Nicole Morgan, Primary consultant at Classroom returns with her second blog examining the recent debate in the media about delaying the age at which Primary school children begin formal learning:"The education columns have seen some animated debate over the last week upon the release of the Cambridge Primary Review, a document that has made some controversial suggestions about the direction in which the education of our youngsters should be heading.
Six years of research and several hundred pages of report later, the review is largely centred around the concept that our nation’s children should be starting formal schooling later than they presently are, and thus benefitting from a further year’s worth of play-based learning as currently taught in our Nurseries. This change in policy would bring us in line with many European and Antipodean countries where serious and structured education begins at age 6 or 7, not to mention our Welsh neighbours who have already extended the Foundation stage to the age of 7.
On publication of the review, opinions have been bandied around left right and centre, with the government instantly rejecting the report on several counts. In the meantime however discussion amongst journalists, parents and many currently working in education suggest that there could be many who are pro the initiative, perhaps those who place great value on the extra time children would have to learn to play, socialise and generally adapt to the way of a classroom in a Nursery setting.
Dame Gillian Pugh who acted on the advisory board for the review claims ‘If you introduce a child to too formal a curriculum before they are ready, you are not taking into account where they are in terms of their learning and their capacity to develop’. With such a push in recent years on the numeracy and literacy strategies, the review argues that where play-based learning ceases too early, formal education could actually become ‘counterproductive’.
Philip Collins, Times Online columnist suggests perhaps we should be following the example of our Scandinavian counterparts in an attempt to raise the standards of our children’s education over the long-term;-
‘Finnish kids don’t’ start until 7 either and they are the brainiest in the world at 11’
Incredibly, within a few days of the Cambridge Review being published we have also been privy to a debate that would reinforce the views of those in Government such as Chris Woodhead, former Chief Inspector of Schools who has voiced concerns that a delayed start to formal education would result in lower standards overall.
In its frightening account of the basic levels of language and communication with which some children are entering school, the Times outlines a grave situation that Ms Gross, former director of the Primary National Strategy calls a ‘ticking timebomb’. With some students beginning their education with a speaking age of just 18 months and 18 % of children aged 5 failing to meet the anticipated level of speech for their age, a further delay in formally educating our little ones would surely only exacerbate this issue?
So, what do you think? For many of you who were educated and trained overseas, does a later start in Primary education make for a positive or a negative effect on a child’s education? Does that extra year allow for important development both short and long-term, or should our focus lie on pushing the levels of language and communication forward, so that Foundation stage children start their formal education with solid bricks on which to build"?
Six years of research and several hundred pages of report later, the review is largely centred around the concept that our nation’s children should be starting formal schooling later than they presently are, and thus benefitting from a further year’s worth of play-based learning as currently taught in our Nurseries. This change in policy would bring us in line with many European and Antipodean countries where serious and structured education begins at age 6 or 7, not to mention our Welsh neighbours who have already extended the Foundation stage to the age of 7.
On publication of the review, opinions have been bandied around left right and centre, with the government instantly rejecting the report on several counts. In the meantime however discussion amongst journalists, parents and many currently working in education suggest that there could be many who are pro the initiative, perhaps those who place great value on the extra time children would have to learn to play, socialise and generally adapt to the way of a classroom in a Nursery setting.
Dame Gillian Pugh who acted on the advisory board for the review claims ‘If you introduce a child to too formal a curriculum before they are ready, you are not taking into account where they are in terms of their learning and their capacity to develop’. With such a push in recent years on the numeracy and literacy strategies, the review argues that where play-based learning ceases too early, formal education could actually become ‘counterproductive’.
Philip Collins, Times Online columnist suggests perhaps we should be following the example of our Scandinavian counterparts in an attempt to raise the standards of our children’s education over the long-term;-
‘Finnish kids don’t’ start until 7 either and they are the brainiest in the world at 11’
Incredibly, within a few days of the Cambridge Review being published we have also been privy to a debate that would reinforce the views of those in Government such as Chris Woodhead, former Chief Inspector of Schools who has voiced concerns that a delayed start to formal education would result in lower standards overall.
In its frightening account of the basic levels of language and communication with which some children are entering school, the Times outlines a grave situation that Ms Gross, former director of the Primary National Strategy calls a ‘ticking timebomb’. With some students beginning their education with a speaking age of just 18 months and 18 % of children aged 5 failing to meet the anticipated level of speech for their age, a further delay in formally educating our little ones would surely only exacerbate this issue?
So, what do you think? For many of you who were educated and trained overseas, does a later start in Primary education make for a positive or a negative effect on a child’s education? Does that extra year allow for important development both short and long-term, or should our focus lie on pushing the levels of language and communication forward, so that Foundation stage children start their formal education with solid bricks on which to build"?
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment