Do parents have low expectations?

[mrz]

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/12206787/Parents-low-expectations-condemning-toddlers-them-to-a-life-of-underachievement.html

Irvine that's probably more to do with the fact that you were a parent interested in teaching your child, rather than the fact you attended the course.

WhatTheActual - but some children are not ready (although DD1 is a summer born so young for her year) - she just could not "hear" letter sounds before about half way through reception. She also refused to hold a pen or pencil/crayon/paintbrush etc and had zero interest in letter formation on flour etc.

However she could count to 20, knew her colours, shapes, some 3D shapes, and every bloody dinosaur you could ever wish to know about! Also knew her planets and stars etc. And about 50 books off by heart.

So it doesn't always follow that children are ignorant of phonics before school just because of lack of parental involvement. Sometimes they are just not developmentally ready.

"Why on earth shouldn't we teach them their colours, their numbers, to read and write?"

If you have time - as I did - and the ability to read and write yourself - as I did - and were well-parented yourself so you know about how to be a parent - as i was - then there is no reason why you shouldn't teach them.

The problem does not lie with parents such as you or children like yours.

The problem is with parents who work 12 hour days in one or more jobs and whose children are cared for in group or individual settings that are short on language and interaction; parents who were not well-parented themselves and so do not know how to interact with babies and toddlers; parents who are illiterate and / or innumerate themselves or have very low levels of education - or who are drug or alcohol addicted, have chaotic home lives, are homeless, suffer from chronic mental or physical health issues or are so busy protecting their children from a violent partner that the child's early education is simply not on the priority list - or are so badly housed that all time and energy goes into keeping adequately warm, approximately clean and not too hungry - or have one or more children with SN or other factors that make them very demanding and tghus have luittle time or attention left for other young children who could indeed be being 'educated' in the way you describe.

Susan it's also worth saying that's it's COMPLETELY NORMAL not to be in the least bit ready for all those things at 4 or 5. I find it so sad that we expect so much at such a young age in the uk.

EnglishFern - absolutely.

I think it is more important that my children have a joy of books and see me enjoying reading than they learn phonics before 4. And actually DD1 started her reception year being "behind" most other children in that she could not recognise a single letter (or refused to!) and certainly could not "hear" letter sounds - she is still not yet 5, one term to go, and is in the "top" phonics group, despite still refusing to do any phonics work with us at home. She likes us to read to her, and I;m happy to indulge for now :)

I cross-posted with Susan, and completely agree.

Some children are ready for, and crave, 'school learning' before the normal age for school. DS was clearly very curious about letters as a pre-schooler, and after debating what to do about it, i laboriously purchased the jolly Phonics teacher's handbook (I wasn't a teacher at that point), only to discover that he had already taught himself to read). On the other hand, I have seen parents following a clearly uninterested child about and badgering them with letters and numbers when they were clearly MUCH more interested in mud.

Susan the report isn't talking about phonics it's about understanding words.

Mrz - I know, I was responding to WhatTheActual who was implying that parents should be teaching preschool children phonics. And I was disagreeing and saying only when they are ready/interested. General discourse with your child about what interests them is much more important inmy opinion :)

Susan of course they're not all ready. But we'll never know who's ready and who's not if the whole of society just assume that all under 5s aren't ready to learn literacy and so never give them the opportunity to try.

I wasn't sitting down giving mine lessons! There was nothing planned or organised about it. It just featured in every day language. My first is a total brain box and was reading well before reception, but she is obviously an exception. My 2nd is bright, but no more so than most kids his age. He learns phonics at nursery andin the last 6 months has really started to click with it. This means that come September he'll be ready to start blending confidently and cracking on with reading sentences. As will most of the other children in his class who have been attending the same phonics-teaching nursery. This innocuous 'early' start will give these children an advantage that will very possibly show the whole of their whole schooling life.

teacher the situations and people you talk about are of course, dreadful. The causes of, and solutions to, their problems are obviously much more complex than when to introduce phonics. But the article linked to from the beginning of this thread talked about half of British families. The article talks about the long-lasting damage done by average, middle of the road families with average, middle of the road children not giving their young pre-school children the opportunity to learn at their full potential.

I truly don't think any child actively suffers from not starting phonics until 6 or 7, and I see this every day in my dc's school.

Kids of 4 and 5 should be playing in the mud. Nothing else.

Clearly I have digressed with bringing phonics in to the conversation. I meant that only as an example really.

