School’s Out.

Dear Parents,

I know, I know – another snow day 🙁

Miss Kelly has been ill for several days with the flu = vomiting non stop with a fever of 104.

Miss Amy ditto. She had a fever this morning of 104.

So this rest will be good for them.

We will celebrate Valentine’s Day with the kids on Friday – God willing and the creek don’t rise!

We will have our regular dismissal at 5:00 – 5:30 tomorrow.

We are all sorry for the missed days and planned to do so much this week. We got Valentines made on Monday before the call, and that’s about it.

Edith crawled over to school today to feed the animals. I’m snowed in – just got the roads scraped. My family slid down my hill this morning to feed a hungry group of animals neglected in the snow.

Blessings,

Judy

Is Five Too Soon to Start School?

Is five too soon to start school?

By Sean Coughlan
BBC News education reporter

Do children start school at too young an age in England? Is childhood freedom being curtailed too soon?

Compared to most other western European countries, English pupils are extremely early starters in the classroom.

While compulsory education begins in England at the age of five (with many children actually starting at four), in countries such as Sweden, Denmark and Finland, school doesn’t begin until the age of seven.

English children are ploughing through a fixed curriculum while their continental counterparts are still ploughing up the kindergarten sandpit or playing at home.

But which system delivers the best results?

The young ones

This far-reaching question has been raised by the Cambridge-based Primary Review which is scrutinising how primary education is organised. And its conclusion challenges the idea that an early start has long-term advantages.

“The assumption that an early starting age is beneficial for children’s later attainment is not well supported in the research and therefore remains open to question,” says the report.

COMPULSORY SCHOOL AGE

Five years old : England, Scotland, Wales, Malta, the Netherlands
Six years old : Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway, Portugal, Spain
Seven years old : Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Sweden, Poland


Source: NFER/ Eurydice

So why do English schoolchildren start at five, when almost everyone else in Europe starts later?

Apart from the Netherlands and Malta, the only other education systems beginning at five are Scotland and Wales (with Northern Ireland even earlier at four).

The origin of such an early start, introduced in 1870, had little to do with education, says the Primary Review report.

Entering full-time education at such a tender age meant reducing the malign influence of Victorian feckless parents – it was about child protection and social conditioning rather than learning.

And it was an attempt to appease suspicious employers, who were worried that starting any later would remove their supply of juvenile workers. An early start meant an early school leaving age.

Long hours culture

The result remains with us – and as a consequence one of the most distinctive characteristics of English schoolchildren is how little time they spend with their family.

Children are full time in school up to three years earlier than in Scandinavia – and the summer holidays in England and Wales are shorter than anywhere else in the European Union.

And the pressure on schools is now to become “extended schools” which would create an even longer day, with optional activities before and after school hours.

But this is far from straightforward territory. If children were not in school, what would be the impact on working parents? Long hours in childcare are already a reality for many pre-school children.

Last year’s teachers’ conferences heard concerns that children were spending so little time with their own families that they were showing signs of aggression and de-socialisation, taking their behaviour from their peer group rather than absent adult role models.

Less is more?

But what does it mean for education standards?

One of the most intriguing statistics from international comparisons is the lack of relationship between hours in the classroom and educational achievement.

Finland, a global superstar in education terms, is consistently among the top performers. But it is also at the very bottom of the league in terms of the hours spent in the classroom.

Finnish pupils start formal education at seven and then enjoy 11-week summer holidays – and they end up with the highest educational standards in Europe.

Poland, a rapid-climber in international education league tables and overtaking England at reading skills, is also another country where pupils do not start until the age of seven.

There is another egalitarian argument for starting school early. Pupils from poorer homes, with parents who are less able to help their learning, might be held behind if they didn’t start lessons until six or seven.

Level playing field

But a rather sobering set of statistics published by the government earlier this year showed that the length of time spent in school does little to level the playing field.

When pupils start school at five, the children of more affluent families are already ahead. But this “attainment gap”, instead of closing gets wider at each stage up to the age of 16. As every year passes in school, the results of the richest and poorest grow further apart.

There have been some other cross-winds of concern about children starting school before they are ready. The government has highlighted summer-born children, whose parents could now be given the right to delay entry by a year.

