Is there a case for very early education for our children?

[Pitchounette]

Message withdrawn

There is no doult that children learn best in the early years. However whether children learn best from their parents or nurseries is open to debate.

My feeling is that a baby who is a few weeks/ months old is better off breastfeeding and being with mum than being put in a nursery. I think children benefit from nursery education from about the age of three.

Children with developmental problems need faster intervention than they get now. Its crazy that the waiting lists for speech and language theraphy, audiology or physio in some parts of the country are half the child's life time.

However I think its important that health and education professionals bolster the confidence of parents rather than undermine them by suggesting they are unable to bring up their children properly.

As far as the issue of social mobiltiy, I think its more complex than early education. A lot of it is to do with admission criteria of state schools. There needs to be more social mixing in state schools than there is at present. It would be interesting if all state schools were made to take a similar percentage of kids with special needs and maybe some ablity/ financial banding of parents.

Our local comp does not offer 3 seperate sciences at GCSE. The nearest school which does is over a mile away. However this school is extremely over subscribed. Therefore a child who lives in our street would find it extremely hard to become a doctor however bright or hard working they might be.

I was just discussing with dh this morning how amazing it is that the reception children that I help with all can swim a width of a pool and most of them are up to a reading standard between ORT stage 4 to 9.

We didnt get a glimpse of a pool and I certainly couldnt swim until I was about 8. I definately wasnt reading in reception either, again I was at this level in the equivalent of year 2 these days.

We must be doing something right early on but why does it lose its momentum as they move up the school?

Why does it matter whether they can swim at 4 or whether they swim at 8? I could understand it if they lived alongside a river. Maybe it loses momentum as they move up the school because they were driven to do more and more seemingly irrelevant stuff early on and don't see the point.

"Also they were explaining that as children grow up, the brain just get rid of the connexions that are not used. The skills that are then lost are lost forever. So a gifted child in music who is not exposed to music will loose this gift forever."

I just don't believe this.

Its not a question of mattering if they swim or not. The point I was making was that we werent taught as much so quickly.

Having spoken to an educational psychologist of many years (in his 80's now) He gave me good advice and that was to allow them to absorb every possible experience whilst they will let you. When they become resistant to education at least they will have a good foundation to build slowly upon.

I agree with him. But I think there is a difference between presenting plenty ofopportunities for them to absorb things and cramming them with things that are a bit pointless to them which someone thinks they should know. Hopefully if nothing is pressurised and lots of things are made available maybe they wouldn't become resistant to education.

"absorb every possible experience " I agree with that 100%. But is that 'early education' in the sense that the OP means?

I think that the thing that helps children the most is interaction. Wasn't there a study recently which said that it doesn't matter how many books/educational toys a child has, the main aid to development and confidence for a child is that they are engaged and stimulated through conversation and interaction. IMO we just need to talk to them and have fun with them.

Reallytired that's very sad about schools not offering sciences separately. When I was choosing my O levels the school discouraged taking all three sciences, advising students to pick a range of subjects. But I was adamant I would become a doctor so insisted on it - had to see the Head and everything. And then chose English French and Latin for my A Levels.

Interesting, but I watched a "tonight" programme a while back about how in a different country(can't remember where exactly, maybe Holland or Sweden , children are not taught to read and write till age 7.

Before this education is much more relaxed and homely.
The results showed that these children do just as well later in life than our little ones who are sometimes reading before they even start school.

Agree Sadiaa, Take your children and socialise as much as you can from the earliest age. This is why toddler groups are invaluable.

When they hit school at 4/5 they will have most of the social skills and confidance to approach everything given to them. If this is backed up at home with a little tutoring it gives them a great start.

Just looked it up- In Sweden compulsory school does not begin until age 7, and they seem none the worse for it.

No there isn't - not in any formal sense. It is however helpful for them to be presented with a variety of different stimulating activities and environments - in a play context.....

I believe it is more about addressing basic needs. If your family is hungry and you are living in poverty, it is much harder to engage in the world positively.

I definitely think happy interaction with babies helps them learn more quickly. But this is something most parents do naturally and children enjoy learning and playing.

The government here, IMO, is already trying to compensate for parents who can't or won't do their job. School is just one part of the day, children should be encouraged to play and learn all the time.

I think in this country we have to be a little more focused. Sweden is a very laid back country whatever. Britain is fast moving, have to have your wits about you and there is a lot more competition for employment here by virtue of the sheer volume of people on this little island.

