Why do we send children to school so young

[sandcastles1]

Just that really - I'm feeling really disgruntled with our school system and why we make children go into full time education from the age of 4. My dc just started and is enjoying some of it and hating lots of it. She loved the first week when it was half days. For the past four years she has been either with me or her dad - we would take her out into the woods every day. Now she's cooped up in a small room/playground for the whole time. I could have home schooled her I know but didn't think that was the best thing socially. I can see the benefits of them going but 5 days a week 9-330 just seems harsh. Why couldn't it be three days. I know up until 5 we can take them out but just wondering how others feel as I'm missing my daughter a lot, she doesn't want to be there most of the time and I really now see the virtues of other countries that don't start full time until 7. Yes it means we can work, but why is that the norm? People that don't want to spend more time with their kids could find other care the rest of the time.

worried yes the phrase Kindergarten is fairly often used now in the UK.
The anti-German-ness is long gone (except when it comes to football )

Also my ideal would actually be a longer day but with more extra curricular. My life would be considerably easier if for example the school could just minibus all the interested kids to gymnastics. In terms of the environment etc, it makes no sense having 30 odd kids from the school being driven individually to a gymnastics class while their parents sit around doing nothing for an hour. There are lots of thing where centralising would actually make much more sense. Will never happen though.

Interesting article here about lobbies for a new wealth tax - it's ideas like this that do work towards different ways of doing things - and if there's more money in the pot for Education - who knows what could happen next.
www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/20/new-wealth-tax-uk-arguments?CMP=fb_gu&utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3YI5PYhDjg8C-iRuqxickNsh-pO-vYo-LHZe0pjl802BJa4ywFXdyICWg#Echobox=1632164818

OP. How would you ensure that less time in school didn't have a detrimental impact on women's careers?

The thing is, we know our kids start school in September after they turn 4. From birth to that day, it is up to us to prepare them for that.

The school day is not long enough for working parents. Most of us need wrap around care

School is good for them. They spend time away from parents, forge relationships with with other kids. They learn from adults who are not their parents. They are learning from qualified and experienced progress

They need to go. Four is the right age. IMO

Are you sure it is you who doesn't want to let go OP?

When my DD started reception aged 4, she was the happiest little thing, so excited having enjoyed 2 days a week at pre-school for a year or so prior to starting. She was the only one out of her little friendship group that wasn't remotely teary as I left her. She was such a confident reader and devoured books.

This didn't last. Her confidence dropped day by day, she lost interest in books, in learning. The same book sent home everyday bored her. And homework. Homework for a 4 year old after 7 hours a day in school.

We got as far as Christmas. She was poorly the first day of the new term so missed the new seating allocation day (wtaf) and wasn't allowed to sit with her friends. She cried when I left her. She was a shell compared to the 4 year old that started as a confident, happy child the previous September. She never went back the next day.

We de-registered her and have home educated her and younger siblings ever since and don't regret a moment of it. They are now sitting GCSEs younger than their peers and are happy, social, ambitious and confident. I appreciate that not everyone is in a position to home educate but school isn't right for every child and certainly not every 4 year old. Parents have every legal and moral right to not send their young children into full time school until whatever age they feel they are ready and this should be made clearer to parents, not discouraged as it is currently.

This is my first post here, mainly because I feel so strongly about the OP who is receiving all this flack for having an unpopular opinion.

I strongly agree - 4 is way too young for kids to start formal learning. Reception may be play based but expecting a 5/6 year old to sit down and learn formally in year 1 for 6+ hours and then do homework is completely insane. When are they supposed to do extra curricular activities, play with their toys and have free time?

Any opinion that goes against the norm will receive a lot of criticism. I would much rather have more time with my kids. There’s more to life than learning by sitting at a desk, indoctrinating them into being compliant so they can grow up and be slaves to corporations and never question lack of work life balance.

The Uk seems to have an obsession with work. Yes, we need to work to live and for the economy to survive but my experience is that people prioritize work over family and personal life. I would much rather make a few sacrifices and have time with my kids while they are little.

The Uk seems to have an obsession with work. Yes, we need to work to live and for the economy to survive but my experience is that people prioritize work over family and personal life. I would much rather make a few sacrifices and have time with my kids while they are little.

