School grump 2: 4 is too young (especially for boys)

[cosywolf 10]

There's plenty of information to be getting on with in here, both regarding boys and writing, and the travesty that is our education system (in my opinion), which forces children into school too early, pressures them into exams too often...and still underachieves against other countries with later start dates.

These aren't studies, but plenty of studies are cited if people want to do their own in-depth research.

It's certainly food for thought.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/too-much-too-young-for-boys-546115.html

Boys, so the argument goes, develop the kind of left-brain skills and fine motor control needed for reading and writing later than girls. So they are forced into formal schooling before they are ready. That inevitably lays down foundations of frustration and disaffection - something that shows up in the way that girls now streak ahead of boys throughout their schooling.

 

Evidence also comes from abroad. Greg Brooks, an expert in language and literacy at the University of Sheffield, points out that in an international reading survey of nine-year-olds, only four countries out of the 27 surveyed started children in school at five, yet three of those came out in the top half dozen countries for girls outstripping boys. He has followed Maltese children through three years of schooling and found the same correlation between an early school-starting age and a significant and sustained performance gap between the sexes.

 

"What we need to see is the age range three to six being treated as one developmental stage, with people specialising in working in that sector, and having different training" he says, adding that the idea that, because you have problems with progress at 11, the remedy is to start more rigorous education even earlier is ridiculous.

 

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article4288100.ece

In the ideal Palmer world, everyone would go to a Scandinavian-style school. What we are doing instead is bringing in the Early Years Foundation Stage, a new government framework that becomes law in September. It says that by the age of 5 children should be writing sentences, some of which are punctuated. “That would be impressive for a seven-year-old,” says Palmer. “So rather than tackling the imbalance in the way that we have treated boys for too long, we are going to make them sit still and learn even younger. I'd call that little short of state-sponsored child abuse.”

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/school_league_tables/article6877189.ece

John Bangs, of the National Union of Teachers, described the proposal as an “innovative idea” that deserved support: “We have seen problems with early admission to reception classes. It is an absolutely crucial stage of a child’s development and I think there is merit in extending the Foundation Stage.” The 600-page report, entitled Children, their World, their Education, says that many practitioners believe that the principles shaping pre-school education should govern children’s experience of primary school at least until the age of 6, if not 7. The Welsh Assembly has already extended the Foundation Stage to the age of 7.

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/education/article3330238.ece

English children start school younger than in most other countries and some experts believe that this has a negative impact on their academic attainment later in life. Recent studies have indicated that summer-born babies, who join soon after their fourth birthdays, often never catch up with their older classmates.

 

http://www.news.com.au/national/cambridge-university-study-finds-children-too-young-for-school/story-e6frfkvr-1225795391109

Most European children don't start school until they turn six and in Sweden, Poland and Finland, they begin at age seven.

Cambridge Primary Review co-author and chairwoman Gillian Pugh said forcing subject-based learning onto four-year-olds could dent their confidence.

"They are not going to learn to read, write and add up if you have alienated children by the age of four and five,'' she said.

"If they are already failing by age four-and-a-half or five, then it's going to be quite difficult to get them back into the system again.''

The authors call for a "full and open debate'' on the issue.

Child psychologist John Irvine warned that accelerating children's learning could backfire.

"Play is the way a child learns what no adult can teach them,'' Dr Irvine said.

"But we're trying to cut short children's childhood to fast-forward them into this manic anxious state where they get learned early.

"In time, the brain will turn off something it's not enjoying so they'll be at school in body, but missing in spirit.''

Read more: http://www.news.com.au/national/cambridge-university-study-finds-children-too-young-for-school/story-e6frfkvr-1225795391109#ixzz0tVO9kf7Z

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512989/English-children-start-school-young-tested-harder-world.html

English children start school too young and are tested longer and harder than anywhere else in the world, according to an influential new report.

Primary schools in England are more obsessed with tests than in 20 other countries and pupils still perform no better than their European counterparts.

Researchers from the Cambridge University-led Primary Review also found that English children find school "stressful" as they are subjected to academic lessons in maths and English at the age of four.

But in countries such as Sweden and Finland, where children do not start education until seven, they outperform English pupils by the age of 11.

Research spanning 21 nations including Germany, Italy, Spain, the US and South Korea found that England was 'uniquely' obsessed with high pressure exams.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-512989/English-children-start-school-young-tested-harder-world.html#ixzz0tVOccjZp

[Bonny 10]

I'm a full-time mum, both my husband and I actively encourage our son in lots of things. For example, he can tell you the recipe for chocolate buns, weighs out the ingredients, we've talked through the science of what happens to the bun mixture during the cooking process. He loves numbers and takes every opportunity to count, add and subtract. He has a well developed vocabulary and can demonstrate this in conversations with adults and his peers. As a parent I believe strongly that he is MY child and MY responsibility to educate him.

 

However, as Cosy has clearly demonstrated in several posts and links, there are many differences between the early academic ability of boys and girls. I totally agree with Cosy that boys can face significant difficulties when forced into some academic subjects too soon.

