Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

what if we lowed school age too three year age not five year age.

59 replies

flowers114 · 09/03/2006 23:45

WHAT IF SCHOOL AGE WAS LOWEDTO 3YEAR OLD IN STEAD OF FIVE year old
Do think more MUMS go out work instead of saying house.
Been able TO earn extra money for your shelf.

OP posts:

poppiesinaline · 10/03/2006 10:58

3 is far too young to start school. They need time to learn through 'play' and most reception aged kids (esp the young ones) find school very tiring even at 4 or 5. I think in Sweeden is it or somewhere like that they dont start school til 7 and their GCSE results are better than ours.

Naaah... let them stay home and play and let mums sit on the sofa and watch daytime TV or go on MN!!

Hulababy · 10/03/2006 10:59

weden start school at 7, or sometime like that, yes. i think they have kidergarden before that though, Not sure if that is compulsory or not.

AussieSim · 10/03/2006 11:02

Were you trying to say:

What if the school age was lowered to 3 years old from five years old? Do you think more mums would go out to work instead of staying at home, therefore enabling them to earn extra money?

My response BTW, is that I have never heard a worse suggestion and that I agree with Piffle that school age should be increased to 6 years old. That is not to say that there is not a shortage of affordable childcare places and that some solution needs to be found to enable those parents who would like to or need to return to the workforce to do so. Solutions being discussed here include higher government subsidies, making childcare fees tax deductible, making employers contribute, and providing paid parental leave. The conundrum is that the worst shortage of places is in the under 2 age group and yet many studies have shown that it is preferable to not send children to childcare under the age of 2, some say 3.

Marina · 10/03/2006 11:05

I definitely think, with others, a later start age of around six, like in Australia and Germany, would be good for most children. And I work full-time through necessity so am aware of the problems of finding good care for my children.
Tbh, a lot of schools start children at 3 plus with their nursery provision anyway. I have no problems with a play-based setting in a school at that age, but formal learning happens too soon in this country.

zippitippitoes · 10/03/2006 11:12

from a personal point of view I like the idea of a later start to compulsory education but I think that might be a backwards step for some children

Marina · 10/03/2006 11:14

agree zippi. Ds was very ready for formal education at just over four and was born to read and write. I know he is lucky but he has found what he really loves to do.

Katymac · 10/03/2006 11:19

Well I work in childcare and I think the age for school should be raised to 7 (like in Sweden)

My Swedish neice (7.5 - started last Sept) is much better educated than my dd (8.5 - normal english system)

She is fluent in 2 languages, has a better understanding of science, history & Geography - but can only just read & write

DD is (naturally) cleverer and more intellegent - but her cousin is "better" educated

fuzzywuzzy · 10/03/2006 11:24

In India baby's start school at three some parents will enrol them even younger...I hate it, I've seen tiny little children walking to school with backpacks almost bigger than them.

I don't actually think in the end the children are any more clever than the children in say england, the abilities tend to level out once they get to about our GCSE level. But there has always been a huge emphasis placed on education in India.

I send dd1 to nursery a couple of mornings and she really loves it, but she only recently started, and it's not because I need childcare, but more because I want her to socialise with other little children and learn to speak english.

My husbands nephew, tells me he used to beg his parents not to sned him to school (he started at 3), and as far as I can see it hasn't done him any good, he's average academically and has dreadful memories of being forced to go to school.
I'm with whoever said the age should be increased, 6 sounds good.
Also what does one do if a child is not fully potty trained at three?? My nephew said there were people who specifically changed nappies and washed soiled clothes in his school up to the age of 6......

SorenLorensen · 10/03/2006 11:25

I agree with Marina 3 is far too early for formal, school-based learning. For that matter, so is 5 - I felt that very strongly when ds1 started - he was ready for a bit of independence, yes, but he was so young for all the demands placed upon him. It was enough for him to get to grips with socialising with his peers, being away from home all day, eating his lunch, getting his coat on...without throwing reading, writing and 'rithmetic into the mix. I appreciate all children are not the same - ds2, for example, is desperate to learn to read and write (and half way there already!) but 3 is too young.

