"Formal" learning - should it be put off til 6 yrs old?

[KembleTwins]

what do you think?

Just interested really.

Definately. In Sweden they dont start formal teaching til 6 and they have one of (if not the) highest literacy rate in the world - boys and girls! Not a coincidence.

Emperor's New Clothes.

Take a look at what they do here in Italy in the last year or so of nursery (aged 4-5-6) and you'll find it's exactly the same as what they do in the UK in reception and yr1.

Yes. Next question?

I have a child who has just gone into year 1 and I have posted a thread about behaviour problems we are having with her at school now, which I do think, in part are due to her rebelling against the changes she has had to quickly come to terms with in year 1.

In reception, the work was very much play-based and there was also a reinforcement system in place where when ten 'smiley faces' had been earned the child was given a small plastic toy. In year 1, they are suddenly expected to sit down and work independently and I think the jump from reception to year 1 is quite big and consequently unsettling for some children. I think it would help if they at least phased a transition process.

No.

It seems to work very well here in Belgium, (high educational standards) but I think the Kindergarten system goes a long way to preparing children for the formal education later.

So pretty much every child has started by their 3rd birthday. They have 3 years of learning by play but in a very structured way.

A lot of the problems I read about on here about the struggle to get used to school don't seem to come up as they are already used to spending the day at school, to using the toilet, getting changed for PE/Swimming, sitting and concentrating on one task for a period of time, getting on with other children etc etc. Tasks get gradually more "educative" in nature. It is a process of gentle transition.

By the time they are 6, and the hard stuff starts, the "social" aspects of being at school have long been covered, meaning the only change they really face is the work!

It doesn't mean not letting children read etc if they are ready.

When I think about putting reception age children into ability groups (as happened in my school) my heart breaks for those who KNEW they were in the bottom group. Obviously it wasn't called that, but children know where they are in the pecking order.

I don't want my ds to feel a failure before he is even five. Less formal learning will hopefully stop this from happening.

From my experience it doesn't mean that children can't learn to read before this age if they want to. And it certainly doesn't mean that bright children have to be bored for years before they can start learning. But it would mean that some parents would have to redefine what they class as learning. Things like walking about in the local environment, making a plant grow from seed, making volcanoes with baking soda- they are all hugely educational activities that a kindergarten (or even parents) could equally well provide with less stress.

I remember my friend who taught in an Inner Londong school shaking his head sadly and saying: "We spend so much time drilling these children to read and write, but we ignore the fact that they've got nothing to write about". What he meant was that the reading and writing doesn't really make sense until you know something about the world. From what I have seen of Swedish nurseries, they are very good at teaching awareness of the world: basic meal preparation, nature studies, basic biology. (I have big problems with what is happening to the Swedish secondary system, but that is a separate issue).

ooo tricky one.

My concern is for those children who ARE ready to start formal learning earlier.

DS1 was "ok" with starting school at 5 (he turned 5 the day before he started full time). He was just the right stage for reception in his own development.

DS2 was more than ready to start school - and it's been a blessed relief for him to now have started YR1 where the "proper" formal learning starts. He was SO ready for it.

OTOH my BF's DD only turned 5 in August this year and really isn't/wasn't ready for school - she's still so young and really struggles with the whole thing.

It has always interested me and I ws particularly curious to see how the Chinese adopted twins (on the BBC documentary) fared when they met at six years of age. One had been living in Norway (I think) and hadn't started school yet and the other was a complete 'California Kid' - bright and almost hot-housed. When they got together there was very little difference between them, in fact I would say that the Norweigan-raised child seemed more emotionally stable than her Californian twin and handled the separation marginally better. All the resources that had been poured into the Californian twin had not made her any more 'forward' than her free-living Norweigan sister with her simple pleasures.

But why can't a child learn because it's not in a formal setting, always? Science experiments and natural studies can work equally well in kindergarten? If the parents don't tell the child this is not Proper learning, where would they get the idea? After all, this is how a fair few Proper grown-up academics spend their time. They don't think of it as Not Learning. And in secondary school too, a lot of very important learning is about doing things, rather than sitting down with work sheets. Why would this be wrong for an advanced 5yo?

cory - my DS2 spent the entire time in reception asking how long until he would be going into YR1 as he wanted to do the sitting down "proper" learning.

Yes he learnt stuff - but he was also held back and was desperate to start doing the sitting down at desks, pushing himself further in maths. Learning through play in numeracy can only take you so far. He spent most of his summer holidays doing worksheets online and that I'd printed off (at his request).

Thankfully since DS1 was in reception they started the phonics and spelling work in reception - rather than waiting until YR1 like they did with DS1.

I have no doubt in my mind had DS2 not been able to start doing some formal learning in reception (or as much as the foundation stage currently allows) he would have been extremely fed up.

DS1 otoh would have stayed in reception for about 4yrs I think

I would just be happier for education in the UK to become less standardised and test-based. The term 'educare' means to draw out, not to put in.