 

Anyone who suggests it's simply a matter for the parents to 'educate' them so that they are ready for full time education at age 4 hasn't understood the implications of what Cosy is saying.

 

As a parent who takes great pride in the development of my child, and one who is also an advocate of learning through play and child led learning, I was a little disappointed to read that other parents consider that by having these views I must be ignoring my childs academic development. Nothing could be further from the truth. I'm not offended, more disappointed that other parents are less supportive of the differing opinions and views when we all seem to be aiming to achieve the same outcome - happy, well rounded and well educated children.

 

My daughter was more than ready for full time school when she started, she could read and write her own name and developed in quite a different way to my son.

[sauerkraut 10]

Hesitating to get involved here, but I thought it might be of interest to hear from someone with experience of a different system. If not, feel free to ignore me!

 

Here in Germany, my kids all started school at 6. Before that (from age 3) they went to Kindergarten where, strictly speaking, the staff were not allowed to teach the children to read and write (although they did encourage those who were eager to learn, especially in their final year).

 

I remember visiting England one Christmas with my older daughter who had just started school the previous September when she was nearly 7. As far as I could tell, her reading, writing and arithmetic were already pretty much at the same level as her English friends of the same age who’d started school 2 or 3 years earlier. Amazing as it may sound, she really had “caught up” that quickly.

 

In retrospect I think maybe my daughters could have benefited from starting school a tad earlier because they were getting a bit bored in their final year at Kindergarten. For my son, though, the later school start was perfect.

 

Shame that where I live the good is undone by sending them into a rigid 3-tier secondary system at age 10, but that’s another story.

[PAUL-ROOFER 10]

I was agreeing with you, hon, and expanding on it.

 

And I love the dinosaur story...

 

right, got you lv,i think sometimes people forget how young 4 actually is and that at 4 what are they going to get out of this schooling? Mt little en' has often come home and after i'v asked the usual 'how was your day' he has said a bit boring! at 4 life should be anything than boring! i told his teacher about this and she said Roman (my son) loses concentration quickly and doesn't enjoy set lessons which is why he may not enjoy that paticular day, however he loves imaginitive play and outdoor activity, which is more accurate because of his age i would have thought! Please dont think by any means i dont want my child to do well at school but i think, i know he just isn't old enough!

[Ha3el 10]

I'm so far from apologising. Don't be disingenuous, your meaning was perfectly clear. And Ha3el, you managed to take it even further. How breathtakingly rude and presumptuous of you.

 

Ha3el hopefully your child has a better grip on reading comprehension: I contend that boys in particular suffer from the early age that school starts here. They are more likely to develop the fine motor skills needed to write easily and well at age 6/7 years. It's a quirk of biology, not parental laziness or lack of academic ability.

 

I personally also feel all children should have more time to be children and develop at their own pace early on. Oh, and heaven forbid, enjoy a little time not being constantly 'developed' by neurotic parents and teachers pressured by an impersonal curriculum.

 

 

You have posted in a public forum and therefore should accept that some people may have opinions which differ to your own. I wasnt trying to be rude, but i was making my point clear and some people do use things as a cop out. I never said that you were responsible for your child not being ready - you might be or you might not be, as i said i dont know your situation, so please jump down off your high horse for a while to see some other points of view. whether you actually do teach your child yourself before school age or not doesnt take away from the fact many people just dont bother anymore

 

You have also completely missed my point - just how far behind do you think boys are exactly? If my daughter can excel in school starting near enough straight after her 4th birthday then why cant a boy cope at age 5? - afterall there are children in my daughters class almost a whole year older than her, she is actually the youngest so all boys therefore are old than her. is upto a years difference not enough? I did also say that maybe children should be judged on an individual basis though did i not? would this not be beneficial in your circumstances of you feel a child is not ready?

 

I cant say i've ever heard of boys developing slower or later academically so cant really comment how right or wrong that is - perhaps you could provide some actual evidence of this? (apologies if this is already in the thread somewhere). I am aware that boys or girls may take to different types of things easier perhaps, my childs school report general statistics i believe showed girls doing better in written work and boys in mathematics i think it was. i will check this but i know there was a decent mix, you cant just assume all boys will be slower at everything.

 

I think putting school age back is stupid and unnecessary personally and will just hold back children who can cope (and like it or not some of those will be boys) - and if a child isnt quite there yet then how do you expect them to get there if you delay teaching even further to another 2years as you seem to think is needed? I'd like to know is it just boys you want to put back or everyone? what happens when boys are just starting right at the beginning and girls of their age are so far ahead already if starting separately? At the end of the day schools are equipped to provide extra help where children are not ready which is on an individual basis, so how could you better the current situation?

[cosywolf 10]

 

I cant say i've ever heard of boys developing slower or later academically so cant really comment how right or wrong that is - perhaps you could provide some actual evidence of this? (apologies if this is already in the thread somewhere). I am aware that boys or girls may take to different types of things easier perhaps, my childs school report general statistics i believe showed girls doing better in written work and boys in mathematics i think it was. i will check this but i know there was a decent mix, you cant just assume all boys will be slower at everything.