It followed research showing that the disadvantage of being the youngest in a year group persisted right through primary and secondary school. While 60.7% of September-born girls achieved five good GCSEs, only 55.2% of August-born girls achieved the same.

The Primary Review, taking an overview of the evidence, suggests that there is no clear link between quantity and quality in education.

Or put another way, the early bird doesn’t necessarily become the bookworm.

Here is a selection of your many comments.

Starting school in a child’s fifth year is far too young. Children who are unable to even sit and listen to a story at age four are going to have a lot of problems with any structured learning activities. The UK should take a good look at other European systems, such as Finland’s, learn from them and devise some changes. Unfortunately, sending children to school as early as we do is merely providing a creche for overworked parents at best, and giving the children a poor start in education at worst. We seem to treat school as a childminding service, not an education.
Sue, Wrexham

It’s a cultural thing, this country being very anti-children, and we need to review our entire approach to how we accommodate children in everyday life. Yes, we start school too soon, and should be enjoying our children’s early years as much as possible, and reaping the benefits in the years that follow. We should work to live, not live to work.
Rupert, London

My daughter was 4 on 29th August last year and consequently started school when she was 4 years and 1 week! She is also quite small for her age so, apart from the problem of finding school clothes age 2-3 yrs, she is finding it extremely tiring as she is physically unable to cope with the length and formality of a school day. She was able to attend for 2 hrs less per day in the Autumn term, but is now full-time. It wrenches at our hearts having to give her up to the education system so young and also seeing what it is doing to her. As she is so tired, she is developing a negative attitude towards school, purely on the basis that she doesn’t have the physical stamina to cope with it. She is a bright girl and I can’t help but feel that she would have “flown” if she attended a year later, and would not have developed any ill feeling towards school.
Richard , Norwich

Having worked in a nursery and reception class, I feel starting school later would be much better for children. It is very sad that the adults working with these children end up spending more time with the children than their own family, and in some cases even know them better. I do not understand how any loving parent would not want to fight to keep their children at home longer, in a loving environment where their personalitites can fully grow. I have seen fun, bright, children become the total opposite because they just were not ready for school.
Carrie, Salford, Manchester

My five year old is having a hard time spending so many hours at school and to make her go is a big problem every morning. I think children should start compulsory education later than 5 years old. I also disagree with the amount of hours they have to do a day, it is a big jump to go to nursery school for two and a half hours and then reception is a big jump of 6 and a half. My daughter is always tired and always looks forward to the weekend, She sounds like an adult tired from the week’s work. They will be sedentary, not social, maybe depressed or overweight if they are not out there running and discovering and spending time with their families and friends.
Tania, London

I grew up in Sweden and started school at 7. As mentioned in the article, children in Sweden start at 6/7 years old (7 compulsory) but we also have to remember that their childcare/nursery is highly subsidied from the Swedish government with a nursery place costing about £100 pounds per month and child, which makes a significant difference to working parents.
Jo, Cheshire

I think that children do start school at an early age but as a working mother of two, I would then find childcare even more costly than I already do at the moment – on average I spend over £7,500 on childcare a year. If the government was willing to help working mothers a bit more and introduce better childcare schemes, then let them introduce extra school holidays and later school starting age! if not helped with this aspect, they could find themselves with a lot more people out of work because it is just not cost effective to work and have children in this day and age!
Rachel, Caerphilly

I would have no concerns about children starting school older than the current 4 to 5, having shorter classroom hours and being able to actually enjoy their childhood for longer. However, I have absolutely no idea how I would manage the childcare implications….like many other families both myself and my husband have to work full time, so unless a Scandinavian-style change in the primary education system is accompanied by a similar enlightened change in attitudes to and support for childcare, I remain a working mother balancing work, my children, my marriage and the guilt of not doing as well as I would like for any of them!
Helen, Staffs

I do not come from this country, so when I was told my child had to start school (Devon) at 4.5 years, I was appalled. As we lived so far from the nearest school in Bovey Tracey, he was collected by a bus at 8:00am and returned at 4:00pm. An 8 hour day for most adults is arduous, let alone a baby who should still be at home with his mother and having afternoon naps. I did not start school until I was 6 or 7 and even then we only went a half day. Why can’t children be children rather than being shoved out into our regimented society at the age of four? I would happily have kept him home longer.
B Jones, Oxford

