6 is very late to start school. In my opinion, children should be learning to read and write at the age of 3 or 4. At this age they are at their most potent for learning new skills. Why slow a child down until the age of 6?
I also feel it's good for children to socialise as early as possible. For many children, especially only children, school is the best way for them to be around children. You may suggest sending them to nurseries but I don't think it's safe to have a group of 6 year olds scurrying about at a million miles an hour with far younger children there too. It's bound to result in accidents and also its better for children to be around those their own age.
_______________________________________ ~♣~#~♣~#~♣~#~♣~#~♣~#~♣~#~♣~#~♣~ - Mugabe has been reading my threads! - FMBB3: I was the winner, but then I wasn't!
I have to disagree, much of Europe don't send their kids until 6. Why not? Why not allow our kids to be kids for an extra year, it's only 6 years of their lives.
Remember we still have nursery and pre school for the social aspects.
This isn't merely for convo, I really believe in what I'm saying here.
I personally don't think they should have to stay until 18 but seeing as that's pretty definite now then yes, have them start a bit later.
While they are it more money to go to parents, working or not strictly for childcare and nursery purposes (ie. not cash in pocket but cash to the service providers).
Originally posted by queenstomper: I personally don't think they should have to stay until 18 but seeing as that's pretty definite now then yes, have them start a bit later.
While they are it more money to go to parents, working or not strictly for childcare and nursery purposes (ie. not cash in pocket but cash to the service providers).
Thanks queen .. what about the idea of not moving them up to seniors until 1 year later?
Originally posted by queenstomper: I personally don't think they should have to stay until 18 but seeing as that's pretty definite now then yes, have them start a bit later.
While they are it more money to go to parents, working or not strictly for childcare and nursery purposes (ie. not cash in pocket but cash to the service providers).
Thanks queen .. what about the idea of not moving them up to seniors until 1 year later?
Yeah, fine with that too because they need that primary education to get to grips with literacy and numeracy, if they have one year less than they do now then we'll find even more school leavers without the basic skills than we do now.
Still don't really get that actually seeing as GCSE results are better year on year yet they apparently are so much worse at reading and writing. Still........
Originally posted by 2shy: I think 6 is a very sensible age for children to start formal education.
Parents will already have instilled a good reading regime by then and they will all go into school able to read and write( wont they? ) sadly there are those who don't and won't, but no different than what it is now
Originally posted by 2shy: Parents will already have instilled a good reading regime by then and they will all go into school able to read and write( wont they?
Unfortunately not. The majority of parents won't value education enough and simply wouldn't have the patience to teach a kid to read.
As a kid, I'd much rather go to school with my friends, play in the playground, read nice books, paint than sit at home rotting in front of the TV.
However, you would only have known that you preferred to go to school after you'd tried it, so in that respect a 5/6 year old would be no different to a 4 year old who hadn't started yet.
It makes no odds if you ask me - there are parents who are going to spend time with their kids doing fun and educational stuff and there are those who aren't. That won't change whether there's another year of them at home or not.
Originally posted by D@O'R: As a kid, I'd much rather go to school with my friends, play in the playground, read nice books, paint than sit at home rotting in front of the TV.
Originally posted by queenstomper: However, you would only have known that you preferred to go to school after you'd tried it, so in that respect a 5/6 year old would be no different to a 4 year old who hadn't started yet.
It makes no odds if you ask me - there are parents who are going to spend time with their kids doing fun and educational stuff and there are those who aren't. That won't change whether there's another year of them at home or not.
I'm not OK with kids leaving school at 18. For the vast majority it is just a way of keeping them off the official jobless list and it becomes a social nightmare.
Kids should earn a living at 16 unless they are going to do some proper higher education. Unless HE is regarded as something clever and an achievement staying on to 18 is only wasting 2 years of their lives and creating problems for future generations. Simply sitting around in pretend apprenticeships won't solve anything except the government's desire to wipe youth unemployment off the page.
There was nothing wrong with the YTS scheme. Though people now like to refer to it as slave labour but surely a lot of kids would rather get £40 per week or whatever (bearing in mind it was £26 back in the eighties) to do on the job training plus a day at college than have to do 2 years at school and get a part time job for any cash?
