to wonder why kids need to be able to read BEFORE starting school

[M3lon]

Just reading this.

I don't get it. Surely if you are in charge of the education system it makes more sense to address the issue of why children that start behind never catch up than to try and work out how to make sure all children start with exactly the same abilities and experiences on day one - which is NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN, because children develop at different rates, are actually different ages when school starts and have starts in life that you can't make even across the board without some major re-plumbing of society as a whole.

AIBU to think the minister for education should focus on fixing the bit he is actually in control of, and make schools somewhere where getting behind doesn't mean you can never catch up?

Believeitornot try telling the government that Children's Centres should be universal. They cut funding so badly that the majority of their classes and groups were for referrals only It's only thanks to volunteers in this area that there are still drop-in stay and play groups which are open for all.

As for rich = can parent and don't need help, and poor = the opposite. I don't think that's what people were getting at, more that those who are employed or have more money can afford to pay for groups. So should therefore go to NCT type classes, leaving the free sessions at the Children's Centres and libraries for those who can't afford it? (They're always packed around here. But I have a suspicion that even if no "middle class" parents went, they'd be empty. Like a lot of the "referral only" classes at the CC).

We're a very bookish upper-middle-class family and my son couldn't read when he started school, because frankly he'd only just turned 4 at the time and wasn't ready to read until nearly 5. It's ridiculous we start education so early in this country.

They don’t. But they absolutely need to be able to speak and listen, and hold a meaningful (age appropriate) conversation.

I know @GoingRogue it’s terrible. As soon as things stop being universal, they just don’t work as well. The previous Labour government at least recognised it (waits for chorus of labour spent all the money etc, while people ignore the global economic crisis and the likes of northern rock)

Echobelly
I agree. I have family in Denmark. My cousins didn't start full tame education until the age of 7, I think (we are not that close so I could be wrong). They did not learn any less than us, they are very bright and have gone on to university. In this country everyone is so desperate to get children into full time education as early as possible.
My son starts, what we call primary this year. The school used to have a settling in period where the children went to school for half days for a few weeks. They had to change this because of the number of complaints from parents that thought they should be in for the full day. My son is 4, he has never been very happy about leaving me. When he goes to school in 3 weeks he will be in full days Monday to Friday. This only changed in the last few years.

I thought the advise was not to teach them to read st Home as chances are you’ll teach one way the school another so it will do more harm than good?

Yes mine had to start full time it was so detrimental to them.

I think one of the reasons some parents are keen to get their child into school is because it's free. Nursery/preschool costs prohibit a lot of women going to work. I believe in Scandi countries pre-school childcare is a LOT cheaper? I have a Finnish friend who said they don't start school until age 7, but if you WANT to work then the govt pay a large chunk of the child care costs?

I think if there was more support and help for parents struggling with the Early Years then they'd enjoy it a bit more, and wouldn't want to rush their kids into Reception. If you're struggling and not confident, maybe you would get to around age 3 and just think "only 12 months and I can hand them over to an expert"? Hence the delayed speech and language/self care skills.

@Timeisslippingaway personally I prefer it that our Infants school only does the first 3 days til lunch, then 9-3 thereafter. My eldest was at a private nursery 8.30 - 6pm, so used to long days. Youngest went to a local forest school 9-3 so again should be fine come Sept. Most of my Mum friends work and find the half-day settling in sessions a massive pain.

As for rich = can parent and don't need help, and poor = the opposite. I don't think that's what people were getting at, more that those who are employed or have more money can afford to pay for groups. So should therefore go to NCT type classes, leaving the free sessions at the Children's Centres and libraries for those who can't afford it? (They're always packed around here. But I have a suspicion that even if no "middle class" parents went, they'd be empty. Like a lot of the "referral only" classes at the CC).

It's not about can v can't parent for me (I gave the example of a free rhyme time session in a mixed area attended mainly by mums from the wealthy bit of town). It's more like - there's this free service which I recognise to be hugely beneficial for my daughter, and so I attend, and I battle to understand why other people who'd benefit more (for example, because they're in an EAL family or don't have space for loads of books or time to scour the charity shops) don't attend.

Time poor? Lack of awareness of the service? Feeling that it's not for them? Lack of a culture of "rhyme time" (my very educated Russian husband still doesn't get it, and thinks it's odd to wave my baby around to Sleeping Bunnies)? Cost to get there? Child won't sit through the class cooperatively? Feeling that the particular songs/stories aren't their thing?

GoingRogue, I too am sure childcare costs in the UK have something to do with the early school starting age. In Germany childcare is heavily subsidised - to a greater or lesser extent depending on state, with parents paying a mostly fairly moderate income-based contribution - and Berlin has just made all pre-school childcare completely free, parents only pay for lunches. Some other states don't charge for the last pre-school year. Then children start school usually somewhere between 5.11 and 6.11 (again, depending on state, there are different cut-off dates - one of mine, Sept baby, went from being one of the oldest in his year in a state with a cut-off date of 31 July to one of the youngest when we moved to a state with a cut-off of 30 Sept).

There is in Germany, and I guess other northern European countries, quite a strong feeling anti formal education before school starts. I was looked on as a bit pushy for gently doing a little bit of Jolly Phonics (in English, so I had a 'legitimate' reason) with mine in the last couple of kindergarten years. (Tbh, I'm not sure how much effect it's had long-term). I find it a bit silly, particularly as it means the entry into school has historically (better now) not been as gentle as it could have been, but I prefer it to people fretting about their 4yos' reading skills and worrying they're 'behind' when it might just be a matter of simple age-appropriate cognitive capability.

I work but from home and my children don't go to out of school care. Exactly my point children are thrown in the deep end to save some parents having to arrange child care for their kids for a few weeks.

A lot of countries start formal schooling at 7 but the children are in high quality eyfs style provision from a really young age (1) for at least a few hours a day. They might not be taught to read for but they do all the pre reading, language stuff through play to a very high level. They are normally with qualified teachers with good ratios.

I think that's what the uk is emulating with its 15 free hours but I doubt we've funded it properly

Singing nursery rhymes with your dc is a great prereading skill and they love it. You can sing while doing other tasks so it can be easily fitted into a busy life.

:They are normally with qualified teachers with good ratios. *

My understanding is that the UK actually has unusually low child:adult ratios in its childcare settings---this is a large part of the reason why it is so expensive.

The Nordic countries have very reasonable children--that's partly due to subsidies, but also because they put up with higher child:adult ratios than we would consider acceptable.

My son has just finished reception and a year ago his teacher was very clear that they didn't expect them to be able to read at all when they started.

Bonus points for being able to write their name, that's all.

A year on, he reads pretty well thanks to a combination of the school and my efforts.

Kokeshi, yes (for Germany anyway). Ratios here would probably be considered unacceptably high in the UK. Just googled for my own state and it's 1:6 for under-threes and 1:11 for three to school age. (In our kindergarten I would say it's a little better than this, plus that doesn't include trainees, who often stay a whole year and are usually quite good). Children rarely start nursery before they're one, because we have state-funded parental leave (67% of net salary/income before the birth) for 12 to 14 months, depending on whether and how the parents share.

(Have to say I am loving your typo with the 'reasonable children' - am imagining incredibly polite Swedish and Norwegian children at nurseries resolving disputes over toys by mutual negotiation and saying 'but yes, Mummy, of course I will turn the TV off and go to bed'

I was enjoying reasonable children too

I was really comparing it to the idea that children don't start school until they are 7 in countries with more successful education systems so I was thinking of the 4-7 year olds specifically and I didn't think it was fair to say they weren't getting an really rounded education that leads to reading.

I still think they have a good ratio if its 1:11 with qualified staff doing activities with them in Germany. The Swedish average for pre-school is 15. I think a reception children can have 1:30 quite a lot of the day

I can see that the childcare end of things it isnt' as good.

Being able to read before starting school age 4 is not necessary - but being able to communicate is. You can also help have you child ready for school by having introduced them to the idea of books, how to hold them, how to turn the pages, the "language conventions" of the pictures, the idea that the black squiggles at the bottom are words and that you read from left to right. These "book handling" skills are learnt, we are not born w them .

Government cutbacks don't help but no amount of SureStart provision is going to make up from those people who spend all day on their phone ignoring their dummied toddler. And ime the "middle classes" don't displace disadvantaged families from things like SureStart, they fill the vacuum left by more deprived families not attending. And SureStart - rather than admitting its not working, reports everything is great cause they've delivered classes in child nutrition (or whatever) to 60 families rather than going back to the drawing board and working out to amend its offer to attract the "right" families. And the "right" families need to get off their arses and engage.

This is about speaking not reading!

So many children arrive in school without the necessary language skills that are precursors to reading. Some are unable to speak in sentences. Many have a very limited vocabulary. This effects their ability to learn to read and write as they are already so far behind their peers.

Why wouldn’t a child enjoy learning to read? Cuddled up with the people who love them most with undivided attention? That’s a beautiful childhood. Children love finding out how letters and language work and they feel great about themselves when they know they can read. And if you want to help them develop interests what better way than through books?

I really disagree with this. I have read to my DS every night since he was 2 days old. We have hundreds of books. He loves stories, loves books, loves learning about science and how things work. However he HATES actually learning to read himself. Its an absolute battle. He has no interest in learning about letters and how language works!

He has just finished reception and is behind most of his classmates because he struggles with reading and writing. Hopefully he's catch up a bit in year 1.

Mia he may well catch up or if he continues to struggle he will be assessed for any problems such as dyslexia. Keep reading, keep talking about the letter sounds when you do so. Encourage drawing as that will improve his fine motor skills which will help him find writing easier. If he does read anything or write anything, give lots of praise.

Also if he likes practical things, perhaps an alphabet jigsaw or similar would appeal to him or online phonics games.I love this site for English and maths.
www.topmarks.co.uk/english-games/5-7-years/letters-and-sounds

My mum taught P1 in Scotland for years. This is about literacy not as in being able to read, but knowing about language and books.

Mum had kids coming into school who didn't know what a book was. Nobody had ever read to them, they didn't know how the pages opened, that you started at the top and read down the page, that the pictures usually had something to do with the words. Those sort of children are clearly at a massive disadvantage to children who have a house packed with books and parents who talk to them and engage with them.

Exactly Polkerris! In Scotland too and I teach English to these very children when they reach secondary level. Many arrive with reading ages of 6-9 years at age 11/12 as they have never caught up or reached their potential due to a lack of a supportive environment.

I am a huge believer in investment in pre school learning. The government ( Uk/ Scottish) need to have foresight and invest heavily in pre school education. This means full time, quality, subsided nursery education for all, so that kids learn to listen,learn through play and forge a love of learning, including language and books. Then start school at age 7.
Take Denmark who have this system, their school results are excellent and after 30 years of investment they are now in the process of making this money back due to the lack of pressure on services such as social work, benefits, policing and hospitals because more people are well socialised, educated and in employment, and therefore paying taxes.

There just needs to be investment and long term thinking.

This is a really interesting topic and it's been fascinating to read people's comments. I think wildbhoysmama is spot on with her comments. Am very sad and shocked to read that there are kids out there who don't know what books are