Take any group of young animals away from their parents, elephants, chimpanzees whatever, and voila – feral animals causing chaos and mayhem. Society needs to have a good think about things, the choices are materialism with all the ills that go with it, or a better life with nice people to live alongside.
K Lockwood, Bradford

I think our children do start a formal education too early. However, I am in a situation I’m sure like many others where I work and so my 3 year old is in nursery full-time. When he does start school proper, his day will be shorter than he is used to now. What concerns me is that ‘formal teaching’ is introduced too early i.e. teaching very young children to read and write when they should be learning through play. It would be beneficial I feel, if our children started formal education later as in Finland but I think I’m right in saying that they have more financial provision for parents so it’s not necessary to go back to work when the children are so young. If our children started school later, parents like myself would have the financial burden of childcare for longer. It’s our whole social set-up that needs to alter.
Karen, Scarborough

I happily sent my daughter to the local school in Poland at the age of seven and a half. She couldn’t read and couldn’t write in English or Polish. However once they start in Poland, they start. Now nearly 10 she reads happily in English and Polish. I went at 5 in Scotland, learnt to read, but rarely read for pleasure. I think all the gold star “Jack and Jill” rubbish put me off early. It’s clear that the schools in the UK are a custodial service for 19th century factory workers. “A child is a fire to be lit not a vessel to be filled.”
Paul, Warsaw, Poland

So, we need to send our kids to school so we can go out and work. And those kids need a good education, so they can get a good job, and repeat the cycle. Message – money is more important than kids.
Darren, Cheltenham

Both my kids attend Finnish schools. It is true that kids in Finland start school at 7 but they also attend pre-school at 6 which is usually organised through daycare. Many children can read and do simple arithmetic before they attend school at 7. The norm in Finland is that both parents work and so kids are normally in daycare from the age of 3 and during this time there are professionals over-seeing the children and ensuring that they learn in a play environment. It should also be noted that Finland has a very high proportion of parents that have attended higher education which likely plays a part in their own childrens’ development. These parents spend hours with their children in the evenings and at weekends working through huge amounts of homework. Finnish children might start formal schooling 2 years later than their UK peers and spend less hours in the class but it’s worth remembering that there is a lot of learning/teaching done outside of classrooms here in Finland! The Finnish system would be very difficult to model in the UK which anyway does not have the childcare model in place to cope.
Michael Hardy, Helsinki, Finland

Whilst my August-born four year old is enjoying full-time school since she started in January, I do think it is far too young an age for such a long day. They should rather finish at 12:30 or 1pm and then come home for lunch until the age of six – they would be getting the stimulation that they need, yet without forcing such ridiculously long hours on them. And perhaps more parents should stay at home with their children, but that’s another ‘Have your say’ subject!
Pam, Teesside

My father was sent to boarding school at 4 in 1939, and I was sent to boarding school at 7 in 1982. That was considered normal by our parents and their peers. So I’m not really interested in what society or the government considers normal – I’d rather assess things from an individual, intelligent, emotional, humane point of view. My daughter’s an August baby – and sending her to school when she’s just turned 4 seems moronic and cruel. Just another reason I’m emigrating from this horrible country in May. The British seem to think that the answer to their decaying society is getting both parents in every family to work longer hours for more money. Good luck.
Rupert, London

My sister is a single mother, who in an ideal world would love to stay home with her children, but on the other hand does not want to live off the state on benefits. Therefore she has to work as do many parents. If school ages were to be increased I feel that there would be higher unemployment as child care costs are so high. Every parent would be happy to have more time with their children but it is not always as easy as that. There are many things that have to be taken in to consideration if a change like this is to be made.
Karen, Scotland

I think children in this country start formal education far too early, as a parent you feel under pressure to put them into school and feel a failure when they do not learn to read and write from an early age. My son is 7 and is in his third year at school, he has only just started to read and write and is taking in the concept of learning. He was always very well behaved and participated but just could not write or read in any activity, this made him feel very stupid which has taken alot of work to compensate this. I strongly think that children should not start school until they are 7 when they are mentally and physically mature enough.
Libby, Tetbury, Gloucestershire

