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

[KembleTwins]

what do you think?

Just interested really.

I agree with the others who have said that no one system, no matter what it is, is correct. We should not be subjecting children to a 'one size fits all' policy. There should be enough flexibility to cater for different ability levels, different maturity levels, different learning styles, etc.

But MillyR, non-formal learning doesn't have to be focussed around play and social skills. I'd say there is far higher tolerance of shy people in Sweden (not a nation noted for its social skills) and they still manage to keep their children busy and happy during long years of nursery.

Nature trips, cookery lessons, woodwork, pottery, painting and other crafts don't depend on social skills at all. You can sit and do them in a corner.

Besides, just because all children are not made to learn to read and write, doesn't mean that noone is to be allowed to do it. Why couldn't we have a system where reading is one optional fun activity until the age of 6 or so, but other activities are viewed as equally important from an educational perspective.

Besides, I don't get why children can't learn a wider vocabulary from having stories told to them or read aloud to them by the teacher though. My Swedish primary teachers were very good storytellers; I learnt a lot from them. I still read aloud to my 13yo, despite the fact that she is capable of reading Thackeray and Dickens on her own- I think reading aloud is a great educational resource. And the skill to listen is a valuable preparation for university studies; something children are missing out on these days.

The problem is, I suspect it wouldn't work here, because children would be told by their parents that only reading and writing is proper learning; that what you learn from being told stories and making things with your hands is inferior and boring. I don't personally get this: painting was good enought for Rembrandt and listening to stories being read aloud was what adults did right up until the coming of television.

"because children would be told by their parents that only reading and writing is proper learning; "

right so those of us who have children who prefer the sitting down reading and writing learning have told them that???

Actually I spent the entire reception year trying to get through to DS2 that he WAS "learning" at school.

And it's all very well saying they can sit down and read in the corner for fun until they're 6..........if they haven't been taught to read

No, I didn't say they would sit in a corner on their own reading, you misunderstand me. I meant that one nursery teacher could teach a small group of interested children to read in one corner, while another teacher say did woodwork with another lot. Rather than everybody having to do the same. Absolutely not about leaving them to their own devices.

I agree with you always.

Ds is in reception and doesn't want to sit in the corner or be with other children and do endless days of nature trips, cookery lessons, woodwork, pottery, painting and other crafts.

He wants to be taught by the teacher how to read and write. He enjoys it, he likes learning. And luckily he is in a class of 17 so it is all not too overwhelming.

I wouldn't want this changed for anything. Finally after a year or so of nursery play he is engaging well with something he likes doing.

cory - I think that thing about storytelling is spot on.

Someone was on the radio the other day, talking - in this context - about how reading was key, and how books were the gateway to the imagination. And it made me wonder what was important in a predominantly pre-literate, pre-cheap book society, and how they fired up the imagination. And it is story-telling. Books are just a way in to that (and the way that is currently most valued in our culture). One of our most important human activities is telling stories, and books are just a way in to that.

I think that schools probably get it about right now. Very few schools sit down reception children at a desk all day...they do lots of playing, lots of circle time, singing and dressing up. They also do the reading and maths stuff. I'm sure that there are exceptions.

They thing I have against starting children later at school is I think that qualified teachers are more intelligence than nursery staff (with the exception of nursery teachers), therefore I would probably rather have my children with a teacher at 4 than a nursery nurse.

On the other hand, I want my four/five year olds to have lots of time to play...that's how they really develop their intelligence; through play. And, you do need something to write about!

I do like the current approach of having a topic, doing a really exciting school trip, and then basing work on that. My dd is doing castles and is taking it all in; whilst at home she is always drawing castles, making shields or drawing pictures of jousting. (I think they even had a jousting session in the school hall).

Builde - I don't think anyone is suggesting keeping kids out of school until they are older - keeping them with nursery nurses would be ludicrous. It's more about how children learn.

And the arguments about DCs wanting to do more formal learning - I just don't buy it. Why would a child, entirely of their own volition, prefer to read about something and then write it up, when they could do it instead? That's my understanding of play-based or child-led learning. Doing a practical investigation, rather than being told something and then filling in a worksheet to prove they've understood. I don't honestly think any child would come to the conclusion by themselves that "learning" has to involve sitting at a table writing, and insist that they want to do that. I honestly think that attitude comes from parents - a case of "can't keep up with the joneses unless I have the test results to prove it"

Well Kemble - you're welcome to my children then

DS1 - couldn't give two hoots about sitting down doing formal learning - would quite happily play - I was happy with him learning through play

DS2 - I was also happy for him to be learning through play - I can't change his frigging mind though if he saw YR1/2/his older brother reading and writing stuff and wanted to do it no amount of "but you ARE learning darling" made the slightest bit of difference.

