“We start school too early in the UK!”

Were we blaming "the midfle class"?

Message deleted by Gransnet. Here's a link to our Talk guidelines.

No idea. It is a phrase that seems to mean something to lots of people, especially politicians so I use it now and again.

Personally I think in income terms and the middle class means those earning the central third of incomes, one third earn lower incomes, one third higher.

There used to be a time when it could be tied to clear life styles. Bottom third worked with their hands and lived in council houses, middle class worked at a desk and were buying a house, upper class were the rest who did all or nothing.

Nowadays none of that applies any more. Many skilled tradesmen earn high wages, own big houses, teachers live in social housing.

How do you define middle class M0nica?

... and plenty off the better off approved and built the schools and the colleges and funded the scholarships. In fact, like nearly all social movements, they started with the better off wanting to improve the lives and conditions of the less well off.

There has always been formal learning whether being carefully trained to make stone tools, sew a fine seam or anything else. Different times necessitate different methods.

I do find the GN tendency to blame all society's ills on those who earn a couple of pounds a week more than they do tedious.It is worth remembering that the middle classes have grown from a very small group in the past to being the majoirty of the population now and all that growth came from upward social mobility. My roots go back to the migrations of Irish to this country and London dockers. My DHs family come from a long line of agricultural labourers deep in the shires and later factory workers. I know very few people with family histories much different to mine.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

It's grim isn't it?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

Our local early years classes have sandpits, toys and picture books, lego bricks etc. They learn to sit quietly, to listen, to share. They build a community. If they want books with words they can have them, but no pressure.
Some need toilet training, and they learn to take themselves, and to wash their hands.

But what is important is identifying those who may potentially need additional help or monitoring going forward as opposed to simply slow in development and independence.

I will quote a Jesuit priest "Give me the child for the first seven years and I will give you the man." It highlighted that small children are sponges. My own daughter could recite the 7 times table at 3 years of age - because I was playing the tape to her older brother.

That wonderful period of boundless curiosity and imagination is funnelled into tests and workbooks and assessments and inward facing activities; and an obsession that academic achievement and collecting bits of paper like charms on a bracelet is all that matters - it isn't.
I agree about the funnelling not just in school chasing paper, but out of school with endless classes and occupations requiring practice to achieve yet another medal, badge or place in a team.
Contributing to the lack of chance to enjoy That wonderful period of boundless curiosity and imagination

Sadly, many of the sort of activities that we recall, or our children enjoyed, are being replaced with electronics.
Sitting hunched over a device trying to achieve success in the same way as is expected in education, or communicating in the ether instead of actual human contact.

LuckyGirl3, I completely agree with everything you took the time to write above. Yes, just let them be!

I often think that I am totally out of kilter with the rest of the world on this.

I am contributing to a thread on Mumsnet where a parent is worried that their child might be "below average", as assessed by some stupid computer administered test in school - he is 7. So he is being judged from this young age - a poster said that he was probably bored by the test and more interested in getting out on the playground or getting his lunch and said that he "has his priorities wrong" - what the heck?! No he doesn't - those are the valid priorities of a 7 year old! That is who he should be! This poor child has now picked up his mother's concerns and that he has somehow "failed" - I find this utterly appalling!

And what does it matter if this child is "below average"? - one of my DDs (who was below average in loads of stuff at school) has a good degree from a Russell Group university and also an MA - oh, and she still has not passed GCSE maths! She was herself - a total delight - and we cared not one jot that she showed no academic prowess at that stage.

Reading all the contributions on this and other threads there I feel so sad for some of these children. One SAHM is worrying that her 2 year old should be at nursery as he might be missing out on his education - but says she is doing educational things with him at home. Leave the poor child be!

My instinct on reading all this is to say "Enough with all this darned education!" - just let them be!!!

What also comes across is that nowadays (I thought I would never use that word and sound like an old git!) children's time is constantly structured by adult input, very often at "attractions" - they are doing workbooks in the holidays, going to museums, going to zoos etc. All fine in moderation but when do they get to just be? - to do what children do best, which is to make their own learning fired by their own curiosity and imagination?

We funnel children down this one-size-fits-all chute and wonder why so many feel failures, or finish up with diagnoses of various kinds, or join the epidemic of teenage mental ill health sufferers.

That wonderful period of boundless curiosity and imagination is funnelled into tests and workbooks and assessments and inward facing activities; and an obsession that academic achievement and collecting bits of paper like charms on a bracelet is all that matters - it isn't!

It honestly makes me so sad.......

Cossy

Macaydia

Cossy, I will accept that i have a ridiculous and outdated view. Still keeping it ! 😊

Fair enough, sorry it trigger a nerve in me as some of us simply don’t have the luxury of choice

Cossy, i have been thinking about your "fair enough" comment and how you said that not all of us had the luxury of a choice or a high-earning husband in our early maternal years. I have been thinking about this for a couple of days.

I just wanted you (and anyone) to know that I did not have the privilege of an employer or a husband during my first born's early years. We lived by the roadside with a burlap tarp to cover us. She drank my milk to survive and I was able to spend 5p per day as nourishment for months which usually meant one small piece of candy. I would go to the shops and pick up discarded fags at the door step for a few puffs. I would beg for others to let me have a 5 minute shower once a week. No, some of us don't have the luxury and I did not. But we are all fine now. Love saw us through these difficult times. Love and perseverance saw us through. She is forty years old now and a successful business owner. I would give my right arm to keep her going. A caregiver would not.

Children working out the basics really only happens with input from others, whether direct teaching, or from being read to frequently and making the connection between the symbols on the page and the words they are hearing , or being with siblings and following what they do.
Even turning the pages in a book is a learning experience.

Funnily enough my bed time reading by an American author contains this quote,
My granny . . . started teaching me my letters when I was three years old. It wasn’t long before I was reading. She said I took to it like a duck to water.
When she enrolled me in kindergarten, I was so far ahead of the other kids that they put me in first grade.

So even the US isn’t against pre-school learning.

All of us who sang nursery rhymes or counting songs or even just the simple 1,2, 3 and jump were teaching our children.

All adults who spend time listening to and chatting with children are teaching them.

And why not?