Simona
03-09-2013, 10:50 AM
This makes very sad reading but how is this going to be solved when children are pushed into school at such an early age?
Parents are being blamed for not 'being bothered'...providers get blamed for not being 'good enough' and, yet, Ofsted are busy downgrading providers not because of their practice but silly issues on useless bits of paper and unfounded complaints!
Children are now acquiring a new 'immature' label when they start school...this is demeaning to self esteem.
Headteachers moan they have to toilet train children...well that is something we do in our EY settings when the time is right and not as a push for 'school readiness'
If only the govt would 'trial' starting school at 6 like the vast majority of the world we may have a different picture and some valid comparisons to make.
Investment is required in Early Years to allow these children to gain maturity in nurturing and enabling environments not by pouring money into the Pupil Premium when they get to school...too late by then in my view.
What are 2, 3 and 4 year olds doing in schools when we hear this morning that primary places are in short supply?
Primary children are legally entitled to be in school while the younger ones should be entitled to the very 'good start' all politicians are fond of quoting but reluctant to invest in.
Surely 'emotional intelligence' develops in children slowly and with the right scaffolding...can we expect a 4 year old to be mature?
what of the 3 year olds and the 2 year olds the govt wants to be in school?
It is disheartening and furiously frustrating to read such reports when EY providers are doing their best for children.
Is it not time for the govt and Ofsted to listen and engage positively with the sector and not stick to their flawed ideology and openly money saving exercise?
BBC News - Children 'already two years behind at start of school' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23931080)
Parents are being blamed for not 'being bothered'...providers get blamed for not being 'good enough' and, yet, Ofsted are busy downgrading providers not because of their practice but silly issues on useless bits of paper and unfounded complaints!
Children are now acquiring a new 'immature' label when they start school...this is demeaning to self esteem.
Headteachers moan they have to toilet train children...well that is something we do in our EY settings when the time is right and not as a push for 'school readiness'
If only the govt would 'trial' starting school at 6 like the vast majority of the world we may have a different picture and some valid comparisons to make.
Investment is required in Early Years to allow these children to gain maturity in nurturing and enabling environments not by pouring money into the Pupil Premium when they get to school...too late by then in my view.
What are 2, 3 and 4 year olds doing in schools when we hear this morning that primary places are in short supply?
Primary children are legally entitled to be in school while the younger ones should be entitled to the very 'good start' all politicians are fond of quoting but reluctant to invest in.
Surely 'emotional intelligence' develops in children slowly and with the right scaffolding...can we expect a 4 year old to be mature?
what of the 3 year olds and the 2 year olds the govt wants to be in school?
It is disheartening and furiously frustrating to read such reports when EY providers are doing their best for children.
Is it not time for the govt and Ofsted to listen and engage positively with the sector and not stick to their flawed ideology and openly money saving exercise?
BBC News - Children 'already two years behind at start of school' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-23931080)