“We start school too early in the UK!”

"Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man."

It is interesting you should quote this. I think I probably have a different take on it! We have lots of under sevens engaged in formal learning leading to the "man/woman" who has been programmed to achieve and to be competitive and to learn that they are failing in some way..... who potentially becomes part of the epidemic of mental health problems in teenagers and young people, or finds themselves diagnosed with a condition because the narrow channel decreed for them does not suit their young brain.

My own daughter could recite the 7 times table at 3 years of age - because I was playing the tape to her older brother. My honest take on that ... and we must agree to differ here I expect ... is that this is not remotely surprising as she was simply repeating what she had heard ... but with no understanding, so it might seem impressive, but actually has no purpose.

I was always led to believe this was about character.

Integrity, resilience, empathy, compassion, anxiety...
I thought it was basically saying this is like a psychological blueprint.
Changes made later in life are modifications built on that architecture.

But yes, the Jesuits believe in education and the power of early years education, with the specific philosophy that if you could instill religious faith, discipline, and moral values then the child will have that for life.

Casdon

Would lax parenting be more of an issue if school was not compulsory before the age of seven? I’d worry that some children would receive no education and would be even further behind their peers than they are now when they start school - unless nursery education was compulsory?

Ideally they’d start at 4 or 5 in the same way, but formal education would only start at 6 or 7 - play based until then. There will almost certainly be a 12 month age range in any intake anyway.

FranP My own daughter could recite the 7 times table at 3 years of age - because I was playing the tape to her older brother.

Luckygirl13
My honest take on that ... and we must agree to differ here I expect ... is that this is not remotely surprising as she was simply repeating what she had heard ... but with no understanding, so it might seem impressive, but actually has no purpose.

I don’t think FranP was claiming her 3 year old had any mathematical skill when reciting the 7x table.
No one ever said that a child who could sing Hey Diddle Diddle knew about the impossibility of a cow jumping over the moon, or really believed that silver bells and cockle shells actually grew in a garden.
They were simply learning to repeat what they heard.

We can agree to differ, but IMO both singing nursery rhymes and reciting the 7 times table serve a purpose.
They mean children are acquiring vocabulary and patterns that they can use in the future, regardless of whether they understand the words or rhymes that they are repeating.

My son could read and understand numbers at 3. I think a lot of children can.

I think we often underestimate just how much small children can understand if they are given a chance. We have got obsessed with the idea that children should only learn at school and should present themselves to teachers at 5 with a mind that is totally blank. Indeed some seem to think that that it is impossible to learn before they start school.

I think of the millions of parents who today will cuddle a child on their lap while reading a book to them, counting the flowers, or rabbits, talking about the story , looking at the numbers or letters or words and that child will when they are ready start to recognise and understand them. For some they may be only 2, others may not get there until they are 7, but most will grow up competent readers, with happy memories of reading as being surrounded by love.

I think of the millions of parents who today will cuddle a child on their lap while reading a book to them, counting the flowers, or rabbits, talking about the story , looking at the numbers or letters or words and that child will when they are ready start to recognise and understand them. For some they may be only 2, others may not get there until they are 7, but most will grow up competent readers, with happy memories of reading as being surrounded by love.

Indeed - just what we all do. But I think there is a huge difference between that and what happens in school. At home we are just sharing the fun together and somewhere along the way some learning happens, or doesn't - either way is fine. At school they have standards to meet and are tested and compared to their peers. This is so inappropriate for small children.

Some of the posts on Mumsnet are really creepy. From the tiniest age the parents are programmed to educate, educate, educate with the distorted idea that if they are not keeping up or excelling they will be failures in life and not get a job. It really does seem to be a prevalent attitude. The idea of children doing parent initiated workbooks during their holidays seems to be common, as if the only purpose of childhood is to learn testable stuff.

Parent initiated workbooks are also prevalent on the continent, even for young children in those countries that advocate a later start.
But then parents are also responsible for the comparison between children, right from boasting about
the earliest first smile,
the earliest first roll over,
the earliest first sit up,
the earliest first tooth,
the earliest first word,
the earliest first crawl
the earliest first step,
the earliest counting,
the earliest reading,
and even the earliest potty training.
You can read about that even on Gransnet, never mind Mumsnet.

It's grim isn't it?

Ha ha... my most mobile child - an early walker was not really a talker until quite a bit older than any of her siblings.

I think they each have their own "time" and the best job we can do as parents is to love them and be the best facilitators we can be.

Really, when you think about it, full time education is actually still quite a new invention in the history of mankind's development.

Really, when you think about it, full time education is actually still quite a new invention in the history of mankind's development.

That is very true and I think it is throwing up lots of problems.

Luckygirl3

*Really, when you think about it, full time education is actually still quite a new invention in the history of mankind's development.*

That is very true and I think it is throwing up lots of problems.

But the growth of formal education has grown alongside the industrial revolution and onwards.

It is (mainly) human beings who have initiated every single development of education since they stood on their feet and learned to cook food. Children had to be taught how to make stone tools, how to farm crops, how to smelt metal and so on. learning went from home to the specialist to the factory and now the school.

I bet every group and period complained about it.

Yes M0nica but really I meant (and should have said) full time education in terms of the education acts.

Obviously "education" in the broad sense is not only full time but (I hope) life-long... for most of us.

M0nica
It is (mainly) human beings who have initiated every single development of education since they stood on their feet and learned to cook food. Children had to be taught how to make stone tools, how to farm crops, how to smelt metal and so on. learning went from home to the specialist to the factory and now the school.

I bet every group and period complained about it.

Certainly some of the better off complained about the lowly masses learning to read and write - getting above themselves.