Stargrower Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10425343/Schools-should-admit-children-at-two-says-Ofsted-chief.html Oh dear! :angry: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finleysmaid Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10425343/Schools-should-admit-children-at-two-says-Ofsted-chief.html Oh dear! :angry: i think im going to cry.....or SCREAM!!! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Bye bye PVI I honestly believe that this is another 'plot' to finish us off 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 Oh for goodness sake. What is the world coming to? What ever happened to childhood? Where do the families and parents come in? Maybe schooling for those in the womb is next?????!!!!!!! :angry: On a more positive not, watch the new John Lewis add on Tv this weekend and for those of you signed up to a certain supermarket, it's available online to watch. Aaah , the magic of Christmas. :1b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mundia Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 We already have a growing number of schools taking 2 year olds, so this is 'old' news really. Isnt that happening everywhere else yet? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finleysmaid Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 we have NO two year olds that i know of in school in this area (we dont have enough school places) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 We already have a growing number of schools taking 2 year olds, so this is 'old' news really. Isnt that happening everywhere else yet? Not happening in my area (yet) but I'm interested mundia - do you think this is a 'good' idea? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredbear Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 (edited) No not in our neck of the woods. I consider the needs of the whole child is best placed at home or in a home from home environment at this very young age. Our very young children are not little robots, but beautiful little beings that need nurturing. Even with the best intentions i am not sure a school however great could ever replicate this important time. Are they going to provide nap areas, changing facilities, it just makes me feel so sad and totally disillusioned by the very thought of all this. :( Edited November 8, 2013 by Fredbear 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panders Posted November 8, 2013 Share Posted November 8, 2013 The solution is simple, the government should obviously ban poor people from having children in the first place, or take children away from their parents as soon as they have them if they can't prove they can teach them their 3r's before the age of 3. If they want to do anything to help they should ensure that they get tax and benefits correct for poorer people and make sure they have decent living standards. If we have a generation or 2 of bad parenting, i.e. today's parents are poor role models because they were brought up by poor role models, then we must think of ways to stop that from continuing, but putting any child in school at the age of 2 isn't one of them. 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mundia Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Suunyday, do I think its a good idea? Good question! Well, I don't think its as straightforward as yes or no. Maybe in an ideal world, we wouldnt have any child care before 3, but the reality is, we do, and its here to stay. In this age where we have to provide places for 20% of our poorest 2 year olds, and next year have to double that to 40%, there just isnt enough places in the PVI sector to meet this, and this is a statutory duty for LAs. Judging from some of the replies here, this isnt the case everywhere, but it is in my corner of the world. Yes I have some concerns about 2 year olds in schools, I worry for example about the recent consultation where the govt wants to remove the need for schools to register separately to have 2 years olds, and also the abolition of any space requirements. This bothers me if it goes ahead, as schools inspections currently do not have a separate judgement for early years and our 2 year olds deserve better. Yes it bothers me that some schools (I have worked in a few) have leadership that simply does not understand early years and already think that a 3 year old is just a smaller 4 year old, and that they can just move anyone into early years because (and yes a head did say this to me once) 'well how hard can it be?'. So would a 2 year old be seen as just a smaller 3 year old?. Yes it bothers me most schools do not have staff who are trained for working with 2 year olds, and some may not think it important enough to actually get someone who is! Yes it bothers me that with LAs services in early years being cut, there may not be support for these schools in their new venture at precisely this time. We are spending a lot of time supporting this and getting schools to consider what having two year olds means for them. But what is happening where there is no EY team any more? But, and its a big 'but', why would we assume that good quality practice for 2 year olds can only be found in the PVI sector? I have seen some excellent 2 year provision in schools, where there are properly qualified people and lots of guidance and support. I have also seen some very poor quality provision for 2 year olds in the PVI sector such as 40 minute 'circle times', flash cards, and expectations to sit and cross legs. I have also seen the reverse. So we have to be quite mindful of making generalised judgements based on a 'type' of setting. PVI doesnt always equal good, and school bad, nor is it the case the other way round. Our colleagues who are working with 2 year olds in schools, are still our colleagues, who more often than not, want to get it right, not wrong, but may have some learning to do along the way. That can be true for any setting taking 2 year olds for the first time cant it? So as I said, no easy answer, but this is a debate worth having, so what do others think? 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Thank you mundia - as ever, a well thought out response...... I completely take your point with regard to 'making generalised judgements' and your point about poor quality provision in the PVI sector - that makes me so sad.......there are however, as you have acknowledged some (hopefully it's the majority) PVI settings offering high quality provision...... This will make me 'unpopular' but hey ho (!), I don't take two year olds - I take from 2.5 (and yes I do think that extra six months is important!) One of my biggest 'issues' with this is adult:child ratios........perhaps I'm fretting about nothing - will schools be required to use 1:4 as we do in PVI.......this is a genuine question...