You are in a very privileged position if you are able to make a few 'sacrifices' in order to be able to stay at home with your children.

Starting school/attending formal childcare which follows an early years curriculum is vitally important for social mobility. Just because some individual families feel they could offer something more valuable at home doesn't make that true across society.
Delaying the start of school gig everyone would see the disadvantage gap widen even further.
Not to mention the the detrimental impact it would have on women's careers.

Also, vilifying people who want to work and enjoy their career is not a helpful narrative.

@user1469648222

This is my first post here, mainly because I feel so strongly about the OP who is receiving all this flack for having an unpopular opinion.

I strongly agree - 4 is way too young for kids to start formal learning. Reception may be play based but expecting a 5/6 year old to sit down and learn formally in year 1 for 6+ hours and then do homework is completely insane. When are they supposed to do extra curricular activities, play with their toys and have free time?

Any opinion that goes against the norm will receive a lot of criticism. I would much rather have more time with my kids. There’s more to life than learning by sitting at a desk, indoctrinating them into being compliant so they can grow up and be slaves to corporations and never question lack of work life balance.

The Uk seems to have an obsession with work. Yes, we need to work to live and for the economy to survive but my experience is that people prioritize work over family and personal life. I would much rather make a few sacrifices and have time with my kids while they are little.

There are valid comments on this thread about the nature of school - ie, whether it should be formal learning at that age or not. But OP (and now you) have unhelpfully focused more on the "they should be going less" side of things, suggesting people just don't care enough to make the sacrifices for their children not to have to go 5 days a week. It's a completely different argument and comes from a far more unrealistic and privileged perspective, because they need to be in school at least the amount they currently are for most parents to get by.

@user1469648222 - I think you have chosen the wrong school. The method of learning you have described doesn’t represent the school my DT’s went to or the one I’m a Governor at.

My DC’s thought school was fun. They were excited to go each day and looked forward to playing with their friends both in school and in breakfast and after school club. They didn’t realise how much they were learning. How would a later age to start school help parents progress their careers.

Have changed my username.

This is exactly my point. Why should the school going age be based on parents being able to progress their careers?

Mine are happy in school but no way would I leave them there for 11 hours a day at age 4.

Agree that individual situations vary and maybe I see it from a privileged point of view. But I do think it should not be mandatory to have to send a 5 year old to school for such long hours - there should be alternatives to the mainstream idea of a long school day and wrap around care for those who want them.

I think the difference here is that I am willing to take a hit to my career, compress hours, go without holidays, etc to be able to spend more time with my kids. Everyone may not have that choice but it should be available to people who want it.

The school starting age isn’t based on progressing parents careers. Why shouldn’t parents progress their careers - it benefits the whole family.
For those not agreeing with the current system, there is always the option of home schooling.

Why should the school going age be based on parents being able to progress their careers?

Is there any evidence that it is based on that? If it was about careers/work then the hours would be longer then they are and there wouldn’t be 13 weeks holiday a year. In no way is the school day designed for working parents. Primary school is completely set up for a one-SAHP one-working-parent model.

[quote Parker231]@user1469648222 - I think you have chosen the wrong school. The method of learning you have described doesn’t represent the school my DT’s went to or the one I’m a Governor at.

My DC’s thought school was fun. They were excited to go each day and looked forward to playing with their friends both in school and in breakfast and after school club. They didn’t realise how much they were learning. How would a later age to start school help parents progress their careers.[/quote]
You’ve actually said “how would a later age to start school help parents progress their careers”

@Coffeepants - a later school age would mean trying to secure an excellent nursery place for longer (often a nightmare for working parents) and have unhappy children who were more than ready to start formal school learning.

@RobinPenguins

Why should the school going age be based on parents being able to progress their careers?

Is there any evidence that it is based on that? If it was about careers/work then the hours would be longer then they are and there wouldn’t be 13 weeks holiday a year. In no way is the school day designed for working parents. Primary school is completely set up for a one-SAHP one-working-parent model.

I don’t think it does… I was responding to a comment which said this.

I think you’re right in that the whole model is broken. 13 weeks of holiday so we can shove them in more clubs while we work… doesn’t sound like a very healthy and balanced life to me. When are they meant yo just be kids?

