Nurseries not preparing children for school!

What gets me is those parents that don't take responsibility for teaching their kids life skills as well as academic ones just make their own lives harder, surely?
You've got kids - surely you find being an active parent as exhausting as I do?

Would be much easier to stick them in front of the telly all day and feed them pot noodles and biscuits
 
You've got kids - surely you find being an active parent as exhausting as I do?

Would be much easier to stick them in front of the telly all day and feed them pot noodles and biscuits

Well yes, but it's great that, for example, when I'm up to my elbows in food cooking dinner she'll just take herself off to the toilet and deal with it herself, unless it's a poo...

Though i guess the kind of parent who doesn't potty train their kid probably isn't overly hot on changing nappies regularly either.
 
Did you read the bit where I said "as a group" in the middle of the bit you quoted?

It's not a generalisation, it's a fact. Individuals may fall outside the average, but "as a group" they under-perform.

I didn't miss that at all.

You said as a group they underperform, I said they don't.

And besides, the "starting group" at reception isn't static thorugh all school years - you get kids transitioning in and out of the group as they travel through the school system as family circumstances change - i.e. a dad loses his job, kids now entitled to free school meals - now that kid enters the "disadvantaged" group and attracts a pupil premium and another transitions out of the "disadvantaged" group because they get adopted into a nice stable family etc.

As I said before, we as a country are actually ranked very highly in taking "disadvantaged" groups and working miracles with them compared to other countries, but it's often at the expense of other groups - there are only so many resources available and atm they are primarily dedicated to those "disadvantaged" groups. A school in inner London for example will get four times the funding per pupil and the best trained teachers (because they pay "golden hellos") compared to a "well to do" school and yet achieve a similar outcome in exam results.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Three-year-olds should be allowed to enjoy life. In general, their curiosity leads them to the learning when they are ready, although there's nothing wrong with a little push and direction. Note the word little in that last sentence.

The worst kids I know, personality-wise, have been pushed hard from birth, with tutors and the like.

At 3 one of the things I enjoyed most was reading, and learning. I was a curious child and was able to learn, so I did it completely out of choice. I got a huge amount of reading, and I got to spend time with my Father, who was teaching me, who worked long hours. He'd teach me from when I woke up (at 5am, for some reason) until he left for work, and before I went to primary school I was reading full books and had a reading age of about 11. I am very fortunate to have supportive parents, even though I've felt that they pushed me in the wrong direction sometimes.

I'm not saying this is the way forward for everyone, but the point is that some children enjoy learning, and are very curious. If they want to learn, then they should be enabled to do so. Realistically, I think children of that age should do what they want and enjoy freedom while they can. If they want to read, then so be it.
 
[FnG]magnolia;26109682 said:
It's astonishing that kids can grow up with such open minds given the closed state the parents often occupy.

I've found that because of my father's mindset, politics etc, I have the opposite views on quite a number of things to him. As I get older, the gap closes a little, but I think that's me just moving away from idealism and ideas of utopia.
 
I didn't miss that at all.

You said as a group they underperform, I said they don't.
Right. They do though. They really do.
http://www.poverty.org.uk/26/index.shtml?2
(graph 3)

And besides, the "starting group" at reception isn't static thorugh all school years - you get kids transitioning in and out of the group as they travel through the school system as family circumstances change - i.e. a dad loses his job, kids now entitled to free school meals - now that kid enters the "disadvantaged" group and attracts a pupil premium and another transitions out of the "disadvantaged" group because they get adopted into a nice stable family etc.
Probably worth looking up "statistically insignificant"

As I said before, we as a country are actually ranked very highly in taking "disadvantaged" groups and working miracles with them compared to other countries,
We aren't - we are a middle ranked country by that metric:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26015532
BBC Article said:
...ranking developed countries in terms of how well 15-year-olds performed in tests in reading, maths and science.
This showed the UK as a middle-ranking country, with Asian school systems, such as in Singapore, South Korea and Shanghai and Hong Kong in China, as the highest performers.

...but it's often at the expense of other groups - there are only so many resources available and atm they are primarily dedicated to those "disadvantaged" groups. A school in inner London for example will get four times the funding per pupil and the best trained teachers (because they pay "golden hellos") compared to a "well to do" school and yet achieve a similar outcome in exam results.
There doesn't HAVE to be "only so many resources". We can choose to increase funding for education, if we don't get resistance from those who believe "failings are on parents, and society shouldn't have to pick up the tab".

Society benefits from NOT having an uneducated, disconnected underclass. Including in monetary terms.
 
Last edited:
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?

Please don't be disappointed if you feel that your child backslides over the course of the first 3 years.

We had our boy at about the level you have yours at, and he went straight downhill as soon as he started school, no matter what we did.
 
My Daughter just turned 3. I taught her the alphabet probably a year ago. She can count upto about 14. She's only just started to use the potty but she can't spell her own name or dress her self. Does that make me a bad parent ? Who decides what is best for a child ? Surely variety in children is what's best for the future. Tackling bad parents I believe would have more of an impact on children than how a nursery structures it self I believe.

At the moment with my own daughter I haven't wanted to push her because I believe she should have the right to play more before nursery and school but I would hope they did set her up for school better through nursery. My thinking is if you care about your children they're very likely to do well. I'll have a better understanding of what she needs to achieve once she's in nursery. Being able to pick up a pencil and draw isn't one of them at least.

It's the poor families that let their kids get on with it that need the most help. The best thing for those would be boarding school
 
You've got kids - surely you find being an active parent as exhausting as I do?

Would be much easier to stick them in front of the telly all day and feed them pot noodles and biscuits

Easier, yes, but not the right thing to do. I think new parents should get lessens in parenting. This is what their parents would have used to have done (I got my parenting advice from my mum and dad) but the family unit isn't what it once was.

[FnG]magnolia;26109682 said:
It's astonishing that kids can grow up with such open minds given the closed state the parents often occupy.

Thankfully children are more than the sum of their parts.
 
[...]before I went to primary school I was reading full books and had a reading age of about 11.

I'm sorry, but if that's true then you are a genius, my friend. So what exactly are you doing wallowing in here with these writhing, dribbling freaks? Get out while you can!
 
Back
Top Bottom