To think nursery age children don't need to be "school ready"

[adsy]

Beyond being toilet trained, able to put on shoes/coats and recognising very simple numbers and shapes.
Head of OFSTED says that nurseries and childminders are failing children as they are not getting them school ready. he thinks there should be more structured learning for 2 and 3 year olds.
I am a childminder and see my role at that age is to ensure children can sit attentively for a few minutes, can use a knife and fork etc.
As it happens, I do also make sure I do lots of reading/ number games/ colour recognition etc. but I disagree that this should be in a structured environment as he suggests.
He says the good nurseries are those attached to schools, dismissing the thousands of excellent nurseries and childminders around the country.
I think that children already start school very young and if they only start to learn simple arithmetic at 4 yo, then so be it.
2 and 3 yos should be learning through play, the word structured fills me with dread in relation to what are essentially toddlers.

It's nuts :( I really despair. I was originally planning to homeschool but my daughter was in a really lovely pre-school and has enjoyed year R. If it goes too far target driven it might be tempting. I'm already wondering about it for year 6.

I just don't see WHY he is constantly avoiding the voice of educators and EYFS workers. He just wants to replicate his pre-prep (presumably starting at 3) setting but that's not nec best for everyone. I specifically avoided a school nursery as it wasn't what I wanted for my child!

Glen I got round that by putting a basket of a Ikea flannels and a bin in the loo.Kids used a flannel to dry their hands which then went in the bin to be washed later.

Mad I know but it keeps the inspectors happy.

They grudgingly admitted on the radio this morning that perhaps some private and voluntary sector nurseries were just about OK.

Very pleased to hear that our Outstanding, massively over-subscribed workplace nursery might be all right.

The paranoid side of me wonders if this is also a ploy to make sure no families can have 2 working parents - because if there are only school preschools, which sometimes start at age 2, or sometimes age 3, but which only run school hours and school terms, it's pretty damn difficult to work a normal office job, let alone anything involving commuting/occasional early starts/late finishes.

But it is true that thousands are failing. He has the facts and figures. Many children are not ready when they start school.

I work in a year R class. The difference when a child has been to a good nursery/childminder and those who haven't, is astounding. It puts them at a HUGE disadvantage. If you can't hold a pencil/crayon, listen for a few minutes, follow an instruction, go to the loo on your own, you are at a HUGE disadvantage. There are 2 adults for around 28 children, that child is always going to be trying to catch up.

It makes me angry that people would complain that not all children deserve the same start in life.

"He also said that 1000s of non-schol settings are failing children and that parents ("mostly parents with money") are raising children who can do these things. If that is not ignorant and prejudiced, I don't know how else to describe it."

It's not prejudiced if it's true. Lower socio-economic groups on the whole do worse than those with money. There are plenty of reasons for that but it's not prejudicial to point it out.

Incognito, he meant before they start school, so he was talking about 4 year olds.

I heard this being discussed on R4 this morning and was ing loudly at the radio.

I think if children are starting school unready for it then it is a pretty good sign that they're starting school too early and not an indication that they haven't received adequate preparation for it.

But then, imho we send children into full time education too young anyway.

Why not start making school 'uniform' babygrows and drop them off at the nearest school on the way back from the labour ward.

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

That means they can't hold a pen, they have poor language and communication skills, they don't recognise simple numbers, they can't use the toilet independently and so on.

Actually doesn't sound like he's asking for that much - though holding a pen and number recognition doesn't sound vital at that age or something that can't be picked up at school.

Have to say while the school nursery was great for my younger two DC - if they had been less well prepare the council run nursery attached to local children's centre would have been better environment - much more tolerant of toilet training needs with facilities set up there - school nursery didn't have them - and much more able to support entire family with the services of children centre.

Even so I know a staff member who retired from the council nursery - she told me obviously they'd wanted to prove how much they were improved the DC but when they did measures against their criteria biggest factor was the DC birthdates not attendance levels at their nursery.

Sir Michael added: "The corollary of not preparing children well for school is that they don't do well in reception and, if they don't do well in reception, they don't get on at key stage one, they find it difficult to read at seven, they fail at the end of primary school and that failure continues into secondary school.

