School starting age, please advise

plumpmouse

Soniclord wrote: »

Oh well. If someone comes on here and tries to tell me what I should and shouldn't be doing with my kids and expecting me to follow in there exact footsteps they're wrong! Dead wrong!



Oh I have manners. Let's not beat around the bush on that one! But I will NOT and refuse to do as others do and just accept there opinion as the gospel! I am entitled to my opinion and that is the end of that!



Awful? I don't think so, if people haven't got enough of a backbone to take on board what I say then that's not my problem.



WRONG! I have responded to the idiots that have wanted me to or felt I should go with the 'norm' and send her anyway no matter what the cost! And as others have posted it would NOT be beneficial at all to get both kids out of bed at 6:30am to get 2 buses 1 to town and 1 to the village where the school is when there is an alternative. LIke it or lump it that's how it is and it won't change because some jumped up little idiots who preach about what great parents they are just because they sent their kids to school at 4 instead of 5! AND LIKE I SAID I HAVE NOT NOR AM I DOING ANYTHING I'M NOT ALLOWED TO DO! And if deferring for a year was sooooooooo bad it wouldn't be allowed, so for gods sake why don't you and all the other idiots realise that!!



That's your opinion..



Wrong again. I don't have to justify myself to you.

Right.... 'OK'



Maybe, I'll ask



Oh well, you'll live I'm sure.



I actually ate them all, so unfortunately there is none left to take. Sorry!

What a surprise another rude and insulting post!!!!!

balancelife

I honestly can't believe how rude you really are. Face up, lots of people reading this think you are obnoxious rude etc.

And as for walking 3 miles to the school.... I'm suprised you think that's something that makes me selfish!really! It takes us 45 mins, she can go on her scooter if she likes. We chatter away about her day, stop to look at ducks and sheep, play 3 billy goats gruff on the bridge and she gets exercise and is a fit, healthy active child! In the colder weather I admit its not that much fun, but she's still ok with it if she can take her umbrella and splash in the puddles. or, i can get a bus if I need to.
On the two days a week I work my husband takes her and picks her up on his bike in her bike seat.

When she gets to school she is physically alert and ready to play and learn. The first thing they do is a dancing dvd to get their bodies moving anyhow!

shirlgirl2004

msb5262 wrote: »

Lots of posters on this thread seem to feel that the reception year in school is without academic value.

In my opinion, the main value of the reception year is in socialising the children.

Whatever kind of background children come from, they generally benefit enormously from spending time with other children of a similar age, taking part in group activities at a level which will offer them interest, challenge and the opportunity to develop intellectually.

Anyone who looks at schooling from a purely academic standpoint is missing much of its intrinsic value.

I must say also that the rude and abrupt tone of the OP on this thread makes me feel somewhat despairing about parents.

Teachers are often blamed for children lacking manners, but this parent takes the biscuit!

MsB

When my DD started school the "social skills" she aquired were traits I would have hoped never to see in a child of mine. Due to some children watching High School Musical they start worrying about how they look. Her love of fairies and princesses was quashed as being babyish. She started taunting her sibling after following the examples set by her peers. She became competative. I could go on. This is one very big reason I didn't want my yougest going to school.

There is nothing wrong with a 5 year old mixing with 2 year olds and allowing them to show their compasionate side whilst helping them and then mixing with 12 year olds who can show and explain things to them and even challenge them. All of this can be done under the parents' watchful eyes so appropriateness of conversations can be judged. To suggest that the only way to learn socialisation is to mix with a group of children the same age shows misunderstanding in the development of social skills.

summerday

I can see that the OP has got angry and caused some offence, intentionally or not. But I do think that she has a point. Her child has been attending nursery so is acquiring social skills etc, arguably the most important thing at this age. As a primary teacher myself, sometimes I look at our Reception classes and wonder if it's just a bit too young to be sending them to the regiments of school life, and all that they have to learn in the EYFS at such a young age. I have colleagues of the same mind, too. Countries such as Finland and Sweden, whose children leave school some of the most highly educated and achieving children in the world (according to international league tables), don't make children start school until 6 or 7. Their educational professionals shake their heads in disbelief and confusion that we force our littlies into it at age 4 or 5-especially when our children don't then achieve the results at the end of secondary school to show that it's been worth it...

Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying definitively that it's wrong to let children start school at age 4 or 5, just that if someone chooses to delay it to the latest legally acceptably stage, that doesn't make them a bad parent. Especially when educational professionals in countries with far higher achieving children would encourage such a decision.

There's always more than one way of looking at these things...

picnmix

summerday wrote: »

I can see that the OP has got angry and caused some offence, intentionally or not. But I do think that she has a point. Her child has been attending nursery so is acquiring social skills etc, arguably the most important thing at this age. As a primary teacher myself, sometimes I look at our Reception classes and wonder if it's just a bit too young to be sending them to the regiments of school life, and all that they have to learn in the EYFS at such a young age. I have colleagues of the same mind, too. Countries such as Finland and Sweden, whose children leave school some of the most highly educated and achieving children in the world (according to international league tables), don't make children start school until 6 or 7. Their educational professionals shake their heads in disbelief and confusion that we force our littlies into it at age 4 or 5-especially when our children don't then achieve the results at the end of secondary school to show that it's been worth it...

Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying definitively that it's wrong to let children start school at age 4 or 5, just that if someone chooses to delay it to the latest legally acceptably stage, that doesn't make them a bad parent. Especially when educational professionals in countries with far higher achieving children would encourage such a decision.