OP not been back?

zippitippitoes · 10/03/2006 11:28

would raising the compulsory age to 6 or 7 be a risk for children from more deprived backgrounds..

Uwila · 10/03/2006 11:30

I would send DD to school tomorrow if I could. She will be 3 in a couple of weeks. I would do this because she would enjoy it and benefit from it. Of course I don't mean sit her down and give her an addition test. But, education appropriate to a 3 yeard , like learning the alphabet, recognising number, etc. oh and social skills of course. and physical activity too.

I would be all for the option. But, if a parent doesn't want to send their child, I think that is okay too.

Uwila · 10/03/2006 11:32

Oh, I would have one concern. If the state had to fund this for all 3 year olds, then either taxes would go up or there would be less funds for older kids education. And that perhaps would not be a wise trade off.

And if they raise my taxes any more, I'm going to commit myself to debtors prison.

chipmonkey · 10/03/2006 11:33

flowers 114, I'm the littlest Billy Goat Gruff. Don't eat me. My big brother will be here soon. He's much bigger and tastier!

Marina · 10/03/2006 11:36

chipmonkey, some of us think flowers might be a poster returning under a different name after she got some really nasty comments about her spelling and grammar last time.
Please do her the courtesy of accepting that not everyone can express themselves easily on a PC.

chipmonkey · 10/03/2006 11:39

Marina, I wasn't referring to her grammar or spelling. It was the subject matter I think is trollish.

GDG · 10/03/2006 11:44

If ds1 waited till he was 6 or 7 to go to school he'd be going bananas! He was 4.6 when he started and is fine.

3 way too young though imo. Ds3 will be 4 and a few days and that's young enough.

Marina · 10/03/2006 11:44

Why, chipmonkey? Not trying to be awkward, but I think the topic of when is the optimum age to start formal schooling for children in the UK is a good, valid one for a parenting website and quite a few additional posters seem to have entered the discussion on that basis.
Unfortunately I can't link to the thread where flowers posted under her former name - it had to be deleted due to the cumulative unpleasantness aimed at her :(
Partly because of the way she said things, not just the grammar and the spelling IYSWIM.
Several of us were very unhappy about the way that thread went and are keen to give flowers a more open-minded welcome this time.

chipmonkey · 10/03/2006 11:54

Because to post a message to suggest that children should go to school at 3,so their Mums can go out to work, at an hour of the day when most people on MN are likely to be SAHMs and completey opposed to the idea, seems to me to be just posting to get a reaction rather than starting a genuine debate.
Maybe I'm wrong but thats how it appears to me.

I would never laugh at anyone's grammar or diction by the way.

SorenLorensen · 10/03/2006 11:55

Sorry I mentioned the original name. I missed the nasty thread (half term) and only saw the ones which are still around, when I was being nosy about a refrence on another thread. I didn't know there had been a nasty one.

batters · 10/03/2006 11:56

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SorenLorensen · 10/03/2006 11:56

Can't spell today. RefErence.

batters · 10/03/2006 11:57

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

chipmonkey · 10/03/2006 12:01

I'm normally at work too batters, home today because ds2 is sick. Can't allow myself to do MN at work. If I got as addicted as I am at home, I'd be sacked!

zippitippitoes · 10/03/2006 12:03

chipmonkey the op was last night

after sensible bedtime admittedly

I think that the whole business of early years is in a fractured turmoil really and definitely could do with some radical thinking, but not compulsory schooling from three

it sounds a bit communist to me

Marina · 10/03/2006 12:06

SL, it was hideous, which is why I have reacted as I have. Very glad for you that you missed it tbh. Hope your ds feels better soon Chipmonkey.

Flip

1 2 3