Is the nursery class of a primary school to early to 'stretch' children?

[pushyisintheeyeofthebeholder]

a genuine question despite flippant nickname:

DD1 is 4. She's in the nursery class of a local primary, starting reception at another primary this September. Before starting in the nursery class she know all her letters, could write her name, knew numbers up to 100 etc. This year she seems to have learned less than nothing i.e. she's less sure of her letters and numbers than she was last summer. Ethos in the class is 'learning through play', which seems to be widespread but AIBU to think it's a bit of a wasted opportunity? The teachers told me cheerily at parents' morning that she'd started to write her name really well (which she's been doing for over a year) and could count up to 10!

I have friends who've sent their kids to pre-preps but DH and I decided not to go down that route. But while DD was on a par with those kids last summer they've continued to progress while she's stayed static. I've now started sitting down with her in the afternoon and doing some letters and numbers - I'm sure some people will think that's a bit pushy/she's too young to have any academic expectations placed on her. But if I don't do that it seems inevitable that she'll start off a step behind friends at private schools and that the gap will continue to widen as the years go by. Would be really interested to hear any thoughts on the matter...

We had the same, dd started Reception much the same as yours. Bascially having missed the previous year by a week, she was soooooooo ready to learn. Nursery had done 'big girl' work with her, because she was so keen, I had done bits at home, albeit very relaxed, she could even read simple phonetic 3 letter words.

End of Reception, she was if anything at the same place when she started. I didn't say anything, as didn't want to be a pushy parent! However, in Year 1, I was told her reading was a little behind - WHAT!!! - and her letter formation poor. I was also told that all the children coming up were all a little behind what was expected, but that they would all be 'on target' at the end of Year 1.

To cut a long story short, we did Yr1, because we thought maybe we were being unreasonable and she was a good teacher, but then still feeling like she wasn't being stretched and she was coasting, moved her to a prep school, not near a good 20 mins away, it was a big decision.

The difference was staggering and she has taken a little while to catch up with them, but has just done it now and is a different child. Ironically, they seem to do a lot more 'fun playing' things, trips to the beach, lots of colouring and art, more sport and swimming. In fact one parent commented to me yesterday, when they came out with a note about another 'fun' event in school - 'is this what we pay our fees for?'. However, they do work hard too.

When we took her out of the state school, I was told by the head that they had for the first time with her Reception class, strictly followed the EYFS and it hadn't been quite right for that year group. She felt that a lot of them were capable of a lot more, but they had pressure on the LA to 'stick to the book'.

Children are different and progress and need different things, our dd basically spent a year playing - OK it wasn't wasted totally, I admit they learn a lot through play, but she was ready to learn and could have done an awful lot more.

My DH is cross we didn't send her to the Prep. initially, I too feel sorry about it, she definately could have coped with that little extra, she would certainly be in different place with her learning now.

EBD is right, although it may be unpopular, the independent sector will certainly benefit some children, especially those who get a lot of input at home before they start and are obviously ready to learn that bit more. I don't regret it one moment, even when I see the bill coming in each term. Imagine what she would have been like if she had been there from the start!

Sorry no excuses for going private, it is right for my dd.

I got this one wrong, and taught a child to read (trust me, he was academically ready) at 2.0. I left him to it once he'd got the basics, and he turned into a bookworm, and entered school with an amazing vocabulary. He shocked his experienced reception teacher who'd never seen a child like it. However, he never learnt to think for himself, still can't focus - he's used to being enteratined by books/adult converstaion, and at nearly 7 he varies between seriously bright, understands everything first time, with amazing abstract thinking and totally uninterested - just never had to work, and never learnt how. He also thinks he doesn't need to work, and is an arrogant little so-and-so in his pet subjects. Yet he's uncreative, socially poor, and doesn't persevere/focus properly.

He might be able to read any book you give him, but he can't infer a single thing about what the characters are feeling/why they did what they did. His understanding of people is really dire. I didn't focus enough on all the other stuff, and focussed too much on stuff like school, because he was clearly 'bright' and ready.

As a life skill, he would be so much better understanding his peers than being academic.

