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

[KembleTwins]

what do you think?

Just interested really.

cory - but if the class isn't being taught writing and reading them how are the few children that WANT to write/read about stuff supposed to learn to do it?

Don't say the parents - yes my mum taught me to read before school (she failed with my older brother) - but despite my best efforts I failed miserably at teaching any of my children to read before starting school

You seem to be spectacularly missing the point that SOME children WANT to do the formal reading and writing stuff

alwayslooking - what?

You mean your DCs did not arrive at school able to read competently to ORT Stage 5? One little girl in DS2 Reception class had reached Stage 10!

Alwayslooking,

I bet you had a major part to play in teaching you dc's to read once they were at school. If they were in a primary class of 30 children its highly unlikely that the teacher and TA did it on their own. Your db and dcs probably weren't ready to learn before school.

'Some children' might think they want to do formal education early but that doesn't make it right for them. It is also very hard on the large number who aren't ready.

To take an extreme view of your argument: I believe some kids learn to read at age 2 - but that's not a reason to start formal education for all two year olds!!

jackstar - I can assure you I had virtually no part to play what soever in them learning to read.

I was suffering from depression both of the years my DS1 and 2 were in reception and I'm ashamed to say I probably only listened to/read with them once or twice in the entire school year.

actually met me correct that last statement - for part of those years of my DS's schooling I had depressio - the other half I was just a crap mum .

And I can assure it's not that DS2 "thought" he wanted to do formal learning - he wanted and indeed was ready for more formal learning. As are a few other children in his class.

Just because "some" children aren't ready to start formal learning until they're 6yrs old doesn't mean it's wrong for them to start earlier.

DS1 I think will never be ready for "formal" learning (he's in YR4 and my hopes are fading fast )

always..,

'Just because "some" children aren't ready to start formal learning until they're 6yrs old doesn't mean it's wrong for them to start earlier.'

But it does! According to the Cambridge Primary Review discussed in the OP's link. In the article the report's co-author Dame Gillian Pugh says:

'four and five-year-olds tended to be at a stage where they were just "tuning in" to learning and that they could be "turned off" if they were made to follow too formal a curriculum, too early on.'

Although you're in good(?) company disagreeing with the report. You've got Gordon Brown and Ed Balls on your side of the argument!!

about your depression. I have family experience of it.

sorry but what exactly is "wrong" with a child who is READY and WANTING to start formal education early doing just that? I'm certainly no hot housing parent (I might actually sit down and read with my children a little more frequently if I was ) but I can't deny the fact that one of my childre is hungry to learn IN A FORMAL WAY AS WELL AS THROUGH PLAY.

I'm asking what about THOSE children - the children who are turned on (hmm - perhaps not the best turn of phrase - but the opposite of turned off) by the idea and the reality of formal learning. The ones who become increasingly agitated with waiting to start it all.

Why should they be made to wait longer to keep the children who aren't ready until 6yrs old happy?

As I said - you can't win. Either it's too early for some, or it's too late.

It's widely recognised that children learn and develoip at different rates so you'll never get a one size fits all.

"My nephews and nieces mostly went to nursery from an early age (2-3). There they did lots of crafts, they helped with meal preparations and learnt about different foods, they did a lot of nature trails and visits to museums and other places of interest. (Unlike here, the nursery teacher would take the whole class on public transport: they're a fearless lot ).

The crafts side seemed to me of very high standard (I've had some nice Xmas presents over the years; have never had anything from dcs' schools that would even last until next Xmas). "

This is a pretty good precis of dd's Belgian education to date - thanks Cory. This year, last yr of kindergarten - she has already learnt to write her name "joined up" and learnt quite a bit of Dutch (3rd language).

They also have started swimming lessons, and do "ateliers" in cooking, crafts, knitting (!) and dd is currently doing "jeux de societe" - which sounds more exciting in French - but translates to board games "where you have to learn all the rules, mummy".

Last month's theme was the circus, so they got someone in to teach them to juggle/acrobatics etc They were all clowns one day. They've moved on to Halloween, and this involves lots of crafts and stories.

She wants to read and write. So we do it at home! (In english, I hasten to add - I'm leaving the French to the teacher). I have to add that they don't seem to have TAs here. The teacher manages the whole class. They are degree trained in early years education. They do have extra staff for the workshops, gymnastics and swimming.

I don't think education should be so formal for under 7's. Allow children to be children, it's been proven that the UK's tendency to put kids in school at 5 isn't making them better off!

Also, school until 17? Definately unfair as college weeds out the ones who don't want to be there!

yes it should be put off, did nothing to help my son, he learns so much better through play, starting school early did nothing but stress me and him out. he was referred to salt and occupational therapy as he wasn't 'up to speed' with the rest i assume. which looking back did nothing to help him.

other son took to school early like a duck to water. maybe classes could be a little more relaxed and tailored to both ways of learning.

Yes, pre-school in France also does lots in the way of activities to broaden children's horizons and teach them practical skills. This week has been the national semaine du goût (taste week) and the children all brought in one food item from their region or country of origin for the whole class to taste. And the children went on an outing to the market, where they bought vegetables, which they then peeled and prepared to make soup. And then they tasted the soups they had prepared the following day.

It is incredibly difficult to talk about a "starting age for formal school" when systems are so very different, and different skills are valued/taught to children. Lots of children can already read when they enter primary school in France (in the September of the calendar year of their sixth birthday), which is when school become compulsory. So much is taught in école maternelle (pre-school).