And for everyone coming at me with how much their DC love school and after school and breakfast club and holiday clubs, I’m sure they do… but kids are likely to burn out eventually. They have their entire lives to work for at least 8 hours a day, a few more years of childhood would really not be the worst thing in the world

I don’t have a problem with kids starting at 4, free education ( and yes childcare) for all from an early age as said before. It levels the playing field. And reception is no different really to any European kindergarten. Lots of play. My main worry is schools focus on testing and formal learning too soon. That is what we should focus on. Keeping play central to infant school experience right up to year 3. That is what we should be pressurizing the government to do.

[quote Parker231]@Coffeepants - a later school age would mean trying to secure an excellent nursery place for longer (often a nightmare for working parents) and have unhappy children who were more than ready to start formal school learning.[/quote]
Think we will agree to disagree here. Not really the biggest fan of nursery for 12+ hours from as young as 6 months old either.

I’m not attacking the parents, they largely don’t do it out of choice but the system needs to be looked at. We need better work life balance, more priority on family time. I keep reading threads on here about how exhausting life is with early starts, activities after school and the constant running on a hamster wheel.

In some ways this is my own life. Which is why I am considering what the alternatives may be.

@Didyousaynutella

I don’t have a problem with kids starting at 4, free education ( and yes childcare) for all from an early age as said before. It levels the playing field. And reception is no different really to any European kindergarten. Lots of play. My main worry is schools focus on testing and formal learning too soon. That is what we should focus on. Keeping play central to infant school experience right up to year 3. That is what we should be pressurizing the government to do.

This is a really good point. I have actually been looking for schools where the entire KS1 is based on provision for play and outdoor learning. This is a model I could get on board with.

@Coffeepants

Have changed my username.

This is exactly my point. Why should the school going age be based on parents being able to progress their careers?

Mine are happy in school but no way would I leave them there for 11 hours a day at age 4.

Because children are a part of society, not the sole focus or only part that matters. As others have said, it's not set up to work properly for working parents. But I find all the "why should we consider parents careers at all, why aren't we doing what's 100% ideal for the kids, won't somebody please think of the children" talk really irritating. Like adults, who have to go to work every day to get by, kids have to slot into the society we have - the whole thing cannot be tailored purely around them. I don't think it's harsh to say that, it's just reality. They have it good compared to most others.

By all means home school, or advocate for school's being more play based, but questioning why we haven't totally restructured society, or worse, just coped with the resulting fallout, of shafting all other factors to make childhood perfect and magical for children, is really privileged, unrealistic, and annoying.

Think we will agree to disagree here. Not really the biggest fan of nursery for 12+ hours from as young as 6 months old either.

Where are you getting these 11 and 12 hours from that you’re talking about? The primary school day is 6 hours. Young children will have an hour for lunch. Two other breaks.

DD’s private nursery is open for 10.5 hours in total and there are no children who are there the full time. But having those hours allows parents to drop off earlier and pick up earlier or drop off later and pick up later. Few babies start nursery at 6 months in the UK, mine was 10 months and she was the youngest for ages. You’re using exaggerated examples that don’t reflect reality.

@RobinPenguins

Think we will agree to disagree here. Not really the biggest fan of nursery for 12+ hours from as young as 6 months old either.

Where are you getting these 11 and 12 hours from that you’re talking about? The primary school day is 6 hours. Young children will have an hour for lunch. Two other breaks.

DD’s private nursery is open for 10.5 hours in total and there are no children who are there the full time. But having those hours allows parents to drop off earlier and pick up earlier or drop off later and pick up later. Few babies start nursery at 6 months in the UK, mine was 10 months and she was the youngest for ages. You’re using exaggerated examples that don’t reflect reality.

Two nurseries in my area (SE London) are open from 7am to 6pm every day. That’s actually 13 hours. Parents with long commutes are likely dropping them off before 8am and picking up at 6pm. So how is that exaggerated? I believe this is the norm for much of London but may be different elsewhere.

[quote Parker231]@Coffeepants - a later school age would mean trying to secure an excellent nursery place for longer (often a nightmare for working parents) and have unhappy children who were more than ready to start formal school learning.[/quote]
I agree about some dc being more than ready.