There's always more than one way of looking at these things...

I don't think anyone was suggesting that it makes anyone a bad parent to defer their child until Year 1;)

I think the problem has been the attitudes towards advice from parents with experience of their children going through reception and the benefits it can have, and the general terms of phrase to describe some parts of our society!

Just to note I walked around about 6 miles a day to school and back when I was little and my knee's are just fine thank you and I'm now 40:p

bestpud

shirlgirl2004 wrote: »

When my DD started school the "social skills" she aquired were traits I would have hoped never to see in a child of mine. Due to some children watching High School Musical they start worrying about how they look. Her love of fairies and princesses was quashed as being babyish. She started taunting her sibling after following the examples set by her peers. She became competative. I could go on. This is one very big reason I didn't want my yougest going to school.

There is nothing wrong with a 5 year old mixing with 2 year olds and allowing them to show their compasionate side whilst helping them and then mixing with 12 year olds who can show and explain things to them and even challenge them. All of this can be done under the parents' watchful eyes so appropriateness of conversations can be judged. To suggest that the only way to learn socialisation is to mix with a group of children the same age shows misunderstanding in the development of social skills.

Quite agree!

Having experience of school-based socialisation and a more natural form, I can say for sure that natural socialisation (that is, mixing with a wide range of people and ages and being valued for the person they are and not which class they are in, or which reading book they are on) is far better for children.

Sadly, most parents don't get to see how debilitating school can be because they never see the alternative.

I once would have argued school was best for them, but it takes a step away to see it for what it actually is! Only now can I see all the flaws and I can see the difference in dd when she is back with school children too, and believe me, it's not healthy!

Let's face it, where else in life are we forced to spend 6 hours a day with 30 people of our age, whether we like them or not? That is not 'natural' at all!

Most of us defend the education system as we know no different and are conditioned to believe it is good for children, despite most of us knowing at least one adult permanently scarred by their education. But it never did us any harm, did it...? :cool:

jellyhead

summerday wrote: »

I can see that the OP has got angry and caused some offence, intentionally or not. But I do think that she has a point. Her child has been attending nursery so is acquiring social skills etc, arguably the most important thing at this age. As a primary teacher myself, sometimes I look at our Reception classes and wonder if it's just a bit too young to be sending them to the regiments of school life, and all that they have to learn in the EYFS at such a young age. I have colleagues of the same mind, too. Countries such as Finland and Sweden, whose children leave school some of the most highly educated and achieving children in the world (according to international league tables), don't make children start school until 6 or 7. Their educational professionals shake their heads in disbelief and confusion that we force our littlies into it at age 4 or 5-especially when our children don't then achieve the results at the end of secondary school to show that it's been worth it...

Before anyone jumps on me, I'm not saying definitively that it's wrong to let children start school at age 4 or 5, just that if someone chooses to delay it to the latest legally acceptably stage, that doesn't make them a bad parent. Especially when educational professionals in countries with far higher achieving children would encourage such a decision.

There's always more than one way of looking at these things...

I agree. I sent my little one to reception though, because staying in nursery when everyone else moved up to school didn't work too well for my eldest but eldest had special needs so it's a different situation. I have always wanted another year, or even a term's delay before sending my youngest on to the next stage. I didn't feel he was ready for nursery at just turned 3 (eldest went at 3 and one term) and I would have preferred for him to not go to school until christmas either, but it worked out fine.

I don't like the way we push out littlies into formal education so young, like the mincing machine on the pink floyd video, but there is also the other side to look at (the cons of them missing out on reception year), and my youngest had a group of friends who'd gone through toddlers,playgroup and nursery together and they would all be in the same reception class too. We all make whichever decision we think best, given all the pros and cons.

The OP got people's backs up with the council estate comments, unfortunately I know what he means, because there's one school 2 miles away from me where I would NEVER send my children, I would homeschool, move house - anything not to send them there.

The other local schools are mostly on council estates (we live on one, couldn't afford to buy elsewhere but it's fine) but they are not NASTY council estates. My son's school is a very good one, a bit too good really because he's a bit below average in some areas but the rest of the class are miles ahead of him because they're all so bright and the teaching is so good (and he's the youngest, although I've read that in year 3 they've usually caught up).

I am sure that the OP knows that not all council estates are full of scum, and not all council estate schools are a bad idea. The old prejudices no longer stand now anyhow, as anyone can privately rent in a nice area or village, even if they are on welfare which used to be the reason why people were snobbish about council estates. Nowadays people have used 'right to buy' on so many council houses and then sold them on to professional couples that the council estates have a good social mix (not that there's anything wrong with people on welfare anyhow).

welshgirl78

I just wonder why the OP started the thread?

Soniclord

Read it and find out!

jellyhead wrote: »

The OP got people's backs up with the council estate comments, unfortunately I know what he means, because there's one school 2 miles away from me where I would NEVER send my children, I would homeschool, move house - anything not to send them there.

Exactly.

jellyhead wrote: »

I am sure that the OP knows that not all council estates are full of scum, and not all council estate schools are a bad idea.

Oh I do know that, but the one I'm talking about really is a sh1thole and the school I was originally on about is exactly the same.

kelpie35

I honestly can't believe how rude you really are. Face up, lots of people reading this think you are obnoxious rude etc.

I think for your own benefit you need to take on board your attitude.
The majority of people SURELY can't be wrong.