I suppose what I'm saying is there are so many more directions you can stretch in, so stay away from academic subjects so that she has to concentrate more in school. Otherwise you will actually impair her ability to learn - why learn to listen in class when you know it all? And just let her make the most of being 3 - it's an age where you can still influence who she turns out to be, not just what tricks she can do. If she's bright, she'll pull ahead eventually, and you can support her when she wants/actually needs to learn academically, and when she needs her exams.

FWIW, I prefer our laid back primary school to the local highly selective prep - Children do get pushed, but to the extent they can deal with, not beyond. And they generally come out able to think for themselves, not just rote learn. ( I may send the kids to the private senior, and they might need tutoring in some areas to get in - but they will have had a chance to be children meanwhile) I just have to (try to) see my son improvising a slingshot as a practical physics lesson, not misbehaviour.....

EBD teacher that makes alot of sense and I hadn't thought of it that way before. It's certainly been my experience with DD yr 1 at a non selective private.

In my opinion sending children's in play school is very much needed because it makes their base strong.

Lots and lots of interesting points here, but it shows you just how different all schools are, whether state or private.

I still think the most postive thing you can do is to instill a love of learning, for it's own sake, and both private preps and good state schools can do this.

Re: the broadsheet newspapers comment - if you have an 8 year old boy who is even moderately interested in football, they will be sneaking off with the sport section if they get a chance.

I agree Sitting and it already a source of both pride and irritation to my husband that somebody in the house wants the sports section more than him. I've been surprised at how good sports journalism is esp in use of superlatives and adjectives. I've no problem with it being a big chunk of ds reading.
Sorry off topic though all part of the same - that learning can come in many forms but enthusiasm for it is the key.

Agree with Pollyp. My DD1 was streets ahead at 2.5yrs...spookily so at times. She could recite the alphabet, count to 100, draw uncannily accurate pics (with correct eye colour if of people), recognise Tony Blair & Jack Straw on TV (!?) do quite complicated Jigsaw puzzles, make elaborate worlds from plasticine etc. She was reading simple books before she started school Nursery at 3. She is still above average now but do you know what? she forgot a lot of those early skills shortly after learning them because in reality she had simply learnt them without really understanding. I hear many parents wanting their children to be stretched or pushed but imo they have to be ready to learn first and no amount of stretching or pushing will make much long term difference if they are not. In the meantime she is 3 yrs old. Let her prepare that fertile ground before all that sowing begins

I think in any overview of early education it is useful to appreciate the essential importance of play in early childhood education. For a child, play is a very serious business.

Academic and anecdotal evidence indicates that play/ free creativity is an integrated coexisting component of young children's developmental progress. Play helps young children develop strong representational skills, problem-solving abilities, and social-linguistic sophistication, all essential for good academic progress in later life.

Children who do not have opportunities to experience such play may find that their long-term capacities related to metacognition, problem solving, and social cognition, as well as to academic areas such as literacy, mathematics, and science, may be diminished. These complex and multidimensional skills involving many areas of the brain are most likely to thrive in an atmosphere rich in high-quality pretend play.

Concentrated and direct teaching of alphabet, number, colour etc should not be at the expense of play in early childhood education. Social pretend play requires extended uninterrupted time periods to develop complexity.

Certainly, adult led teaching has a part to play as children need to be introduced to new ideas and opportunities to develop their skills. There needs to be a balance between child led and adult directed activity. However, as adults, we may feel we know what child should have to learn. But we must remember that, while we can teach them, we cannot control what they learn.

Children need to be allowed to explore their own ideas, play with resources and use their imagination and creativity. In doing this, and practising the skills that they have learned , children can take ownership of their learning and apply it in different situations.

There is nothing wrong with a child learning to read at 4 years. However,the ability to decode sounds and letters (reading) does not equate to an ability to understand their meaning. Have a look at the research on the so called 'fourth grade slump' phenomenon. Children need to be able to comprehend what they read and apply any lessons. Practising the alphabet will not teach this skill but play based learning will.

I agree with every word of your post elliephant.

Every child's learning will necessarily go from almost entirely child led to almost entirely adult led (and hopefully back again to being self initiated if the individual embraces lifelong learning).

The point you don't make is that each individual child will be ready for shifts in the balance at different times.

As a rule of thumb, most children will need child led learning until they are about six and will then be ready for a shift towards adult led learning (i.e. around Y1 or if you are in the USA when they start school).