^^THIS is the problem. Falling behind a at a young age shouldn't continue into secondary school.

My DC have fallen behind hit problems in reception and key stage 1, eldest has few issues in ks2. Their biggest asset is one parent not working flat out who is willing to provide help and support and has time to do so to them so they catch up.

The school does provide some support - but often my DC were struggling but not enough as others were much worse. I think smaller class sizes and more support would help here.

Headlines like this don't help push the responsibility back onto parents to make sure their DC have basic skills.

It seems like an eminently sensible approach to me. Why on earth would you not want all children to start school being able to fulfill their potential? There is a lot of hysteria over this and general misinformation, just as there always seems to be when we talk about raising attainment and achievement levels in schools in the UK.

I agree with the poster upthread who said they hate what is happening to education in this country. Where's the joy in discovering new things gone? Where's the fun? The creativity? Learning through experience? And that's not just for the kids, what about the poor teachers too - job satisfaction? Long term career prospects?

I have DD1(7) and DD2 (4). As far as I was concerned, getting them ready for school meant:

• making sure they could dress themselves
• able to take themselves to the toilet and wash their hands
• use a knife and fork and sit down at the table
• sit and listen to simple instructions

NOT

• reading, writing, doing formal maths.
• getting them ready to sit tests.

All this emphasis on formal rote learning drives me mad. All you teachers and CMs on this thread - you sound lovely. Keep doing what you are doing. You will set these children up for life. Governments come and go, education policies come and go, but what you are doing with these children will stay with them for ever.

Re poorly educated staff: that's a massive issue in my home town. There was lots of pushing of academics for those of us considered "too smart" and "too good" for 'trivialities' such as childcare and hair and beauty. Never mind that the former involved rearing the next generation and the latter involved chemicals and the skills of being able to socialise with just about anybody!

There was also the massive stigma in my two schools that if you weren't good enough to get decent gcses, you should go into either the above subjects or have kids I still can't quite believe it yet I heard many teachers and adults say it! And still hear it when I go home!

I heard him on Radio 4 and I found him infuriating. He was challenged on the fact that his own inspectors think that private nurseries and childminders are up to scratch as 80% of them get good or outstanding ratings. His response? "Well I think we have to review how strictly we're applying the criteria"

To me it sounded very much like he's decided he only likes pre-school nurseries so he's going to tighten criteria on the non-school settings to try to drive them out.

And he was willfully ignoring the importance of play based learning as well - a child playing with a sandpit is learning about physics and volume and cause and effect and object permanence in a far better way than could be taught at that age.

We should give birth, put the babies straight into little uniforms and get them to practice sitting at a desk and putting their hands up before they cry.

This debate gives me a desire to hit early years bureaucrats over the head with a Fireman Sam annual. I mean, have they ever MET a two or three year old?

I suspect this is like phonics all over again. They're having to introduce note structure earlier on to catch the poor little ones who aren't taught the basic skills that our 2/3 year olds are. Its a catch-all to try and bring up the one from more disadvantaged backgrounds who, as other have said, they can see time and time again are disadvantaged all the way up to adulthood because of this poor start. but as usual, kids who are doing perfectly well as they are get swept up into it. difficult to know what else they can do as they get caned at the other end for children leaving primary school in disadvantaged areas unable to read and write properly.

I work in a year R class. The difference when a child has been to a good nursery/childminder and those who haven't, is astounding. It puts them at a HUGE disadvantage. If you can't hold a pencil/crayon, listen for a few minutes, follow an instruction, go to the loo on your own, you are at a HUGE disadvantage. There are 2 adults for around 28 children, that child is always going to be trying to catch up.

Or perhaps this just reflects a natural diversity in child development, a natural range of achievements by this age group of children? Maybe the focus should be more concerned with making the Reception Curriculum and settings able to cater adequately for this range?

I feel that childminders and nurseries for three year olds should have seperate systems of inspection. Childminders provide a home from home enviroment which quite rightly is very different to a school. I feel that child minders should be let off the EYFS and learning journals if they enable the child to attend a school nursery without charging the parents for the entire day. A childminder inspection should focuss on quality of care rather than education.