 

 

See post 61 above.

 

There's little point berating me for not paying attention to anyone else's opinions if you can't be bothered to even read their posts.

[cosywolf 10]

Hesitating to get involved here, but I thought it might be of interest to hear from someone with experience of a different system. If not, feel free to ignore me!

 

Here in Germany, my kids all started school at 6. Before that (from age 3) they went to Kindergarten where, strictly speaking, the staff were not allowed to teach the children to read and write (although they did encourage those who were eager to learn, especially in their final year).

 

I remember visiting England one Christmas with my older daughter who had just started school the previous September when she was nearly 7. As far as I could tell, her reading, writing and arithmetic were already pretty much at the same level as her English friends of the same age who’d started school 2 or 3 years earlier. Amazing as it may sound, she really had “caught up” that quickly.

 

In retrospect I think maybe my daughters could have benefited from starting school a tad earlier because they were getting a bit bored in their final year at Kindergarten. For my son, though, the later school start was perfect.

 

Shame that where I live the good is undone by sending them into a rigid 3-tier secondary system at age 10, but that’s another story.

 

That is interesting, if only to take the lesson that no-one has it exactly right. I'm intrigued by the 3 tier system, but you're right, that's a whole different thread.

 

The fact that our children are only at the same level as other 7 year olds who - started school later - is repeated again and again in the articles I found, above. So what is the benefit of pushing them so early?

[Ha3el 10]

See post 61 above.

 

There's little point berating me for not paying attention to anyone else's opinions if you can't be bothered to even read their posts.

 

didn't you say yourself that these aren't studies though?

 

looking for something a little more factual ideally than news articles. there are news articles claiming allsorts - a recent one also stated that beds not made could be cleaner in terms of bed bugs because it could create a warmer environment for example, it doesnt make it fact though.

 

also your original post said age 4 is too young (especially for boys) not only for boys, suggesting age 4 is too young for everyone. My post clearly demonstrated that is not the case. as i said why hold back perfectly able children as not all will struggle just because some do. surely its better to keep the existing system of giving additional help to the ones who actually need it if they have trouble keeping up...

 

Also i apologise if my posts come off more harshly than i intended, but my points do still stand. I do think some parents need to do more to prepare their kids on the whole, but as i said each kid is different and some will struggle more than others regardless

[Lucy-Lastic 10]

 

Also i apologise if my posts come off more harshly than i intended, but my points do still stand. I do think some parents need to do more to prepare their kids on the whole, but as i said each kid is different and some will struggle more than others regardless

 

You appear to be stating that it is the parents fault that boys are not ready for school at an early age. Speaking for myself I have 2 boys whose parents both have PhD's and whose mother does not work so has been able to spend more than ample time with them doing educational things. We read with our children, talk to them about complex ideas, take them to places which have educational content etc, however neither were ready for school at 4. Luckily my older son is now above average and I am hoping that my younger son will also catch up when he is ready (he still resists writing). I have been training as a primary school teacher and my view is still that 4yo is too young for the majority of boys to be starting their formal education (something that is shared with several teachers that I know).

Edited July 13, 2010 by Lucy-Lastic

[carly83 10]

right, got you lv,i think sometimes people forget how young 4 actually is and that at 4 what are they going to get out of this schooling? Mt little en' has often come home and after i'v asked the usual 'how was your day' he has said a bit boring! at 4 life should be anything than boring! i told his teacher about this and she said Roman (my son) loses concentration quickly and doesn't enjoy set lessons which is why he may not enjoy that paticular day, however he loves imaginitive play and outdoor activity, which is more accurate because of his age i would have thought! Please dont think by any means i dont want my child to do well at school but i think, i know he just isn't old enough!

 

hah! loving it my nephew is called roman and my sister was so insistant that it was ubber rare so bet me £20 i couldn't find another boy called it.

 

now lets see copy, paste and kerching

[Corbyn 10]

hah! loving it my nephew is called roman and my sister was so insistant that it was ubber rare so bet me £20 i couldn't find another boy called it.

 

now lets see copy, paste and kerching

 

There's also one at the nursery my son will go to as I've seen his coat peg!

[Ha3el 10]

You appear to be stating that it is the parents fault that boys are not ready for school at an early age.

 

I have not stated that at all, i have repeatedly said it is a problem with some people, not in all cases. Sorry to say but some parents just dont bother and that is a fact, not in all cases of course and i will also say again that all children are different - some might have parents who have done everything and still struggle, but the fact still remains that some parents just rely on the schools to do everything and dont prepare them.

 

Either way, i'm just really not sure how deferring education will help, surely it will just set kids even further back. I cannot fathom how age 4, 5 or whatever is 'too young to learn' - kids are automatically learning from the day they are born and can pick things up more quickly than a lot seem to give them credit for