? I'd prefer the phrase brainwashed. You cannot subject children to just 1 religious view when there are many. I've been in this situation and while I understand why I was bought in this way, I now disagree. Giving the children freedom of choice for later life is more important. Catholic or Christian, there is no reason to be subjected to just one. Sorry!!

There are plenty of other stories which will capture children's interests. Julia Donaldson has a superb selection of children's books which my son loves and encyclopaedias provide plenty of pictures which capture interest, there are but a few.

Yes, especially English grammar

lol

It's early and I'm on 1/2 day today

 

[glenimp617]

Most people seem to think it's a one size fits all

It's not.....children (especially at this age) develop at different stages. We have a 5 year old and a 3 year old. They have been brought up the same, but our son developed much quicker than our daughter.

He is very good at reading and with numbers, however our daughter struggles as her attention is not quite there yet.

 

[Skidder]

Children should only hear the Word at that age, preferably from their parents. Heaven knows what indoctrination they would be subjected to if nursery workers started reading them blasphemous content.

I prefer Genesis 6:19 and Genesis 7:2 because the stories often feature animals which tend to capture the child's interest.

If this is a joke, it is funny.

 

[estebanrey]

Now, he is able to count to 60 in singles, 10's and 20's.

Genuine question because I don't have kids, not am I a psychologist but if he can count to 60, surely he can count to 99?

It's not the rules suddenly change after 60 and the next number is say 82. Even if he doesn't know the word "seventy" he must be able to get to 69?

 

[Mr Jack]

I don't think having an opinion on this is worthwhile; instead, I'd like to know whether there's evidence either way. I'd be surprised if there was much evidential support for earlier schooling since the UK already starts schooling really early by international standards and shows no obvious educational advantage over countries such as Finland and Germany (which start at 7).

 

[Xordium]

Genuine question because I don't have kids, not am I a psychologist but if he can count to 60, surely he can count to 99?

It's not the rules suddenly change after 60 and the next number is say 82. Even if he doesn't know the word "seventy" he must be able to get to 69?

I think this goes back to my point. It is because he hasn't learned the rules - he has learned the sequence. Therefore, he can recite something parrot fashion but can't apply it in context. Therefore, we have to question the usefulness.

 

[Xordium]

I don't think having an opinion on this is worthwhile; instead, I'd like to know whether there's evidence either way. I'd be surprised if there was much evidential support for earlier schooling since the UK already starts schooling really early by international standards and shows no obvious educational advantage over countries such as Finland and Germany (which start at 7).

There is a wealth of evidence. Whether you chose to accept it depends on your criteria for 'early schooling'. If you define it as formalised and structured then you won't find any. If you define it as freeform and play centred then you have an abundance. It really depends on what you consider 'schooling' to be.

 

[Mr Jack]

There is a wealth of evidence.

Cool, what does it say?

 

[snips86x]

Genuine question because I don't have kids, not am I a psychologist but if he can count to 60, surely he can count to 99?

It's not the rules suddenly change after 60 and the next number is say 82. Even if he doesn't know the word "seventy" he must be able to get to 69?

I think this goes back to my point. It is because he hasn't learned the rules - he has learned the sequence. Therefore, he can recite something parrot fashion but can't apply it in context. Therefore, we have to question the usefulness.

Not entirely true!

If you are teaching children, you are bound by their interest in the subject. Children get bored and will inevitably give up or in some cases, beat themselves up for missing something of doing it wrong.

The '60' was a typo, sorry and is only really an example but this isn't really about my son, it's about the education system for those of 2 years +

 

[Xordium]

Cool, what does it say?

In short that children are best left at younger ages (6-7 and less) to explore the world and learn of their own devices rather than be directly led. Let me give you an example, getting their children to recite colours and how the are made from their composite ones through verbal iteration or by reading from a book may well be better served by giving their kids with a loads of paints and letting them work it out on their own and accepting they will end up making brown most of the time. Anyone who has kids knows their attention spans are short and directly guided anything over long durations is a rather futile exercise.

 

[Mr Jack]

In short that children are best left at younger ages (6-7 and less) to explore the world and learn of their own devices rather than be directly led. Let me give you an example, getting their children to recite colours and how the are made from their composite ones through verbal iteration or by reading from a book may well be better served by giving their kids with a loads of paints and letting them work it out on their own and accepting they will end up making brown most of the time. Anyone who has kids knows their attention spans are short and directly guided anything over long durations is a rather futile exercise.

I like it when reality matches up to my prejudices

 

[Xordium]

If you are teaching children, you are bound by their interest in the subject. Children get bored and will inevitably give up or in some cases, beat themselves up for missing something of doing it wrong.

Which is why they are best left to explore and not be directed into meeting the targets and goals of measurement that may or may not be applicable to that individual child at such an early age. The goal of the external audits eg OFSTED are to check on the quality of the provision not the quality of attainment. Attainment will be a product of both the education establishment and the families to which the children belong.

 

[wesimmo]

We've tried to focus less on teaching our 3 year old what we think she should be doing and let her lead us, so for example 6 months ago she started taking an interest in the time, so we bought games to play around that

Just yesterday she surprised me by spelling her own name phonetically, though i suspect she's learnt that by rote, it did give us the catalyst to start her writing her own name.

The biggest thing though is we don't over praise her for being right or go overboard in telling her when she's wrong, we give her more praise for trying things and sticking at things when they don't go right first time. We believe that trying to give her values like that will give her the right attitude to learning/life in general.