I feel that three and four year olds really benefit from high quality staff with degrees. Degree qualified staff are in a better position to spot special needs. Degree qualified staff know how to organise differentiation through play.

Many school nurseries produce better outcomes with a ratio of 1 to 13. My daughter adored school nursery because of the mental challenge. I found that when my children were in private nurseries/ pre schools that the staff ended up chatting to themselves rather than interacting with the children. There was too much choice about activites.

With under threes having staff chatting to themselves is excellent for the children's development. Children who are learning to speak gain a lot from listening in to adult conversation.

Yanbu, I don't understand what they think they will gain by this?

It's crazy and very, very sad.

nigel no one has said that young children should be doing reading, writing, formal maths , or getting them ready to sit tests.

There is so much made up stuff on this thread.

Hmm. I live in Belgium and my dd's school experience was pretty much as he is suggesting. Teacher led maternelle from age 2.5/3. It was not about formal learning, but gradually building up skills through play. They did lots of arts and crafts, baking, trips, activities to work on their motor skills etc. Basic counting, the alphabet and writing their name was covered in year 3. Dd loved it. The kids do cover all the points mentioned above re. eating, dressing, socialising and using the loo etc.

Obviously here there is all the much later start to formal education. My dd was 6.5 when she started P1. The whole class were used to the classroom and ready to learn. All of them went from 0 to reading by Xmas - free reading by the end of the year. Personally I much prefer this system here to the UK one, but I know it is not for everyone. (there is a 99% take up rate for maternelle though it is not compulsory)

The difference when a child has been to a good nursery/childminder and those who haven't, is astounding. It puts them at a HUGE disadvantage. If you can't hold a pencil/crayon, listen for a few minutes, follow an instruction, go to the loo on your own, you are at a HUGE disadvantage.

Don't the parents play a role in teaching these things?

I work in a year R class. The difference when a child has been to a good nursery/childminder and those who haven't, is astounding. It puts them at a HUGE disadvantage. If you can't hold a pencil/crayon, listen for a few minutes, follow an instruction, go to the loo on your own, you are at a HUGE disadvantage. There are 2 adults for around 28 children, that child is always going to be trying to catch up.

And those children who have been at home with a parent??!! These children are all under 4 FFS they don't need to be in formal learning in order to not 'fall behind'. It totally depends on the child's circumstances.

Cross posts aventurine!

"That means they can't hold a pen, they have poor language and communication skills, they don't recognise simple numbers, they can't use the toilet independently and so on."

Where is the evidence that "structured learning" activities help with most of those though? Surely what's needed is interaction and in the case of things like numbers a bit of simple counting games.

SirChenjin Thu 03-Apr-14 10:09:41
"It seems like an eminently sensible approach to me. Why on earth would you not want all children to start school being able to fulfill their potential? There is a lot of hysteria over this and general misinformation, just as there always seems to be when we talk about raising attainment and achievement levels in schools in the UK."

Of course we all want them to fulfill their potential. It's about whether we believe that the best way to achieve this is to enforce testing of the three 'Rs for 3yos and downgrading nurseries and childminders who do not provide their charges with regular access to computers.

Any polititican can make noises about what they think is unacceptable or what they would like to see done. Those are generally things that no sensible person of any political colour could disagree with.

It's when they start talking about the methods they are going to use to achieve this that you have to listen.

Is it misinformation when childminders and nursery workers come on here to tell us that Ofsted are already downgrading them for aspects that some of us might think would be far more likely to achieve Wilshaw's stated aims?

I think they're definitely going down the wrong path with ICT though, and I say that as an IT professional. you can see the theory, its a technical world now, we've got to get them ready etc, but of they saw how much 8/9/10 y olds ate glued to screens now they'd see there's no rush. I have a 9, 6 and 3 y old and I am quite happy that the 3y old has nothing to do with computer s and phones for now as I see how seductive it is for the older ones and the effort required by parents to make sure they don't overdo it.