But that is just a rule of thumb. Some children will be ready for a shift in the balance earlier. Some would benefit from the shift in the balance being later. I could introduce you to children who have recieved statements for emotional and behavioural difficulties and been put in a special school who just really needed a play based curriculum for longer- to develop their social skills/ attention/ motor skills etc.

One size, unfortunately, will never fit all.

Yes, elliephant and EBDTeacher, some really good points. The brain has got a lot more developing to do between 3 and 6/7. This is why many schools in other countries don't start formal learning until this age.

To give you an idea, my niece in Sweden was 6 in March. She hasn't been taught to read or write yet. She will start "Reception" in September, the year she turns 7. This is not to say that she hasn't hat a rich curriculum at her pre-school, full of stimulating activities, trips out (they take them out every week over there). She will not suffer from not learning to read or write until a bit later- they then learn very quickly. They stretch them with their conversation skills, they learn to be more independent more quickly (eg 8 year olds walk to school by themselves), and also develop social and emotional skills/behaviour.

DS2s pre-school is far from pushy but if they are academically able they will do a small amount of extention work for them. They do not sit down for lessons or anything but keyworker time is planned according to the childrens abilities so there is no reason they can not be stretched.

DS1 was stretched really well at pre-school and was reading at a fairly high level when he left, they let him read to a member of staff or helper every day. They didn't teach him to read, he just did it, but they were happy to nuture him all they could.

Sometimes children will pretend they can't do things (I have no idea why) so that could be another reason why they aren't stretching her. DS1 didn't really talk for about 6 months at pre-school (he was talking in full sentences by 2 yrs) and at about 2 1/2 they said at parents evening - he is talking in sentences now, its really good. It wasn't a reflection on them, he just chose not to speak much at first.

Everyone is right though, if you continue to work with her at home then the school should recognise her ability very quickly and it won't be an issue.

One other thing - DS2 is also at a private school and they don't even do letters and sounds until the last term of the 'pre' -school year. His other community pre-school do them from 2 yrs (age appropriately of course). It really does vary and there isn't necessarily any right or wrong.

I agree with elliephant.

In fact DS1 did a lot of playing at Nursery. When he left he could barely write his own name. He did not learn to read till he was 5yrs and 4 months.

He is Year 3 now and is on the 'top' tables in his class.

IMO they need to goo through the playing learning stage in order to then rogress well into the mre formal learning of skills later.

"DD does really lovely pictures at home, houses, rockets full of colour etc - and at the end of a session at nursery they'll hand me a 'picture' she's done which is just a blob of paint on a piece of paper, maybe with some tissue stuck on. It feels like she's completely taking the piss sometimes and I'm just sorry they're not encouraging her to do more.

:o

My DD sends home pictures like this too!

I think she enjoys the whole process of getting her paper onto the easel, putting her name tag on etc., but is too busy to actuall do much painting.

Then she comes home and draws and draws, filling up our house with picture she refuses to let me throw away (she is mortally offended if she finds anything she has done in the bin).

Good to know she's not the only one doing really rubbish pictures at nursery.

I honestly cannot believe you need to worry about what a child can or can't do academically at the age of 3 1/2, unless they are seriously behind in their social, emotional or physical development. I find the idea of children being pushed at nursery frankly ludicrous. Most of them aren't even 4 when they start!!

I think it is worth bearing in mind that the countries with the best results in international comparisons of (later stages of) education are those with a late start to formal education and an almost complete focus on play in the early years.

I think tailoring each child's education as closely as possible to thier needs is the ideal scenario. I don't think under stimulating a child is any more appropriate than 'pushing' them.

I think it would be a good idea if there was some flexibility about which year any child started school i.e. let them start Reception at 4, 5 or 6 and then let them stay in that year group. I think the decision about which year a child started in would need to be a parent-professional partnership descision though.

I work in a state EYFS unit with nursery and reception and there is nothing "best fit" about what goes on at all. We have lots of time to spend with individual children that they get work to push them to the next level all the time. The environment in EY makes the children very excited about learning - something that most of the rest of the world realises by carrying it on until 6 or 7 years old.

I was talking in terms of policy development NOT individual children or settings Riverside.

