School starting age: the evidence

[MassHavoc]

Discuss....

 

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence

 

School starting age: the evidence

 

Earlier this month the "Too Much, Too Soon" campaign made headlines with a letter calling for a change to the start age for formal learning in schools. Here, one of the signatories, Cambridge researcher David Whitebread, from the Faculty of Education, explains why children may need more time to develop before their formal education begins in earnest. - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence#sthash.DADeQKX8.dpuf

 

In England children now start formal schooling, and the formal teaching of literacy and numeracy at the age of four.  A recent letter signed by around 130 early childhood education experts, including myself, published in the Daily Telegraph  (11 Sept 2013) advocated an extension of informal, play-based pre-school provision and a delay to the start of formal ‘schooling’ in England from the current effective start until the age of seven (in line with a number of other European countries who currently have higher levels of academic achievement and child well-being). - See more at: http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence#sthash.DADeQKX8.dpuf</p>


 </p>


Read full article at link. http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/discussion/school-starting-age-the-evidence</p>


 </p>


I personally had not heard about Too Much Too Soon before this.</p>

 

[winos5]

Sounds similar to the Montessori Method for early childhood.   If I could have afforded to send my kids to a private school that used this method I would have.   </p>

 

[MassHavoc]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="234409" data-time="1404915251">
<div>


Sounds similar to the Montessori Method for early childhood.   If I could have afforded to send my kids to a private school that used this method I would have.   </p>
</div>
</blockquote>


My wife is a big fan of the Montessori method and we're thinking about trying to send our daughter to one and see how it goes. I personally am not sure it's worth the money. I mean, I know it can be better, but it is so much better that it's worth spending the extra money above public school. I mean, I went to public school and I turned our alright. Of course that wasnt' in Chicago.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I think it really all depends more on the family and child then the schools itself in the long run.


I went through district U-46 which is one of the poorest in the state. The kids growing up who had parents that valued learning/schooling usually did better, learned more and tookore advanced classes. The kids whose family didn't really care or were not as involved usually were the ones who didn't take school and learning as serious.


People need to realize that kids can only learn so much at certain ages due to their brain development.


For example (this is hockey related), I had a travel squirt team last year (9-10 year olds). Our program has a decent teaching method of game strategy and tactics (though skill development trumps all, I'm using the tactics portion we teach) At mites (7-8 years old) we only teach kids the very basics of strategy; positions, positioning, and a very basic breakout. My goal at squirts was to expound on that and be more detailed with all of the above, and add in a basic forecheck. If I were to have tried to teach them how to do the "left wing lock", a "trap defense" or maybe a more complicated breakout these kids would not only be lost, but have lost a year of development as they wouldn't understand the pieces nor would their brains comprehend. Say we applied the same logic England is using here. At 7-8 years old I'm supposed to teach the kids how to forecheck and more advance game tactics? Those kids would lose their minds, though more than likely just skate around mindlessly chasing the puck like they do anyways at that age.


Really, it's all about making sure children are mentally developed to understand what is being taught. If you have a kid start formal schooling at 4, that is implying they should be starting multiplication by age 6. I could barely figure out which brand of glue I was going to eat at 6 let alone do multiplication or division.

 

[LordKOTL]

The thing is, Trev, while there may be a certain age, or timeframe from when schooling starts, not all kids can develop at the same age, rate, or even grasp concepts at a set rate or even at a "set" rate.</p>


 </p>


IMHO that's the weakness of education.  If a kid can grasp a concept they should be taught about it to the limit of their comprehension at the time, whether or not they are "ready".  Conversely, if a kid is lacking they need to be brought up to speed as best as possible.</p>


 </p>


Which means at 6 if a kid can comprehend multiplication or division, teach them, but at the same time if their handwriting sucks, you also need to focus on that aspect to attempt to bring them in line with other 6 year olds.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I don't disagree with that. My point was why force formal school at such a young age? Let the kids be kids and develop and learn when their ready and able. Seems like England is forcing these kids to learn when they might not be able too.

 

[winos5]

Using that hand writing logic I think I need to repeat grades 1-3.</p>

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="234750" data-time="1405450051">
<div>


I don't disagree with that. My point was why force formal school at such a young age? Let the kids be kids and develop and learn when their ready and able. Seems like England is forcing these kids to learn when they might not be able too.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


 </p>
<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="winos5" data-cid="234752" data-time="1405452439">
<div>


Using that hand writing logic I think I need to repeat grades 1-3.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Kinda a combo reply to posts like these:  I think the real problem is *how* schools do learning, and the way they have to be so bloody standardized.  Kids who need help in key areas need to get it without deep-6'ing their compolete progression (i.e. if a kid by age 7 has a lot of trouble reading but can do very well at math then ideally you give them more help in reading, not hold them back a grade), and conversely, if a kid has advanced aptitude in something, they should be able to progress beyond their grade and not be held back.</p>


 </p>


Hell, after the usual curriculum have a half hour every day or over other day geared soley for the student improving in an area they're lacking--students of any age.  Also, have a half hour every day or every other day soely for the student to go above and beyond their grade level in things they're great at.</p>


 </p>


And as for the hand writing, i feel you wino.  Mine sucks and it never became good unless i really focus on it, but then it delves into lettering/calligraphy, which is not day-to-day writing.</p>

 

[Shantz My Pants]

I agree about the standardized testing. It's a drain on the curriculum and while it's good in theory, it's hampering the institutions more than helping.


I don't even know what style handwriting I have. I bounce between all capital letters and lowercase all the time. Depends on my time when writing (usually caps when I'm in a rush, and more proper when I have time).


I actually have an uncle who writes in all cursive still. What's funny about cursive is we were told in school that we'd use cursive as adults. Outside of scribbling my signature I never use it.

 

[LordKOTL]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="234761" data-time="1405463489">
<div>


I agree about the standardized testing. It's a drain on the curriculum and while it's good in theory, it's hampering the institutions more than helping.


I don't even know what style handwriting I have. I bounce between all capital letters and lowercase all the time. Depends on my time when writing (usually caps when I'm in a rush, and more proper when I have time).


I actually have an uncle who writes in all cursive still. What's funny about cursive is we were told in school that we'd use cursive as adults. Outside of scribbling my signature I never use it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


Having actually trained in manual drafting, I can usually free-letter nearly as good as a template or a Leroy (not that it's used anymore).  As such, between my 8th grade year and me graduating highschool my handwriting changed from illegible cursive to slightly legible quick-stroke all-caps.  I occasionally use cursive if I'm hand-writting a letter for some reason and want to be fancy, but it's a slower-more focused task than it was when I had to write a term paper.</p>


 </p>


But again, I find hand-lettering a skill more akind to calligraphy rather than handwriting--even printing as opposed to cursive.  On the very rare events I still need to hand-letter a shop drawing it's usuallyindecipherable from printed text in the original, except it takes a ton of concentration and time--and measured in minutes per word rather than words per minute </p>


 </p>


I think I was lucky in late elementary/Jr High/High school in that they realised that word processors/computers would eventually take over as the dominant medium for printed communication--aside from penmanship/actual writing assignments most of my major papers had to be typed/computer printed.  A lot of the teachers said it made their lives a hell of a lot easier because they can read and correct errors a lot easier.</p>

 

[Tater]

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Trev" data-cid="234761" data-time="1405463489">
<div>


I agree about the standardized testing. It's a drain on the curriculum and while it's good in theory, it's hampering the institutions more than helping.


I don't even know what style handwriting I have. I bounce between all capital letters and lowercase all the time. Depends on my time when writing (usually caps when I'm in a rush, and more proper when I have time).


I actually have an uncle who writes in all cursive still. What's funny about cursive is we were told in school that we'd use cursive as adults. Outside of scribbling my signature I never use it.</p>
</div>
</blockquote>


 </p>


We were told we'd all be using the metric system exclusively too. </p>

 

[winos5]

When I applied to my training program in my field one of the items that had to be submitted was a hand written essay in cursive.   I had to teach myself the alphabet all over again.   I literally did sheets of cursive letters caps and lower case.</p>