ZOMBIE THREAD ALERT: This thread hasn't been posted on for a while.
Primary schools at 2 have ofsted lost the plot?(66 Posts)
we have hardly any schools with nursury classes attached from age 3.
cant imagine my 2year old in a school nursery in a school uniform he cant even talk and doesnt keep still for long plus ratios in school are much less than at preschools and day nurseries?
like starting at 4 was not early enough
not keen on all through schools either they be massive.
surly theres better way to support deprived families maybe more toddler groups and one to one help such as play worker?
not to mention we have shortage of school places and cant find places for ones starting school.
Quite. Long term plans to lift these children out of deprivation are more important (but not looking likely based on Coalition's work so far).
School isn't for toddlers.
School a very diffrent environment to preschool/nursery even efys in reception seems more formal and less staff.
I guess its just this nutter womans idea its not been proposed to happen yet.
I have 4year old too whos just missed starting school and she loves preschool/nursury but think she be far too tired in school seen few reception kids peeled off playground /pavement in tiredness latly.
It's not placing them in schools. It's extending the number of nursery places for 2 year olds, and recommending they be in nurseries attached to schools (something that already exists for 3 year olds). As the scheme for funding nursery places for 2 year olds is extended, this just seems like one (pretty sensible) way of providing more places - especially as private nurseries find it hard to break even on the amount of money they get for funded hours.
Why do they need to be in nurseries attached to schools? What has the attached school got to do with it? Is this some cunning way of making it cheaper by robbing Peter to pay Paul? Or are these disadvantaged children in dire need of being alongside older children so that when they turn out to be incredibly bright, having been in an institutionalised setting from an early age rather than hanging around their dysfunctional homes, they can be stretched by having access to The Oxford Reading Tree?... Perhaps we ought to introduce boarding provision for these children, too, so they don't have to go home at all.
I think its to help disadvantaged children. However IMHO I think we need to look at why there seems to be more and more children disadvantaged. Why are people having children and can clearly not look after them - hence the state having to step in.
The schools I know all have their nurseries in separate buildings, or a separate wing of the building, and are (apart from a few set piece occasions) quite separate from the main school. Is that atypical?
If a school has a nursery, why shouldn't it take funded 2 year olds, like private nurseries do? As more 2 year olds become eligible for funding, there will be a need for more places. Why shouldn't they be provided by expanding nursery classes in schools?
Or if 2 year old shouldn't be in nurseries, should funded places be cut for under-3s?
Having them in schools is probably the cheapest option, they can make schools build on playing fields for cheaper than their own site.
If schools are already overcrowded, why add to schools' nurseries???... I agree with OddBoots, it seems to me a bit of a cheap sardines option (cram them in a tiny space and lose almost all space for children to run around outside... it's not as if a primary school generally contains staff qualified to work with 2-year olds, so why add to a school's responsibilities by sending babies (which is what 2-year olds are, really) there?... It would no doubt also increase stress for parents, as they try to institutionalise their children at the age of 2 in the hope this will increase their children's chances of getting a space at the attached primary school, even though they don't actually WANT to send their kids to that sort of environment at age 2.
This is a classic case of the right butt cheek not knowing what the left one is doing, while the arse spews out shit.
These children suffer, and continue to, because the government has cut children services provision. My borough lost loads of children and family centres. They can blame local government but they were cut because of central government cuts.
You cannot "unborn" these children. They are here, they need support. But by cutting benefits and not doing anything about growing unemployment, beyond work placements in pound shops and wasting £ms on the pipe dreams of an idiot
IDS you make things worse.
The only way that the UK can afford qualified teachers for two year olds is to relax the ratios. This was very unpopular when it was first suggested.
My county has quite a few school nurseries for three year olds and they do work well. I believe that there is a case for larger ratios and better qualified staff at three years old. However many two year olds are still in nappies and frankly you manage their basic needs if the ratios for that age group were relaxed.
I have heard the lady interviewed & she didn't say half the things attributed to her.
She's talking about socialising toddlers from socially deprived backgrounds, not teaching them academics. And the schools can do that with clubs & activities oriented towards the right age group, not formal sessions or needing qualified teachers.
I think it's better to talk about whether that's really the remit of schools (to fix socially deprived kids, I mean). I think it's asking too much of schools. And it is pants when you think that what she's describing is what SureStart tried hard to do (but funding since cut). Not always with success, of course; schools aren't going to do what they couldn't.
I also thought this was part of the functions of SureStart. Also children of that age need consistent one-to-one interaction with an adult in order to make progress with language and to make sense of the world. And the more deprived the children the lower the child/adult ratio should be.
"And the more deprived the children the lower the child/adult ratio should be."
No children need quality rather than quanity. An unqualified person will not know how to spot language delays or be able to implement a speech and language programme. A school nursery knows how to set up an IEP to help a child with language delay before the child has seen a speech and language therapist.
That's not something exclusive to school nurseries though of course, ReallyTired. I've known private nurseries, pre-schools and childminders to be just as capable - just as they should be.
"That's not something exclusive to school nurseries though of course, ReallyTired. I've known private nurseries, pre-schools and childminders to be just as capable - just as they should be."