Originally posted by Midas Touch: How about we start them a year later (age 6) and have the kids move up to high school a year later, at age 12
What do you think
I'm not sure about the idea of starting them later, but I would agree with sending them up to secondary a year later in many cases. I didn't start secondary until I was 13 ( public school after the Common Entrance Exam ) and it was easier as I recall to "fit in with" the older generations and activities than it would have been two years earlier. I have had some parents say just this to me in more recent years too.
Originally posted by Midas Touch: How about we start them a year later (age 6) and have the kids move up to high school a year later, at age 12
What do you think
disagree. My son has just started kindergarten this year, aged 5. He loves it, he is learning so much, he comes home with projects that we, his parents, would not even have dreamed of. In short, he is learning more there than he would at home, has more fun since he is with his contemporaries, not boring old people and his reading ability is going up exponentially.
Originally posted by queenstomper: I also think they should leave at 16 anyway.
There was nothing wrong with the YTS scheme. Though people now like to refer to it as slave labour but surely a lot of kids would rather get £40 per week or whatever (bearing in mind it was £26 back in the eighties) to do on the job training plus a day at college than have to do 2 years at school and get a part time job for any cash?
I am all for YTS and apprenticeships, you know that. I'd like vocational and intellectual stuff being taught from say 15 to the 18 OR the former.
I did a YTS in the 80's, I got 25 quid a week. You gotta admit that it is an insult to those who want to get off their backsides and do something.
Originally posted by Midas Touch: How about we start them a year later (age 6) and have the kids move up to high school a year later, at age 12
What do you think
I'm not sure about the idea of starting them later The more I think about it the more I believe in it, but I would agree with sending them up to secondary a year later in many cases. I didn't start secondary until I was 13 ( public school after the Common Entrance Exam ) and it was easier as I recall to "fit in with" the older generations and activities than it would have been two years earlier. I have had some parents say just this to me in more recent years too. absolutely my point
Originally posted by Midas Touch: How about we start them a year later (age 6) and have the kids move up to high school a year later, at age 12
What do you think
disagree. My son has just started kindergarten this year, aged 5. He loves it, he is learning so much, he comes home with projects that we, his parents, would not even have dreamed of. In short, he is learning more there than he would at home, has more fun since he is with his contemporaries, not boring old people and his reading ability is going up exponentially.
I understand what you are saying I just think another year won't be killing, or hurting anyone. It's only 6 years of their lives they get whereby they don't school and then are expected to work.
Originally posted by Midas Touch: I understand what you are saying I just think another year won't be killing, or hurting anyone. It's only 6 years of their lives they get whereby they don't school and then are expected to work.
I see where you are coming from, and for some children and households this would be a very attractive approach. Some kids do thrive on the interaction and challenge, however. This doesn't mean that kids need to be statutorily "educated" at five - if the opportunities are available for them to do other things. The difficulties there are providing "voluntary" kindergarten type establishments that are accessible to all who want them, and encouraging less enthusiastic parents to enroll their kids if they want it.
I don't know...difficult one that. Like I say; I see your point....just not sure how it would raelly work for all children.
Originally posted by queenstomper: I also think they should leave at 16 anyway.
There was nothing wrong with the YTS scheme. Though people now like to refer to it as slave labour but surely a lot of kids would rather get £40 per week or whatever (bearing in mind it was £26 back in the eighties) to do on the job training plus a day at college than have to do 2 years at school and get a part time job for any cash?
I am all for YTS and apprenticeships, you know that. I'd like vocational and intellectual stuff being taught from say 15 to the 18 OR the former.
I did a YTS in the 80's, I got 25 quid a week. You gotta admit that it is an insult to those who want to get off their backsides and do something.
Yes but at the time was it seen as an insult then? It was pretty much the 'done thing'. If you were lucky you could get a job somewhere paying the going rate but generally if you weren't going to college or sixth form you would go on a YTS and be significantly better off than your mates who were still claiming pocket money or having to give up their weekends to work. I didn't hear anyone complaining about
, but then I wasn't!
)