I have seen a lot of examples, both from parents and from schools, of a broad assumption that young children can't or shouldn't learn 'academic' subjects. But I think that some children can do, and should, learn more and earlier than most parents and schools currently seem to allow those children to. And I don't mean out of the ordinarily bright or advanced children.

Most people wouldn't want to push their toddlers out of nappies before they were ready. But neither would most people want to hide a toilet out of sight of babies and toddlers for fear of them being 'too young'. IYSWIM.

"The article talks about the long-lasting damage done by average, middle of the road families with average, middle of the road children not giving their young pre-school children the opportunity to learn at their full potential."

yes, and a lot of the situations i describe - long working hours, in particular - are MUCH more common than you might expect amonst such average, middle of the road families...as mrz says, it is often the 'middle class' children, replete with tablets and TVs and electronic devices for child-quietening, who are in fact woefully short on language acquisition through human interaction.

I disagree What. I don't think any child is disadvantaged by NOT learning phonics before 6 or 7

English how can you say that?! You are using a ridiculously broad brush to paint ALL children with. How totally ridiculous. What you're saying is no better than saying that ALL children should know their phoncis (or whatever) before starting school.

If I had given my very bright 4 year only mud to play with that would have been very poor parenting on my part.

The article was talked about expectations. From what I have seen of family, friends and local schools, I really do think young children are widely underestimated.

sorry 😳

For what it's worth speaking as someone who taught reception for many years I think it's totally unnecessary for parents to teach their child prior to school unless the child shows a strong interest . Talk to your child share stories songs and rhymes but don't feel under pressure to teach your pre school child.

Where I live children start school at 6, almost 7.

They're not NOT learning before then, but they're learning about play, about human relationships, about being a human being - before that point.

I don't think any child is disadvantaged by learning those things.

And I have taught primary in the uk so I have the comparison.

There is some research that actually shows that early phonic results in less reading enjoyment and so less actual reading at about age 11.

But playing in mud, and talking about it, describing the woms, how we find them, shaping it etc. I found it quite boring to a certain extent, but appreciated the necessity for my children's language development. Other mums of my acquaintance doing the same activity would be on their phones... Makes a difference

But English we are talking about British children, living in Britain. Where children are sent to school at 5, and are taught to read in reception. So clearly, in the society we live in, in Britain, a child who isn't given the opportunity to learn phonics until the age of 7 would suffer quite badly. Socially, emotionally and academically.

Not learning to read until 7 in a country where everyone else isn't learning to read until 7 is a very different kettle of fish.

Oh, and by the way English if I hadn't given my DD the opportunity to learn her phonics from when she was a toddler, she would of course NOT have been damaged, no.

She she would have taught herself to read by sight anyway. But she would now be suffering quite badly at school by not being able to encode her own spelling. She would need to sit in her advanced yr 2 group for her reading, and then sit with the little reception children for spelling. I would imagine that would be pretty shitty for her.

"If I had given my very bright 4 year only mud to play with"

It is that 'given' that is so telling. 'If I had played in mud with my child and discussed it with them' is an entirely different educational experience.

I HEd DS for a short time, for reasons not relevant here. The half hour we spent together watching and discussing a snail (still not found out what the black substance / organ is that pushes up inside a snail's antennae when it extends them) remains with both of us, 10+ years on, as one of the most exciting educational experiences of his life, in that it propelled us into a whole world of seeing and doing and exploring and finding out and just really LOOKING that was different both in quality and depth from anything school-based or obviously 'educational' that had gone before.

Then the problem is the uk school system, surely?

But isn't that precisely the point teacher? You were teaching him. Simply by living. By expecting him to be able to enjoy and engage and develop and learn. You did not have low expectations of him.

WWhatthe - DS, who taught himself o read without any help from me - I was too ate, as i said - was and remains a very good speller. Despite 'aopopearing' to learn by sight, he actually worked out the phonic code, as i think most children who appear to 'learn by sight' actually do in order to be able to read new words. DD, who did not learn to read until she started school and was taught through phonics - she was much more interested in writing and drawing, reading was a much lesser thing for her - is a weaker speller, but that's a whole other story

Then the problem is the uk school system, surely? well, yes. But I suspect my reasons for thinking so are different to yours.

Maybe your DS is just a genius, teacher.

I was taught to read by sight, I suspect most of us here were, and my phonics-learnt 6yo DD can out spell me.