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mundia Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Not unpopular at all sunnyday, I work with many settings who dont take 2 year olds, and that is also down to preference. Of course 2.5 year olds are still 2 year olds arent they? As you know Ms Truss still wants to find ways to change the ratio, but at the moment schools currrently have to meet exactly the same requirements as any other setting because they are (at the moment) registered separately for 2 year olds. This includes the legal requirement for ratios as well as all other statutory requirements. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flowlow Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 (edited) we take children from the term of their third birthday and it can be a whole different ball game. I feel as has already been stated that there are real issues with how three and four year olds are being provided for in both sectors (school based and PVI) but I feel that sending children to school at 2 will mean that it will be more formal I am sure, schools are set up that way and the pressure from the top can be great (or so I understand) so for me it feels like the first step down a slippery slope. I can see Liz Truss appearing with the tennis balls on the legs of chairs to stop the fidgeting flashing before my eyes!!! I think it need careful consideration it would be wrong to say that there couldn't be a 'good' provision for children this young but will there be? or like I said is it just a strategic move to start the slippery slope? that's the problem we have lost faith and trust and therefore suspect the worst when we hear things like this. Some one said something to me recently which I kind of liked the way she put it.. Children can not be properly 5 unless they have been properly 4, they can not be properly 4 until they have been properly 3 and they can not be properly 3 unless they have been properly 2 and so on. I do wonder if we are trying to fast track children and what this will mean for the future of all of us? Edited November 9, 2013 by Johanna1 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Not unpopular at all sunnyday, I work with many settings who dont take 2 year olds, and that is also down to preference. Of course 2.5 year olds are still 2 year olds arent they? As you know Ms Truss still wants to find ways to change the ratio, but at the moment schools currrently have to meet exactly the same requirements as any other setting because they are (at the moment) registered separately for 2 year olds. This includes the legal requirement for ratios as well as all other statutory requirements. Yes mundia 2.5 is still a 2 year old (that made me laugh - that's usually my point!) You will have to forgive (or ignore) my complete distrust with regard to these matters :1b Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panders Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 In my case taking 2.5 year olds was an evil necessity because schools started taking in 4 year olds in our area, for our group to survive we had to go for younger children, previously they had to be 3 to come to nursery, summer borns stayed on and may well have been 5 in the July/August before they left us to join their year group at school Let us hope we won't have to take 1 year olds to survive in the pre school market this time 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Absolutely Panders........and the reason that I don't take 2 year olds is that I know my setting isn't suitable for them....... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
catma Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 As debates go the whole PV vs school thing should really be dead in the water shouldn't it by now? Schools do not have to register their "rising threes" so they are counted as school age for that purpose but as far as I can ascertain they are still 1:4 under statutory ratios - until they are 3 (so 1:13) they are 2 so 1:4. How this is worked with mixed age groups in a setting with QTS as a requirement though will probably be the Gove-ernments next deconstruction of the framework in schools. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thumperrabbit Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Let us hope we won't have to take 1 year olds to survive in the pre school market this time This is exactly what the PLA have advised us to look into if we want to stay alive ..... there's no way that we feel as a packaway church hall setting that we can provide the right sort of care for them. Schools in our closest town are now taking from 2 and they are full, I believe. We are in an affluent area 3 miles away from town where the schools currently take from the day they are 3 and this is affecting all PVI in the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panders Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 This is exactly what the PLA have advised us to look into if we want to stay alive ..... there's no way that we feel as a packaway church hall setting that we can provide the right sort of care for them. Schools in our closest town are now taking from 2 and they are full, I believe. We are in an affluent area 3 miles away from town where the schools currently take from the day they are 3 and this is affecting all PVI in the area. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sue R Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Oh dear, this is all so sad! Someone has already said it - whatever happened to childhood? Not a very constructive comment, I know. Let me think about it . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fredbear Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 It was never my intention to undermine the great practices going on in schools. My thoughts were more about 2 year olds being in a school environment/ building and whether this was appropriate for this age group. I feel the joy of Early Childhood is being eroded into a more and more formal and assessment driven practice. One of which I personally am unable or unwilling to subscribe too. Maybe it's time to hang up my hat. :( 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panders Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I wholeheartedly agree Fredbear. Ever since Gordon Brown sat up in bed one night and said "I know, we'll pay for four year olds to have a nursery place" his and successive governments have been meddling. at the moment I'm not so sure there has been more good come out of it than bad. at least parents generally looked after their own children 17odd years ago, now it is expected that someone else or some institution will. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunnyday Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Panders - I cheered when I read that post - very well said! :1b 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rea Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 institution That's the one word I associate with all this. It just overrides everything else, no matter how good the setting or the practitioners, we are still seeing a need, or some people are, to put younger and younger children into a 'setting' of some kind. If education has so badly failed our children how come the country didnt grind to a halt after the war or in the 17th century or any other century? It makes me cross that so much of our educational history is ignored. We have the best chance of achieving a good education now than at any other time, the opportunities for learning are everywhere, not just in a school. I'm fed up of hearing how bad we are at every damn thing and being compared to other countries who would all be able to find something to criticise their own system on if we asked them. Its about time the powers that be stop meddling in things they have no idea about. I read a piece early today relating to who inspects the inspectors, the author said an Ofsted inspector told him she/he hadnt got a teaching qualification but had observed over 100 classes. The author said he had watched every episode of ER but that didnt make him a doctor. Exactly! This nonsense should stop. If poverty is to blame for poor performance, get rid of poverty. Over 80,000 children are living in temporary accommodation, teachers are reporting more children arriving in school hungry. Shameful facts that will not be changed by putting children into a school setting at two years old. In 2011/12, 2.3 million children were in relative income poverty before housing costs, and 2.6 million in absolute income poverty. If poverty rises continue, the 2020 child poverty targets will be missed. Urgent action is required to get back on track. (State of the Nation 2013: Social Mobility and Child Poverty in Britain) 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upsy Daisy Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 My worry is that so many people high up in government seem to think that learning is something children do when they are not playing and that literacy and numeracy are best supported by getting children manipulating letters and numerals as early as possible.The lack of understanding of how much children need to learn and develop before and after they first pick up a pencil and start writing letters is terrifying to me. The idea seems to be that if you get them doing it early they will be better at it which in my humble opinion could not be further from the truth.Two year olds in school provision is fine by me if they have enough affection and attention from well trained adults and play is at the beginning, middle and end of everything they do. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 I work in an academy which has children on roll from the age of 2 through to 13. Many other schools in my area have already taken over the management of preschools which are on the same site, thus lowering their point of entry to 2 years of age. This isn't news, it's been happening ever since the funding for two year olds started. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
finleysmaid Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 ok i offer my two year olds... individual attention a family environment with older 'siblings' in the same group so that they learn from others a specialist team who understand play is the first, second and everything that a two year old does ...all at least level 3 some 4 or 5 all very experienced...special SAL training/connections with support groups/multi agencies space for them to run/sleep/eat and be comforted either inside or out for as long as they need...without fear of 'big' children ! short days lots of time for their parents to work with us to ensure their children are happy and settled before they leave (penny tassoni has some interesting evidence that if a parents leaves when their child is crying that the bond of trust is broken and will never be soft furnishings/large sofas/home from home atmosphere/soft lighting/specialised toilets/changing facilities staggered starts to ensure individual attention enough equipment so as not to cause stress and anxiety. Regularly cleaned and checked. support for parents whenever they want/need and for howver long they need. ...the whole point being that these children are coming from families that need support! this system will not work if this support is not in place A small cosy setting which allows them to be a big fish in a small pond and supports their self esteem and confidence If schools can offer all these things i will shut up! 6 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rea Posted November 9, 2013 Share Posted November 9, 2013 Birmingham city council closed all of its community day nurseries about 3 years ago. All those purpose built buildings standing empty. They used to be there for referrals from health visitors and social services. They were contact centres for children in care through CP issues, they supported young parents, parents with additional needs and parent who's children had complex and sometimes life limiting needs. All closed because of money! 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Upsy Daisy Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 Birmingham city council closed all of its community day nurseries about 3 years ago. All those purpose built buildings standing empty. They used to be there for referrals from health visitors and social services. They were contact centres for children in care through CP issues, they supported young parents, parents with additional needs and parent who's children had complex and sometimes life limiting needs. All closed because of money! That's really sad to hear. It was one of those nurseries that gave my godson a great start in life when his parents were failing dismally. Without their consistency, good nourishment, stimulation and positive behaviour management he would have been totally reliant on me for support and I didn't have the access to him to do enough. That nursery gave him opportunities to learn, develop and succeed he would never have had otherwise and saved him from serious neglect which could have been life threatening. To close them is so short-sighted. Finleysmaid, do you have a link to Penny Tassoni's research on separating from parents? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trekker Posted November 10, 2013 Share Posted November 10, 2013 ... to raise “dire” standards of early education among large numbers of infants...Early exposure to formal education is needed... ... many deprived children had “low social skills”, poor standards of reading and an inability to communicate properly, meaning they were “not ready to learn” when they entered the first full year of school. well what a load of twaddle - really!!!!!!! 'Infants' do not need earlier exposure...all the real (i.e. not from government bods here) research points to high standards coming from starting formal schooling later and letting children be children...they continue to choose to ignore it and and ignore the views of those who know - US! What do they expect children aged two to do - walk up to each other, shake hands, ask "how are you" and begin a conversation about the weather...or about what they read in todays paper??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.