Having been raised in England and with a September birthday, I actually started school at four. Now living in Alberta, children attend kindergarten (4-5 mornings or two full days a week) at five and full time school at six. Unlike the UK, the huge majority of students remain in school for the full twelve years until they are eighteen. I could not imagine sending any of my children, especially my youngest who is now four, off to school full time at age five. I think children have a hard enough time remaining children in today’s society without pushing them out of the door into full time education prematurely.
Susan, Calgary, Alberta, Canada

My summer-born 4-year-old son goes to a public nursery school in the afternoons and absolutely loves it, even his homework. His reading, writing and math skills have come on no-end, and he gets help at home with everything as well. He’s one of the brightest in his class according to his teacher, and we’re looking forward to him starting “full time” in a few months. Right now, we’ve no problem with him spending 6 hours a day getting an education to set him right for the rest of his life.
Craig, Nottingham

In France, children start school at three years old (although it is not compulsory until six years old). A comparison between my daughter (educated in France) and her cousin (in the UK) at exactly 4 yrs 9 1/2 months old showed that a British education gives kids the tools they need to read and write much more quickly.
Sarah, Apt, France

Whereas the minimum compulsory age for schooling in Ireland is 6 years, 95% of four years olds and 98% of five years olds attend state schools (National Schools). The number of children in each class can be anything up to 35 with one teacher and they follow a curriculum made up of 11 subjects.
Mary, Dublin, Ireland

Here in Austria children start school at 6/7 and have 12 weeks summer holidays like Sweden. However as somebody who works with pre-school children (aged 3-7) I think you cannot make generalisations about children starting either earlier or later. I have some children that are able to start doing reading at the age of 3 but have to wait around in Kindergarten for 4 years before they are given the oppurtunity to develop further in school. My parents in law purposely held back their youngest son to start school at 7 and I know it’s a decision that they regret, as he is now underchallenged in school. The grass is never absolutely greener on the other side.
Catherine, Vienna, Austria

As a teacher in an underprivileged school, most students are actually better off the longer they stay in school. Parents with long hours in poorer communities cannot provide adequate supervision at all times. After school activities decrease the students participation in violence and use of drugs. Unfortunately, some cases, the teachers are the adult role model that is healthiest for the child
Kristen, Knoxville Tn, USA

Children can start school at 2 1/2 in France. It’s a rigid system of learning, controlled from the centre, focused on results, tests marked out 20 most weeks. Yet, I don’t think it is a system that turns out unbalanced adults, and some of the best creative talent comes from France, Nobel winners etc, so I don’t think that starting early in school is necessarily a big problem. I think this is all about the right balance between traditional schooling, from whatever age, and support from home.
Joe, France

I live in Sweden and there are many good things for parents and kids and some things that are more of a problem.
1. Childcare is cheap ie subsidised (I pay £180 per month for 2 kids).
2. We get 14 months parental leave at 80% pay which is shared (2 months reserved for mum and for dad, the rest you split as you like). Most parents make this stretch to 18 months by taking less pay, so kids start daycare much later than in the UK.
3. All parents of children under 8 have the right to work 80% on a full time post (for 80% pay). This is meant to create more equality between mum and dad which is good, in reality while many mums work 80%, the vast majority of dads work full time. One consequence is that there are hardly any half time jobs or job shares. The expectation is absolutely that both parents will have a full time job as their norm. So starting school later doesn’t mean kids are with their families more.
4. School starts at 6 for 99.5% of kids who attend the voluntary reception year (there is no other childcare for 6 year olds available). There is no expectation that kids will learn to read or write before this.
Is this good or bad? Kids are individuals! Your kid and my kid may love learning early or it may create feelings of failure. But is it really important for 4-5 year olds to be able to read? The important thing is that kids are stimulated mentally and physically and learn good social skills. When they start to learn to read at 7 – well they just learn faster! So why inflict the sense of failure on those that aren’t ready to read! There are other equally valuable forms of stimulation.
Katherine, Stockholm, Sweden

Being an August baby, my son was barely four when he started school – he was much too young, not developmentally ready to be launched into formal learning and still needing to play and be a little boy. I phoned the education authority to ask if I could hold him back a year (it was a matter of being a few days short of the cut-off), but was told categorically no. Consequently, I always feel he started school on a back foot and has been disadvantaged ever since.
KF, London

Full-time education is not mandatory until 6 but is certainly the norm here as young as 2. My son loves school, is bi-lingual, eats really healthy school lunches including thing such as calamari, fruit everyday and is slowly learning to write and read. He has music, PE and has swimming lessons in the schools pool.
Stacey, Barcelona

My daughter could have started school in Spain when she was 2 years and 11 months old! I thought this was far too early and as it was not compulsory I sent her the following year as the majority of children attend school at the age of 3 in Spain. I don’t think that it has done her any harm but probably the only benefit was learning to read and write early. The day is far too long though but they have a 2 and a half hour break at lunchtime.
Joanne, Barcelona, Spain

I am of the view that British children start school way too early, and would advocate a change to the mainland Europe approach of starting when they are 7. My daughter’s birthday is 31 August and due to the increasing number of school having only one intake each year in September (as apposed to having a second in January) she will be due to start school a mere couple of days after her 4th birthday! This horrifies me, and I can see no direct benefits to her through starting school so young.
Clare, London

It’s on dodgy ground in PC-terms to say this, but I’m going to anyway… I firmly believe that the discrepancy between richer and poorer kids’ grades is nothing to do with money. The money is merely an indicator of well-educated, caring, conscientious parents. In broad terms a richer modern household is comprised of better educated parents who spend more time and give more priority to supporting their child’s learning. It has little to do with money, and everything to do with the fact that if a child comes from “good stock” they will be a good child…. There are exceptions to prove the rule, and my exceptional but certainly not affluent ex-miner parents are a testament to that. I credit them with my success.
Dan Mann, Bristol

Here we go again! It is the too early, I send them but my heart bleeds for my angel versus the we have to both work and all can blame the classroom for the woes. As someone who is intimately connected to the early years system, the truth (heaven forbid we should ever get this) is that many children arrive at 4, they are not compelled to attend until the year in which they are 5 and do not know how to socially interact as their overindulgent parents are too busy to teach them, nor do they know how to say please or thank you; another great British tradition that is being lost. Therefore, the schools spend an inordinate amount of time educating these ‘angels’ in basic manners and social interaction, not to mention toliet training to establish any basis for formal education. There is a quantum shift needed to our system and that is seen in the Finnish, French and other nations where respect and community still forms part of the social fabric of the country; rather than the self interest and blame others for your shortcomings of this once world leader.
James , Lincoln

As a father of a summer baby, we will need to start applying for a primary school place this autumn for our son. Personally I would prefer him to start school a little later. However I am worried that if I hold him back, he will not get a place at a decent primary school and end up in an estate sink school instead. Starting school too early may be bad for a child’s education but I think that being in a bad school would be even worse.
Matt, Hampshire

It’s simple, it’s a necessity for both parents to work so getting your kid into education early helps you get back to work. Clearly if there’s no tangible advantage for being at school earlier and longer then I would suggest the problem is about what’s actually going on in the classroom.
Martin, London

The Garden School Tattler … After a pause…

Just a few lines to say that I was off this week because my mother died. She was 90. She lived a very long and very full life. For her, medically speaking, it was not supposed to have been painful or long. It was a matter of simply taking a last breath. She had lost the ability to swallow properly and was aspirating food regularly. She went to the hospital on Tuesday night with a particularly vicious aspiration, and nearly died. They managed to stabilize her by midnight, and when we left her on early Wednesday morning, she was sitting up and alert.

Miss Molly, Edith, Amy, Kelly, Lindsay and Tom all pulled together so that I didn’t have to come to school on Wednesday, and then again on Thursday and Friday. When I arrived at the hospital on Wednesday morning about 9:00, I expected my mother to be rallying and improving. She was not. She had slipped into a semi responsive state and remained in that state Wednesday and all day Thursday. I was so very grateful to our teachers for allowing me to spend those 36 hours with my mother. I was able to sit by her bed all that time and try to comfort her. She was able to receive the last rights of her faith, and then on Thursday evening about 11:00, she passed peacefully away with Miss Molly, Miss Katy, and Terry and I all standing there saying an Our Father. She looked surprised as if to say, “Oh! It’s all true…!”

