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.

Why are people constantly referring to formal learning

Ofstead haven't mention it, they are talking about structured leaning, which is very different.

I think kids could easily learn more basics earlier but in a fun way. We are so odd in this country about academic ambition, of course aggressive solemn rote learning is not what I would like.
We all know there is academic pressure that leads to robotic students and vulnerable stressed young people (eg Japanese suicide rate)
But, I think kids can learn far more earlier painlessly through play. I would aim for kids learning numbers and basic phonics so early that they get no whiff of being 'behind' or in a race. My experience of early reading has made me wonder whether a child needs to learn without knowing they are learning. There is a whole subconscious aspect to reading which makes it more organic and less conscious. The moment my son felt pressure to read or decode he lost his confidence and it was a slow trudge towards literacy. With dd I made sure she knew her letters & sounds so young that she feels always very confident around letters. I have thought its a bit like skiing, those amazing kids who ski brilliantly often started super early before fear and hesitation can do their destructive work. I think earlier through fun is much better.
Clearly this won't work for all but I bet it would set a lot of boys up for a much easier time in primary. The seven children in my dd's literacy and numeracy set (they are the group doing more advanced work) are all from homes which introduced literacy and numeracy very young through play. Most teachers despite what they may say in policy, seem, In my experience, to start really early.
Japanese kids seem to have several 'alphabets' while we're still going slowly and carefully with our ambitions. Surely there is a middle way?

Sorry cory that wasn't meant to be an attack on anyone. I'm not disputing that children develop at different rates, or that some have SN that will affect where they are developmentally at the start of school.

It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of these disadvantaged children are only behind because they haven't had enough input from a parent or another adult to help them develop the necessary skills, and that starting school without them is likely to disadvantage them throughout their school career.

I would say structured learning includes any activity that an adult plans with a learning intention. It's pretty much the same as adult led learning I think. It can be very different from formal learning, although you can if you want to make it formal. Not read the full report yet but I haven't yet seen anything that says Wilshaw is equating using structured learning synonymously with formal learning or rote learning.

• baking
• taking a walk in the local area and drawing children's attention to the things around them
• making a fruit salad
• visit to a local farm
• singing counting songs/rhymes
• playing counting games
• counting objects around us
• reading to a child/group of children and talking about the story

All things I would suggest are structured learning, and things I would imagine lots of MNers do with their own children without turning them into rote learning robots.

ReallyTired I agree with pretty much everything you've said, particularly with regard to better qualified staff and removing a lot of the EYFS requirements from childminders.

Knowing a lot or reception teachers I think theproblem is when children satrt school without being toliet trained, being able to get dresses/undress, eat lunch unaided and are not able to sit and pay attention.

The teachers think the reading writing etc should be left to them once the child starts school.

If the new take is that this is all about children being given the practical skills to cope with the next stage in life- toilet training, pen holding, apple eating, story listening etc- then presumably new instructions will go out to Ofsted to stop fussing about IT provision and reading, and to give outstanding grades to those nurseries and childminders who focus on practical hands-on learning.

That would be a very positive development and I would be delighted to see it. But it is not what is happening at the moment.

And seriously, how many nurseries and childminders do you think there are out there who are not already working on toilet training and pen holding?

Is there not a very good chance that those children who arrive at school unable to do these things have either not attended a childminder/nursery setting at all, or have some slight developmental delay?

Ime the majority would be most likely to be the children of dysfunctional, ill or depressed parents who have not been enrolling them in any setting of this kind. And those are children you won't get at by increasing regulation of nurseries and childminders.

I absolutely hate, hate, hate the fact that littlies are being forced to learn and criticised for not knowing enough. They are children, for crying out loud - there is plenty of time for them to learn. Let them play and enjoy their childhood - this really does drive me mad.

When my daughter was at nursery I was pulled to one side and told "She doesn't know enough shapes" (at age 3 she apparently wasn't able to recognise a star). Well, she's 21 now, and guess what - she knows her shapes. Amazing, isn't it? My son was criticised for not being able to write his name when starting school (he was only just four, and dyslexic). He's now 18 and guess what - he can write his own name (and more). Truly amazing!!

Children learn at their own pace - just let them be children. Grrrr!

I agree with you mrs regarding introducing things at a young age.

I put a number square to 100 up on dds bedroom wall when she was 3. She would ask me to say the numbers with her, she then started pointing the patterns etc. she was alway a whizz at numbers. There was no reason at all for her to wait until she got to school.

I did the same with letters of the alphabet.

bakingtins Thu 03-Apr-14 10:41:04
"Sorry cory that wasn't meant to be an attack on anyone. I'm not disputing that children develop at different rates, or that some have SN that will affect where they are developmentally at the start of school.

It doesn't alter the fact that a lot of these disadvantaged children are only behind because they haven't had enough input from a parent or another adult to help them develop the necessary skills, and that starting school without them is likely to disadvantage them throughout their school career."

I totally get it. But if they don't have that input from an adult, then they are probably not at nursery or at a childminder's. And in that case, how would more regulation of those places which they are not attending help them? Or are we actually going to make state childcare obligatory?

I think it's reasonable to expect a child to be able to do the basics in terms of social behaviour. But even with Reception age children there is a vast difference between the youngest and oldest in a class in terms of their 'readiness' to embark on formal learning - even six months can make a huge difference - and some children don't get to that point until they are even older. I agree that most childminders/nurseries (at least the ones I've seen) do a pretty good job anyway. However, on a recent MN thread one poster stated that her child's nursery class had recently increased from 20 to 40 - I assume the staff ratio has increased too but it's hard to see in that setting how there can be much actual learning going on.

I do tend to bang on about schools in Finland but there they start primary school at seven and aren't their schools the best in the world?

OK excuse I should have said structured learning but that wasn't my point.

You stated that 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.

I was simply asking does is apply to children who have been at home with SAHP? As I'm sure you didn't mean it to come across that way, but like PP it seems increasingly that the government does! Obviously in some cases the child is better off in nursery than at home but not in most cases

I heard the interview too.

He actually said school ready was things like being able to go to the toilet, doing up shoes, being able to listen for a while, knowing some colours/numbers, how to hold a pencil/crayon etc.

I'd say that every single poster here agrees with what is actually being said. And disagreement is with an invented straw man.

Come to think of it, ds' CM did get a bit stressed when she found he didn't know the word for a goat's babies, because that was on her list of what children ought to know at his age.

I refrained from pointing out that there aren't all that many goats in our urban neighbourhood and that a 2yo who can tell a male from a female mallard probably doesn't have a problem with his animal-related cognitive skills.

Cory, I actually do think that some sort of state childcare pre-primary school should be obligatory - not at the age of two though! - and with an emphasis on teaching social skills rather than formal learning.

There are children who do not learn unless there is structure. In a room offering lots of activities my son wanders about getting more and more distressed. I realise that he is in the minority but the typical pre school and early years environment doesn't cater for children like him.

meditrina Thu 03-Apr-14 10:48:53
"I heard the interview too.

He actually said school ready was things like being able to go to the toilet, doing up shoes, being able to listen for a while, knowing some colours/numbers, how to hold a pencil/crayon etc.

I'd say that every single poster here agrees with what is actually being said. And disagreement is with an invented straw man."

I'd say disagreement stems from earlier experience of the difference between what is being said and how this actually works out in practice.

If what really follows from this is that Ofsted inspectors will encourage nurseries to work hard on practical skills and expand their range of such activities, ditching the computers and the testing, then I shall be delighted. So will most of us. But that isn't how it's gone in the past.

What we have seen in the British school system over the last few decades is very similar language translating into a constant overreliance on more and more tests. If Michael Wilshaw intends to put a stop to this, then I shall be all for it.

agree

Why on this issue wont they/cannot they look at what every other fucking country in the EU are doing????

really sad

"I absolutely hate, hate, hate the fact that littlies are being forced to learn and criticised for not knowing enough."

It makes a real difference for a child if special needs are picked up and help given at an early age. For example if a child has severe glue ear then it will be next to impossible for them to read with phonics. Surely its good for a nursery teacher to spot that a child struggles with listening and arrange a hearing test. Grommets or hearing aids can might a dramatic different to a child's speech and general happiness.

"I put a number square to 100 up on dds bedroom wall when she was 3. She would ask me to say the numbers with her, she then started pointing the patterns etc. she was alway a whizz at numbers. There was no reason at all for her to wait until she got to school. "

I feel that wider aspects of education are far more important than numeracy or literacy in the early years. A number line can be incorpoated in child initated play with skill into a role play area. Or you can have numbered spaces to park bikes in or play number games. Learning at this age needs to be concrete before you can move to the abstract.

Ofsted's press release says Pre-school children from poorer backgrounds need the support of professionally trained teaching staff to stop them falling behind as soon as they reach school age (my emphasis). That is not what Michael Wilshaw focussed on in the interview I heard.

The press release quotes Wilshaw as saying What children facing serious disadvantage need is high-quality, early education from the age of two delivered by skilled practitioners, led by a teacher, in a setting that parents can recognise and access. These already exist. They are called schools.

To me, the insistence on school-based nurseries seems not to match the previously stated goal. If 78% of settings are doing a good job, then the other 22% need to be improved - we do not need 100% of settings to be school-based.

I agree, it's notabout not string them be children, it's about letting them learn some structural basics before they realise they are learning them, they learn everything through gradual, appropriate exposure through stimulation and fun, most kids can learn loads much younger, some can't but if we want our kids to compete globally we have to sit up and sniff the coffee, we are so scared of pushing kids because of the kids it doesnt suit : but that's crazy to me. Everyone can't be academic but we need To enable the majority to achieve higher levels and then face the challenge of not making the others feel like failures, yes it is uncomfortable but life is uncomfortable and the world is a really tough place so don't we need to respond by helping our kids prepare for the reality rather than how we wish it could be? Our kids won't get jobs in the uk in the future unless we assess the competition realistically. We don't need to ape the competition but we do need to stop saying ' diddums let them be children' . Of course! But we need to be braver and maybe push them a bit through play, that's all I'm suggesting. Personally I also would have them rote learn their time tables!

I'd say that every single poster here agrees with what is actually being said. And disagreement is with an invented straw man

I hope so Meridith.

I''m leaving the thread now as it does all seem a bit pointless.
I expect the thread will go round and round in circles, with the facts of what was actullay said being completely ignored.

Kategod agree with your post.

as am ex cm, and a year I TA who has had 4 kids go through the educational system I think my points would be,

kids learn at different rates,

we start formal teaching of phonics and numeracy far too young, it should be through play always until at least 7,

we are not getting it right if our teens are as unhappy and stressed as studies show,

our EYFS teachers and providers are required to fill out fucking realm of targets and assessments which takes them away fromthe classroom doing hours of PPA time, that's why TAs are employed!!

I was a fucking fabulous CM but got good not outstanding because I too wouldn't out a paper towel dispenser in my toilet at home.. and I only had one lap top for the children to use, infrequently, as personally I felt playing outside and doing craft activities was far more beneficial than screen time.

I could go in but it's too depressing. we havnt got it right. we need to stop treating education like a political football or a personal quest Mr Twat Gove and look at the successful practise from other countries.

and if the vast majority of our kids arnt meeting their targets at 4 then the targets are wrong not the kids!

Absolutely. For various reasons ds1 didn't go to a nursery before he started school. He had absolutely no problems settling down in reception, and did extremely well all the way through primary school. His siblings did go to nursery schools but were in no way advantaged by it - in fact, ds2 had significant problems in picking up literacy and in many ways I think he should really have started school at least a year later.

I def think that pushing letters and numbers to children too soon is counter productive, children need to play, alone and with each other, learn to take turn, socialise, explore, discover, listen. Too much (structured or unstructured 'learning' of letters and numbers) too early I have a problem with. Let children be children and explore their environment. If they learn to be curious, enquisitive, and learn about problem solving on their own - this will make, I believe, much more rounded children, and much more likely to understand the consequence associated with a behaviour.

Having said that, as a childminder, all of the children I have looked after have known their numbers and most letters by 2.5, without ANY formal learning, just through play. Counting up to 10 and being able to recognise digits up to 10, and known many phonic sounds. And learn to count up to ten in French and Spanish. All integrated, without sitting down or (idiotic) worksheets.