Different environments need different approaches.

I think I'll have to consider moving to Sweden.
They sound much more sane

I'll come with you juuule

I actually think there's much more competition on the continent, where getting a job is more difficult than here. Anyway, I was taught to read and write at 6, that's when school used to start in Italy. It didn't prevent me from becoming a bookworm, graduating, getting an MA, etc etc etc.

Message withdrawn

Isn't it about parents being taught to play with their children and what to play - all very play centered but little things like nursery rhymes, singing, shape sorters, textures, threading etc etc etc all teach them skills that make the brain connections etc it's not about pre-school etc its about exposing them to the relevent stuff some parents do this more naturally than others.

Def my youngest gets less interaction from me than the oldest did at the same age

Message withdrawn

I think early education in terms of stimulation and being exposed to a wide range of exeriences, in their normal daily life, has to be beneficial to a child. However I don't think the ability to read, for example, is that beneficial.

I do't think there is that need for formal education some people seem to point towards. Fine if a child picks up up a book and asks/just learns.

But I think it is better for parents to introduce the wider education - going out on walks and talking about nature, learning about science int he home, using money in shops, learning about friendships int he park, listening to music and trying instruments, singing, etc. Theseare all things many parents just do automatically. However in some families this is not the norm.

These studies always seem to involve the extremely deprived - hardly surprising if a little intervention has a big impact there. The results can't be extrapolated to everyone - many families may be doing far more than the early intervention would do. (I remember a radio interview about a similar test on rats, on which one of the scientists conceded that even the stimulating rat environment that produced relatively "brainy" rats was a very poor environment compared to a proper sewer ). Furthermore, unless there's some sort of control to eliminate the Hawthorn Effect (people will do better if someone's taking an interest) there's no real evidence that any particular intervention works.

CarGirl, your youngest will be getting plenty of stimulation from older siblings that your eldest didn't get, so don't beat yourself up. (And I'm one of those ghastly pushy parents who believes it is worth teaching children to read at 4 Totally agree with juuule over swimming, mind...).

I think it is not so much 'when' a child is taught, but 'how'.
A love of learning is a much more important skill to impart than teaching children to pass tests.
I think the current education system in England is a shambles.
We need to stop testing our children and let them be - to absorb information, and build up their confidence.
There seems to be an insistence on everything being learned earlier and earlier - some children just aren't ready to read and write at 4, or 5, or 6.
I know people that were obsessed with their child's position in their class when the children were only 4 or 5.
I found it really sad, and it put unnecessary pressure on these tiny children, but I suppose it is a natural by-product of an education system that focuses too heavily on testing and uniformity.

I think most of the things people are talking about are the things that many parents do naturally anyway, just talking to their children and interacting with them and doing the sorts of everyday things Hulababy was talking about.

Unfortunately of course not all parents do these things, perhaps they don't know how or they just can't be bothered - that's why even at the age of 2 or 3 there are marked differences in children's abilities and the way they behave. We see this at our playgroup, some children just aren't used to anyone talking to them (proper talking, answering their questions etc, not just shouting), so they have poor communication skills. They don't know any nursery rhymes, have never had anyone read to them, the list goes on. Then we get those children with interested, supportive parents who do all these things and more just as a matter of course. So yes, the first group of children, and their parents, definitely do need more help if those children aren't to remain disadvantaged, but I don't know the best way of doing this because it's not so much about education but about the most basic of parenting skills

Have to disagree with a couple of points others have made - I don't believe a musically gifted child loses that gift if it isn't encouraged or promoted early on. And I don't believe that a bright child in a school which doesn't offer 3 separate science GCSEs will find it any harder to become a doctor or whatever - our outstanding secondary school 'only' offers combined science at GCSE but that hasn't stopped many pupils doing brilliantly at science A level and going on to study science at top universities or to study medicine.

"And I don't believe that a bright child in a school which doesn't offer 3 separate science GCSEs will find it any harder to become a doctor or whatever "

3 seperate sciences GCSE certainly gives better preparation for A-level sciences. Our local comp doesn't offer A-levels in science at all. At the moment children just transfer to a different secondary school.

Quite what will happen when school becomes complusory up to 18 I have no idea. What would happen if my son wants to A-level Physics and the only secondary school in the area that does it is over subscribed and my son can't get in?

Its all very well saying he can get on the bus and travel, but who pays his bus fare?

When there were grammar schools there was far more social mobility.

Message withdrawn