My mother’s death was not a sad occasion. There had been much missed in life between us, and that’s a sad thing, but her death revealed so much. My concern for her was a matter of getting the spiritual care she needed, and that was easily and beautifully achieved.

My brother drove up for the memorial service at Holy Rosary, and we later got together for a party at my house. It was asked at that time by someone not familiar with American custom, why we would celebrate such an occasion. He was a little surprised.

The celebration was in her life well lived, that death, as a natural experience, was not a rough or painfully ordeal, that she would not return to a difficult life on a feeding tube, and finally, that her death united so many people, and the love pouring forth from this event, her death, could not have been greater. Everyone has to die. When death is as positive an event as my mother’s death was, there is reason to rejoice.

My mother would have loved the party in her honor. Every member of our staff was present either at the Mass or at the party. My only sibling was there and all my loving family.

I wanted all my grandchildren who were there to understand that death, although sad and sometimes untimely, can be a joyous occasion because like birth, it’s a part of our life.

My mother was an amazing woman. She was born with polio, had diphtheria as a child and still managed to live a very very full life. Women like her will not be seen again.

Rice Bowl

Robynn sent this and it is fun and also goes to a good cause. You will practice your vocabulary, learn and also contribute an enormous gift to people who have nothing. Click on Rice.

For each word you get right 20 grains of rice are donated through the U.N. This is quite fun and for a great cause.
Robynn

The Garden School Tattler

It’s a rainy Monday and likely to be a rainy week. Rain always inspires me to do. Having grown up on an island in the San Francisco Bay, I find rain and fog delightful and comforting. So this week, our continuing a much confused week of Narnia last week because of the snow non-event is an obvious put together a bit like potatoes and ketchup!

We will continue to “listen” to Narnia and play listening games. Last week I whispered a short sentence to one child and he was supposed to whisper that to another, and he to another for about 4 whispers. Then the last child was supposed to tell the group what he heard. This was formerly known as telephone. It was amazing what the children did not hear. They got it wrong most of the time because they didn’t listen.

Few people listen. There are all types. One type of listener walks out or zones out on the spoken sentence three words in. The “walker” doesn’t listen out of habit. He is too busy with his own agenda to worry about what the speaker is saying because he doesn’t care. Then when he wants to know what has already been said, he has to ask again. Directions for this kind of listener are a nightmare. At one time not too many years ago, this would have indicated Autism!

The next type of listener is the listener who only listens when he wants to. They call this selective listening. The selective listener blocks out large amounts of information for one reason or another, and my guess is that the information is either too hard to understand or it doesn’t suit what they want now. It also allows them to avoid a lot of plain living and responsibility. We all know this type of listener.

Anther type of listener is the ammunition gathering listener who listens intently to what you say, and then shoots you with the information you’ve given him. This listening has a lot of catch words that are easy to identify: “But I thought you said…”

Then there is the silent listener – the listener who listens beautifully and refuses to respond. These people are like talking to a wall. You can talk and talk and talk and the response is a lame look.

The best child listener is the one who listens with good manners because it’s expected, has fewer and fewer questions about the information, because the habit of listening has been made, and can freely offer what he has learned back to the teacher or another child who asks. That’s the task, that’s what we are looking for.

So why don’t children all learn to listen well? Because for some children, models have been poor along the way, and unlearning a basic skill like listening takes a long time. That’s why we do the Narnia thing. The Narnia film is a children’s film with people – something many children are not used to watching. The story has many levels and many events, so the child has to listen in order to understand.

A film like Narnia establishes a kind of a learning through listening. Those children who can’t really listen to the film don’t get anything out of it. When they hear their classmates speak positively about it, they will take another look and hopefully begin to learn to listen. It’s not always easy, and there is a certain maturity that is required to listen.

Listening well is one of the keys to academic success in big school. Learning to listen, and then listening to learn is a way of life we’d like each child to grab for his own and make his own style.

From England

Too much, too young?