Yes definitely. However, our children are products of our society. They know that going to school means learning, reading, writing etc, and that they will have to work hard. When I was little I went to playgroup. It wasn't called school, I went there to play. Of course there were activities planned to enable learning, but there was never a question of not understanding/failing, it was all finding out... No stress, no tests etc. Our children would have a chance to have a childhood, develop the awe and wonder about the world they live in, do cooking, nature rambles etc etc. Of course they'd be measuring in cooking, so learning would be the outcome. They'd learn about life cycles through hatching eggs etc etc etc

Sorry, went on a bit there....

Young children are hungry to 'learn'. It's programmed into their DNA (after millions of years of evolution). Unfortunately, sitting at a desk doing work sheets and practising hand-writing is not the way most 4-5 year olds work best.

Imo the process of 'learning to read' doesn't really take place in the 'formal education setting' anyway. In reality, children learn to read by having lots of 'one to one' time with an adult (mainly a parent/carer/TA). And even the class based learning phonics part, can be quite informal and fun if handled well.

I have posted a question to Gordon Brown about their dismissal of the Cambridge Reviews recommendation to delay formal education. Not expecting much though!

thing is if you put it later then what do you do with the children who are ready to sit down at a desk and learn?

DS1 would have thrived starting school later
DS2 definitely wouldn't.

While I have sympathy with your ds, always, I still wonder who told him that only sitting down learning is Proper Learning. I work with postgraduates. You can't say they are not doing Real Learning, or that it's all babyish. But depending on where they come from (I teach students from different disciplines), they may not be doing much sitting down at all. And certainly no worksheets.

My dd, who is at secondary, does a lot of lab'ing and other activities that do not involve formal sitting down- better not tell her chemistry teacher that this is not Proper Learning.

I was a very precocious child (learning foreign languages at 6 at my own insistence), but I had no idea that making models of bronze age barrows or going on nature rambles or baking cakes was not proper learning, because that wasn't what people around me believed. It was all taken seriously.

But always, are you saying that your children were not ready for any of the other forms of learning that are equally important? Can they only do the worksheet type of learning? If so, how will they cope with secondary and higher education?

We don't see eye to eye on this: you seem to see a hierarchy where other types of learning are Informal and less important than desk-based writing exercises. I maintain that learning by experiment is a vital way of learning at any stage of a good education. No doubt it could be done better at infants school. But it's not something you ever grow out of.

I saw this discussion on BBC Breakfast this morning.

I was disappointed to see the head of Holland House School, a private school criticised by the Independent Schools Inspectorate for persisting in whole class teaching and the excessive demand for children to copy from the board, put forward as being on a par with Gillian Pugh. Ms Pugh wrote many of the text books I use and is a real proponent of and expert in child led education.

I wish they had given more time to Ms Pugh rather than the headmistress who seemed to be saying that quality education only meant reading early. I hope to help produce independent thinkers, not afraid to experiment and to work collaboratively and I think that the foundation stage we have at the moment is a huge step towards that.

That is why a like our school. Reception children are just playing and playing. Like "playing shop" with toy money (maths), planting growing plants (biology), playing with ice cubs/water (physics), etc..
Not very keen on dc1 nursery where they had to sit down on chairs, while ds just wanted to play with the cars. Or dc3 nursery where they give her the BL...Y Biff and Chipp books to take home (and even worse dc3 wants to read them over and over again).

I agree completely. People seem to think that learning has only taken place when a child can fill in a worksheet/complete a test. Of course there are some children who enjoy filling in worksheets, but all they are learning to do is fill in worksheets, not how to apply their understanding or take it a stage further. IMO children need to be given the opportunity to experiment, without fear of being wrong. Through hands-on 'work' they will learn what happened/what worked/was it what they expected/how many/why and develop their vocabulary and conversation skills to boot. (But it doesn't come with a score sheet and is difficult to quantify.)

X-posts with thirdname. My dd's nursery was fab! It was all learning through play, the children chose what they wanted to do within a very loose framework, and the adults supported them when needed. They had a minibeasts corner outside with magnifying glasses, some kind of role play area, a snug for doing quiet things like looking at books, listening to story tapes or just cuddling a teddy, lots of construction toys, and the children were encouraged to find the tools they wanted. But there were only 12 children with at least three adults and it wasn't financially viable, so they closed in July

Will Primary Years Programme (IB) be phased in at some point? We are moving towards the IB system already. I think things will change and this will mean that reading etc will start later as priorities shift.

Cory - I agree with your posts.

The danger of 'too early' formal learning is that it produces kids who can 'do maths' but don't understand about numbers and can't solve numerical problems that aren't presented in the formalised way they have be taught.

I've also come across children who's reading 'decoding' skills are so much ahead of their comprehension skills, that they struggle to find appropriate books to read. Not good for developing a long term joy in reading.

I think there is no need to read and write before 6. Sometimes I think it is actually counter-productive.

What dc need though is a stimulating environment and when they are say 5-7, they should be introduced to a wider world and be gaining knowledge. It is not necessary that they be able to read to do this - given the right guidance and immersion. Neither is it necessary that they be able to write to retain it.

IME a later start is better. It is hard in our culture with all the emphasis on getting basics embarked on ASAP to not panic about doing your dc a disfavour by waiting too long. Personally I think they learn reading and writing much faster if they begin doing it later - and generally with they learn it then with ease. I think 7 is about right. They can learn it earlier but I don't think there is any real need for it.