The early years is play based. Transition to Y1 should be play based, easing into a more formal curriculum. Don't see what the problem is apart from a VERY out-dated report that came out today.

alwayslookingforanswers completing worksheets isn't learning maths or anything other than how to fill in worksheets, without the mathematical understanding a child can get the correct answer but it is meaningless.

Not starting formal learning until 6 does not mean not starting school until then. It just means that children learn through playbased activities. Here in Wales they have started the foundation phase,Which will eventually be from 3-7. The children do learn but they are not tested and don't have to sit down for long periods being taught by a teacher who stands at the front of the class. Each child learns at thier own pace,
I think this is much better for small children and would have suited DD3 who wasn't really ready for formal learning until she was about 7,

Answer to OP: It is.

trickerg: Is it? What, so no formal learning til Yr 2? Where? I thought it was play-based in reception, then more formal in Yr 1? I don't have kids in school yet, but from what others have said here...

Fab article in today's Sunday Times:

Whatever age children start school, teaching will be dire
Minnette Marrin

www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/minette_marrin/article6879533.ece

Trickerg, I am not sure where you are getting your information. In my experience (Early Years and Year 1 teacher), the EYFS (Reception) is play based, and Year 1 is still exceptionally formal. I would like my Year 1s to follow a play based currciulum, but most headteachers will not allow it. Play based learning at Year 1 would impact upon SATS results, and only a very ballsy headteacher would allow that to happen. So most children in this country are shell-shocked when they arrive in Year 1. Lots of my Year 1s were only 5 during the summer holidays and they are not physically ready to write etc, nor are they mature enough to work independently. So in fact, it's not.

ABetaDad, I do sincerely hope you were being ironic about Year 1s writing in 'copper plate' from the board... Copy-writing = pointless. But I'm sure you already knew that.

Oh, and can I add my voice to those who have quite rightly pointed out that 'formal learning' ie worksheets, is not actually teaching children how to do numeracy and literacy. It's what I give to the children when I know I'm being observed by someone who is ignorant about Early Education and who wants children to be sitting down 'learning'. I, however, know it's meaningless.

It's going the right way in Wales. The government here know that the Cambridge review is right, they are just too scared to acknowledge that our education system is 'deficient'. The researchers have shot themselves in the foot by using that word. But it is deficient, because we are so utterly obsessed with literacy and numeracy that we just give a cursory nod to all the other areas and styles of learning. I understand that the basics are important, but our children's life experiences are becoming more and more limited, and we need to act now to make sure that we give them the breadth and depth of education that they so badly need.

We must have a ballsy head, Ellieor!!

Our Y1 runs child-initiated play for 2 afternoons a week, to ease the transition from YR to Y1. They also go outside to learn for at least 2 sessions a week on top of that. So learning in our Y1 is not THAT formal.

The 'child-initiated' part of the play is going to be more formalised next term, when the activities will be more structured around the objectives of the Rose Report (which we are using to do our planning).

In Y2, we also have at least 2 sessions a week outside for curriculum subjects, hopefully to be increased when we have trained as forest school leaders later this term / next term.

That article is ridiculous. Inaccurate and ill-conceived.

Children are obliged to start phonics in nursery, not in Year 1. And if I had a magic wand I could wave which enabled every child to read within a year then I would be a very happy woman. This is not about phonics. We're all perfectly happy with phonics teaching and were doing it anyway. The Rose report was hardly earth-shattering.

And I have never met these appalling teachers. I have heard of a few, but most teachers are excellent, and in this era of performance management, SEF and OFSTED would not get away with under-performing. Admittedly I do work in an extremely high-achieving LEA, but I doubt the situation is as dire as Minette Marrin believes.

Ugh, what total drivel that woman is spouting... It is laughable, not 'fab'.

Trickerg, I want to work in your school. Trust me, you are the exception not the rule! I am actually leaving the 'classroom' after Christmas and moving into a different area of teaching because I find the EYFS/Year 1 situation completely untenable. The fact that my class is mixed year group (and indeed Key Stage) probably doesn't help...

worksheets aren't meaningless if a child has already done the practical and verbal working out of stuff and is keen to work out maths problems on paper.

I'm intrigued by the idea that a child can work out the correct answers onto a worksheet without understanding the maths behind it though.

Does that really happen? It certainly didn't for me at school - I didn't understand the concepts, and I couldn't magic up the correct answers on paper either.

Always - if, for example, you are learning to count in tens, you can write the sequence by adding 1 to the first digit each time without having a clue why it works. So you could fill in the worksheet without having an understanding of place value or tens and units.

You can probably extend a child with a worksheet, but i'm not sure why you would want to if you could do it by siting down with them and work through some high-order thinking questions verbally. They do need to learn to record answers at some point, but far too much value is placed on that side of things. Most of the time, worksheets wouldn't be tailored to a child's individual requirements for extension.

Plus, most of them just copy the brightest child on the table

ds's school does staggered starts, so summer-borns like him start Reception in Jan. I've had a lot of conversations with parents of other summer-born boys about whether they start school too early. But have noticed parents of girls feel very aggrieved that their children have 'lost' a term in reception. Odd, because the girls in question were in the school's nursery class, which is in the same open plan room as reception and where they do phonics etc. etc.

I'm definitely on the 'starting formal learning too early is A Bad Thing' side of the argument rather than 'My child has been disadvantaged by only having two terms in reception'.

As it happens, ds has flourished at school despite being very nearly the youngest in his class (only two children are younger than him). Only issue is handwriting - but I'm relaxed about that as gather most boys don't develop the fine motor control necessary for neat handwriting until age 7 (possibly girls too for all I know).

Transition into Year One seemed fine although he was worried about moving into a new room after the best part of two years in the foundation stage.