A school nursery and a childminder are like chalk and cheese. This is not necessarily a bad thing as childcare and education are not the same thing. A child could not cope with being in a school nursery for an entire day. Children need time to be relax, play and be children as well as active learning in a more formal enviroment.
have ofsted lost the plot?
I am genuinely astonished that you need to ask.
My DD was in a primary school nursery last year - 25 children, 1 qualified teacher, 2 TAs and floating students on placements.
All of the children coped fine with a full school day, none of them were forced to do anything academic. It was very similar to the private nursery where she was the year before except she wore school uniform and it was free. She then went on to the private nursery until 6pm.
The amount of rubbish people spout about children being deprived of being children etc really annoys me. In many areas - such as Central London where I live - both parents need to work and so rely on nurseries, childminders etc from 8-6.
Frankly most children have a wonderful time - we live in a tiny flat with no outside space, at both nurseries she was socialising with other children all day, running around outside, doing fun art projects and so on. What isn't great about that? Then we spent quality time doing things with her at the weekend.
For children from very deprived backgrounds where they may have multiple siblings, no money, parents without the means to provide a stimulating environment - whether that be due to finances, disabilities, social issues like drug/alcohol abuse etc - what's not to like about the idea? Far better that they are spending the day with responsible adults having fun that being shoved in front of the TV with a bag of crisps.
It will also make it much easier for women to return to work and for families to not have to make the huge sacrifices to pay for the uber-expensive childcare in the early years.
Before they did away with CB for so many people, I always thought it would be better to scrap it entirely and just provide free childcare from 2-4 instead.
FWIW, unless a school is VA, being in the nursery makes zero difference to whether you get a primary place or not.
Meditrina - most of the nurseries in the London primaries I know are in the same school building but have a separate playground area from the other children with age and size appropriate equipment. They also have lots of outside activity tables and so on since the children spend as much time as possible outside during the day.
Meals are eaten in the classroom until the last couple of weeks of the summer term when they have 'transition sessions' to help prepare them for being in a large school environment.
Once a term they also produced an 'Assembly' that was performed in front of the whole school and which parents could attend. I was frankly amazed that not one child burst into tears or ran off the stage. This is in an area with more than 50% of children on FSM and a very high percentage of EAL - not some MC enclave.
Many of the children weren't out of nappies or not consistently dry and the staff coped fine - jut occasional pleas for donations of socks and knickers!
For some reason, many SAHP seem to have a very low expectation of what their children can cope with - or else the 25 children in DD's class and the 30 children in the nursery at DD's primary are all some kind of super-children.
I think you only have to ask, 'Where will they put them?' to realise that this is a soundbite, and is never going to happen.
This, from what I recall, is aimed at helping the most severely deprived children, trying to reach them before the gap between them and more well-off children grows too wide.
Poverty is the real issue here.
The problem will not go away by simply offering a few more nursery slots.
It IS happening! This isn't Ofsted's proposal - it was in Liz Truss's More Great Childcare proposals along with childminder agencies and ratio changes. Everyone got so distracted by the ratio issue, they let the rest slide by without a murmur.
The bill has already been through Parliament. It has been passed to the Lords and has had a reading there.
The proposals, by the way, are for 2 year olds in schools. Whether deprived 2 year olds will continue to be given childminder and nursery places, as they are now, I don't know.
Oh yes! So they have!
We also want to make it easier for schools to be able to offer provision for under- 5s. Countries like France, where children can start at école maternelle infant schools from the age of two, offer a model that is well-established and respected. Many primary schools already have nurseries attached and so provide early years education directly, and around 50% of children’s centres are on school sites. We want to build on this, and remove barriers to schools improving their offer to younger children.
Subject to legislation, we will remove the current requirement for schools to register separately with Ofsted in order to provide for children under three. We will reform the current cumbersome statutory processes for schools to change their age range, to make it easier for them to offer early years provision for two-year-olds.
The development of Early Years Teachers working with our youngest children will make it easier for schools to offer early years education, as the teaching workforce will cover all ages.
I still wonder where we're going to put them!
The funding is available for all pre school settings including playgroups, not just schools.
It isn't formal education, they aren't bringing school down to two year olds. The funding is for all early years settings, not just schools.
They are providing age-appropriate nursery education to 2 year olds whose parents wish to use it. Many children are in private nursery/daycare at that age with parents who can afford it, this is just the same at that but Gov funded.
They aren't proposing teaching anything to 2 year olds that they wouldn't already learn in a home environments. In many ways it is providing a home away from home where children can develop and grow. Some of these children are, sadly, hindered by their home environments due to space/parent's ability/parent's health/not being able to afford any playgroup or support.
Parents in deprived areas are getting more childcare to help them increase their working hours or just to take the strain off busy mothers.
It provides a stimulating, caring environment. The attached to schools means one environment from age 2-11 so follow on care with lots of communication between teachers and the child becomes well known and part of the community. All-through schools have been shown to be very good in areas of deprivation as it means much more follow through and less starting again working out each child's needs.
I can see if it is schooling for 2 year olds, that is ridiculous! But a nursery, caring environment, even just for a few mornings a week should the parent wish to use the service, is (as far as I can see) what they are proposing. I am surprised it is being looked at with such shock considering a number of middle class put their children in similar private nursery environments?
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now
Already registered with Mumsnet? Log in to leave your comment or alternatively, sign in with Facebook or Google.
Please login first.