He knows what he enjoys and what he wanted to do - sod all to do with me.

Just like my DS's learning to read genuinely has sod all to do with me.

I'm probably the laziest f*cker on MN in terms of "teaching" my children

I have no Joneses to keep up with. I haven't "coached" my children in anything (not only am I too lazy to do so I'm also not clever enough to do it, and don't have the cash to pay someone else to do it).

And you've missed the point totally that my DS2 (NOT DS1) was ok with doing a practical investigation but he ALSO wanted to write up his findings afterwards.

I'm just grateful that so far 2/3 of my children seem to be "average" in terms of their learning ability (DS2 the exception in numeracy where he is quite advanced - but everything else with both DS1 and 2 is "average"). I'm MORE than happy with average. Average is perfectly fine by me

You know what, always, the point that I have missed is the one about older siblings. I have twins, so won't face that, but, thinking about it, my younger neice constantly wants to be doing what her older sister is doing. So I totally see that a younger child might see what his older sibling is doing and think "I want to be doing that", and follow that with "this playing is baby-stuff. I want to be doing what the big kids are doing". It makes a lot of sense, the way you've explained it. So I guess if the government changed KS1 teaching, it would take a few years for it to filter through as "normal".

"Only if full time childcare is provided free of charge from the current school age. "

THIS ^

I don't think it would have made a difference if they changed the KS1 curriculum.

DS2 in in YR1 in infants, DS1 is in YR4 in Juniors. When DS2 started Reception DS1 had already moved up to a different school.

Even when DS1 was in yR2 and even more reluctant than he is now to do school "work" (they rarely had homework so that was a relief - no battles at home) DS2 wanted me to show him how to write down the sums he was doing orally. (I didn't as I didn't see the need for it....although DS1 did make some attempts to show him how to write the numbers).

I honestly believe it's just the way he is. Out of the 2 that I've got at school DS1 is the one I think is more likely to have a "practical" career - mechanic, builder, engineer etc as much as I'd love to see him stay at school and do A levels and go to university (what parent wouldn't ) I don't think that's the route he'll be happy with, or take. while I can see DS2 going on to University and enjoying writing long thesis's on boring interesting subjects.

My DS2 is odd though

My DD will start school at 6 and is currently attending nursery school.

I´m very happy with this when I compare her with children I know her age in the UK, some of whom are now into their second year of primary. I´m happy for her to stay a relative "baby" and to enjoy her time messing around playing with her friends as well as the more formal preparation that goes on at her age in preparation for primary. When she starts school "proper" all of the children her age are ready for it and learning to read and write is on a much more fast-track approach than is possible at 4-5.

It is clear that there is no real academic advantage to starting school as early as just turned 4. It´s also clear that this is much to soon for many children, some of whom are still too young to even stay AWAKE 5 long days a week. I think these children should definitely be in a more informal situation.

Just for info...

To be a Professional Engineer you actually need an academic background: 3Bs at A-level and an MEng at University level.

Then of course, you have to become Chartered with one of the Engineering Institutions.

So, if you have a child of a practical bent, but who doesn't have a good mathematical ability, you probably shouldn't direct them towards Engineering. Direct them towards plumbing. Plumbers earn a lot more than most professionals and have the enjoyment of being self-employed.

I know - he wont be an engineer - I was just reeling off what I could think of that was more "practical" - most likely is mechanic I think - I thought he'd grow out of his car obsession - but it's only got worse.

I'm not going to direct him anywhere - I'll let him choose what he wants to do.

Who knows he may surprise me in the next few years and turn out totally different from what I envisage

Nobody directed me anywhere and I never became something.

well my parents tried to direct me to become a musician.......

DH's parents directed him towards teaching.

If both of us had been supported in what we wanted to do - who knows where we'd be now - certainly not where we are today

That´s sad, but why didn´t you rebel?

I will direct my dc towards lots of different and appropriate goals, and hope they find their OWN way, not never even get of the starting blocks...

didn't rebel as I wasn't given the choice to make my own way in life. I was at music school therefore I was going to be a musician .

I am a Banny (which is a Granny if you cant say Grrr).
My grandson started school in September at 4 and 3 months. Far too young in my opinion. He is a bundle of activity and excitement and finds it hard to sit still in a confined space for long. He needs to be out and about, playing and getting physical excercise not confined in a fairly cramped schoolroom. He found the whole experience very stressfull and tiring having to follow such a strict regime so young. At the very least I think the first term should have been part time but apart from the first couple of weeks it has been full on. At the start he was still having a regular afternoon nap so you can imagine how exhausted he is at the end of the day.
Personally I would opt for starting full time at 5 years.