If an EYFS setting is excellent at differentiating then any individual's needs can be met. Not every setting is excellent.

In one mainstream school I worked in they abandonned the group, adult led activities they usually did on the days ofsted were in because they knew it would be dissaproved of. Sad for the children who's needs were better met by that.

BTW please do not interpret this as an argument against child initiated learning. I'm all for learning through high quality, facilitated, self planned play. I just think that a) some children can benefit from adult introduction of academic skills at an earlier age and b) some poor settings interpret child initiated learning as a free-for-all which I don't think is constructive.

PleaseBonkMeMoreGently makes some very interesting points.. If you have a child who is well ahead of her peer group at school because of intensive home education, she is not going to listen at school and won't learn the important skill of learning collaboratively among her friends. You talk about prep schools but they start at the basics too.

The other point about this is where do you stop? When she's in reception, do you start on times tables? In year 2, do you start on long division? Are you always going to try to stay ahead of the pack?

A final note of caution is that these things can even out quickly in any case. At the start of my dd's year 1 class, most of the top table were girls who were more ready to do formal learning. By the end, this was representative of the mix of the class. Just a thought..

I agree with Riverside it is very much a feature of EYFS that learning is tailored to the individual child and not a best fit or one size fit all curriculum. EYFS should provide a balance of teacher led learning (teaching) and child led learning (scaffolding) so plenty of opportunities to develop academic abilities but don't forget that the most important early predictor of future success is dispositions and attitudes to school NOT reading, writing or maths.

Why can't a child be a child and stretched at the same time?

My DCs went to a private nursery which had a teacher come in a couple of times a week for basic maths and English lessons so when they started Year R they were ahead of their classmates.

Yes I know they are at school until 16/18 and by then no one will remember (or care) who knew more long words in Year R but my kids were both on the top table and went on to win scholarships at their respective indies while at the same time being well adjusted and popular children.

Sorry ladies but my parenting method gets my vote :o

oh yes the drawing thing bothers me too. DD does really lovely pictures at home, houses, rockets full of colour etc - and at the end of a session at nursery they'll hand me a 'picture' she's done which is just a blob of paint on a piece of paper, maybe with some tissue stuck on. It feels like she's completely taking the piss sometimes and I'm just sorry they're not encouraging her to do more.

Sorry but I haven't been able to get this out of myhead since I read it a couple of hours ago - she's 4 fgs! At home I imagine there are few distractions and she can focus completely on her picture. Nursery is completly different and with so many distractions (and I'm not using the word perjoratively) she produced a different knd of picture. Or maybe she felt like experimenting and seeing what happened if she just splatted the paint on. And you feel that, at 4 years old, she is taking the piss in doing this? Words fail me. This is what 4 year olds are supposed to be doing. I don't mean that they can't or shouldn't ever do more structured activities, but it is a serious failure of the imagination to look at a four- year old's 'free-style' picture and see it as a piss-take. I agree, mindless praise is not the best response but why not say something like, "Looks like you had fun doing this, look how many colours are on it..."etc?

So what if other children are ahead of her for a few years? They won't be forever if she is bright and comes from a supportive family, which she clearly does. In the long-run it won't matter exactly how old she was when she did certain things.

I agree with PooshTun tbh.

I am lucky in that DD (4) does seem to be stretched at nursery (she has an exceptionally good teacher who is going up with her to reception, fingers X) although they don't know how well she can read as they have not assessed her beyond the basic books.

DD is all consumingly (sp) obsessed with letters/phonics/reading/alphablocks and would read 4/5 books a day....

The nursery have said she is exceptionally bright and give her 121 time to read etc etc.

Having said that I do believe its equally important for her to be just a 4yr old iyswim and have time to dress up/have tea parties with her friends....

"I agree with PooshTun"

Now, if only I can train DP to say that :)

I knew one pushy mum who thought dress up and the like was too much of a distraction. The DD is now 11 years old, extremely clever ... and socially awkward.

As long as a balance is struck I see nothing wrong with stretching a child.

Lol at training dp!!!

Exactly, I think balance is the key re fun/ playing and learning. Tonight DD wanted to read rather than play outside on the trampoline but once she saw her brother being allowed an ice pop in the back garden the book was soon forgotten!!!