Child psychologists are challenging the latest guidelines on learning goals for toddlers. Janet Murray reports

Tuesday January 29, 2008
The Guardian

Child playing in nursery
Nursery – a good time to develop ‘mathematical ideas’? Photograph: Alix/Phanie/Rex

Comment: I think this is interesting. It seems that somebody is not quite sure what a child is supposed to do. Don’t worry; it’s on its way here!

What did your child do at nursery today? Dressing up? Messing around in the sandpit? Perhaps baking fairy cakes? Or was he or she learning to read and write?

Under new government guidelines for early-years education, three- and four-year-olds should be taught to “form simple sentences, sometimes using punctuation”, and write in different forms such as “lists, stories and instructions”. Meanwhile, they should also be “developing mathematical ideas and methods to solve practical problems”.

Dubbed “the national curriculum for babies”, the early-years foundation stage (EYFS) is a merger of the Birth To Three Matters framework, introduced in 2003 to support early-years practitioners working with nought- to three-year-olds and the foundation stage of the national curriculum, aimed at three- to five-year-olds. From September 2008, delivering the early years foundation curriculum (EYFC) will be a legal requirement for every nursery, childminder and reception class in England.

Early-years practitioners will have to monitor children’s progress against no fewer than 69 “early learning goals” and more than 500 development milestones. At five, each child will be given a score, which will be passed on to the Department for Children, Schools and Families.

A group of academics, led by leading child psychologists Richard House, Penelope Leach and Sue Palmer, are campaigning for an independent review into the EYFS, claiming such a regime may harm children’s development. The Open Eye campaign was launched in November 2007 with a letter to the Times Educational Supplement that claimed this so-called headstart to literacy was “known to precipitate unforeseen difficulties later on, sometimes including unpredictable emotional and behavioural problems”. While the children’s minister, Beverley Hughes, claims she has the “wholehearted backing of the majority of early-years specialists”, the group claims that there was little consultation over the EYFS.

Top of the list of concerns are the prescriptive learning goals. According to House, senior lecturer at the Research Centre for Therapeutic Education at Roehampton University, the idea that children of this age should be taught to read and write is “symptomatic of an increasing obsession with childhood development”.

Leach, author of the parenting book Your Baby and Child says: “I think the government has confused aspirations with goals. Yes, some children will be reading and writing comfortably before the end of the foundation stage, but the majority won’t.”

Sue Palmer is a former headteacher and author of Toxic Childhood, which claims childhood creativity is being stifled. Up until the age of seven, she says, all children need is “love, play, talk, song and stories”. In fact, there is overwhelming evidence to suggest that introducing children to formal education too early can be damaging. “Forcing children to write before they are physically able means many fall at the fence … they can be put off writing for ever.”

Then there is the exhaustive assessment process, increasingly commonplace in education. “I know of children being tutored at the age of two or three to get into a particular nursery,” House says.

Another concern is the effect on early-years practitioners, particularly childminders. My own childminder, who provides fantastic care, says the new guidelines have made her think seriously about retirement. Another childminder, who doesn’t wish to be named, says: “Most childminders work alone, so how the government expects them to do all this paperwork while looking after the children is a mystery to me.”

The National Childminding Association acknowledges that some childminders are worried, but says that the requirements of the EYFS are not radically different from what registered childminders already do.

“What are we going to get next,” asks House, “a national curriculum for parents to follow in the home?”

A meeting with the education select committee chair, Barry Sheerman, last Thursday brought promising news. “From the meeting, it is clear our concerns are being taking seriously,” says House. “Sheerman was sympathetic to our concerns and invited members of Open Eye to participate in further discussion with the select committee.”

In the meantime, the campaign continues to gain momentum. A Downing Street petition has gained more than 4,000 signatures and a conference is being held in London in February. “What we want to avoid is creating ‘mini adults’ in nursery education, bringing them into adult consciousness well before they are ready,” says House. “In the early years, all children need is a healthy, nourishing and loving environment.”

The Garden School Tattler

What’s new? No Snow! Too bad, the kids were looking forward to the white wintry day.

Ian’s Grandfather has made us some nice benches. They are absolutely marvelous and we will use them for many things. Yesterday, after school was closed, E and I stayed with the last kids to be picked up, and we thought about several unusual ways of using the benches in addition to using them for seating during lunch. I’m excited. We thank Ron Crowley for his hard work and his service to the school. Ian is a lucky little boy.

We have been exploring new games at school. Our discipline policy is simple. Children are not allowed to be disobedient, disruptive or make another child cry on purpose. This is how they get into trouble. Every once in a while we change our tools. This week, thanks to Miss Lindsay, we have put away the star chart and gone back to medals. Each child has made an honor’s medal and wears it as long as their behavior is communal, warm, loving and obedient. When a child disrupts the group unnecessarily, is perniciously selfish, is constantly disobedient or makes another child cry, he will have to hang up his medal. A child without a medal cannot receive treats. This helps a child sort out his behavior problems and become a good citizen.

We understand that in many child care centers any kind of discipline for behavior is not considered a positive thing. The directive is, “Never say no to a child.” My understanding is that the staff at childcare centers are there only to facilitate a child’s play. Personally, I find this a horrific environment for faculty – for any adult, and that’s primarily why there is a terrible turnover in staffing at early childhood facilities. I once heard that a very fine woman told a child “no” for spitting in her face, and she was fired. That’s not only ridiculous, but abusive to the child. There is only one time in a human being’s life when he or she should be loved unconditionally and that’s infancy. Once a child begins to unfold from the infant stage, expectations are a normal part of living in the community and that includes the home. Good behavior is an expectation of any good home, and definitely an expectation at school.

At the Garden School, we believe that the formation of any child is our number one objective. This can only be done with the help and commitment of parents. Our efforts at school will not make a difference in a child’s life if home does not follow through. The parents, after all, are the primary educators of the child, and that’s the way it should be!

Children often do not behave at school the way they behave at home. One obvious reason is that at school there are lots of children, and in many homes there is one child or perhaps two. Finding a place is not easy for some children especially those who come form indulgent homes. An honor’s system allows a child to find his place more easily. All children know the rules and when they break them for their own sake, their own sake needs to either make amends on their own, or amends will be made for them as an act of teacher charity.

Another thing we’ve been doing is using a new food board. The staff regarded several meals watching the children eat, and we discovered that children don’t eat out of habit. We served the most popular foods for several meals and the children ate just as sparingly. We watched as children played, yelled, and did everything possible not to touch their food at breakfast and lunch. Then when snack was served, children wanted triple helpings. We wonder if this is a habit they learned in the toddler stage of grazing. We wondered how many kids are accustomed to resisting table food for snack food. “If I hold out just another couple of hours, I can fill up on what I really want – treats.”

So we have established an eating chart of sorts that we are hoping encourages children to eat the good stuff. Every child gets a clothespin every time they eat a food component which is attached to a figure that is on a board in circle time. There are ten food components served every day: 3 milks; 1 juice; 1 meat; 3 fruits or vegetables; 2 breads. We are not including the variable at snack, like cookies, but we are counting snack milk.

Garden School food is made mostly from scratch and is child friendly. We use the best possible ingredients, hand picked by Miss Judy, and always take the child’s palate into consideration. Our typical breakfast includes juice, milk, and a bread product like waffles, pancakes, sticky buns, cereal, and home made muffins. Lunch yesterday was homemade pizza, two choices, dipable vegetables with ranch dip, oranges and a child friendly salad and milk. Children can have as much as they want.

We introduce many new things over the school year. Our aim is to increase his appetite for exploration and discovery. A wide variety of food is the healthy choice for everyone. Being open about food is the avenue to being open about other things like friendships and ideas, education, world view, cultures, and finally the acceptance of other people. Creating a healthy palate and healthy eating habits is not just about food; it says something about a way of life. There is nothing which enters our life quite like food or means as much.

If a child eats eight of his components, and retains his medal, he can go to the treasure box. If he eats all ten components, he can go to the treat box and take home something for after dinner. In order to receive the prizes, he must bring his parent to the board and show the parent. Parents are encouraged to become more involved in a child’s eating habits. Understanding what a child prefers is a real eye opener.

We hope you like our changes.

Today we will be handing out February calendars.