here
The only bit I didn't like was when they wheeled out wossname Sigman to tell us that TV, DVDs and computer use are harmful for small children and stop them being able to concentrate for extended periods of time (has he never watched small children playing video games?)
But it's a professionally made film.
People in the mainstream seem to be just now waking up to the threat of EYFS, which is the new compulsory curriculum for under-5s in the UK, which must be followed by all nurseries, childminders and pre-schools. Montessori, Steiner/Waldorf and other "alternative" pre-schools are completely up in arms about it, of course, and there is growing discontent about the compulsory nature of EYFS among childminders and early years practitioners (I think they call themselves) more widely.
By the age of 5, did you know, British children should be writing simple sentences using punctuation.
Sheesh.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
What is school for, then?
It's very difficult to say.
Writing MORE sentences with punctuation?
What's school for?
Some see it as a convenient means to allow the parents to work.
Others see it as the process to prepare young ones for their "working life".
Some see it as the way to aid children to reach their full potential.
And some see it as a means to carry out social engineering... transmission of "values" and what not.
But writing/reading at age five? Oh what misguided and ill-informed people came up with that one? Not anyone who has read anything about development of children.
Thanks for the link, v. interesting. Sadly I think my DD2's lovely 'play based' pre-school is going to be a no-no for us now. Guess she'll have to join DD1 and I in the freaky-hippie land of HE fulltime!
You never know... it's worth asking about whether they are going to apply for an exemption. I can find you a link if I look. There's certainly a link from the Open Eye site (though the exemptions are supposed to be temporary only, I think)
The only thing wrong with it is that the compulsion is on the children.
Children's performance is evaluated because it's thought they are a reliable product of the quality of the education offered to them. This makes no sense.
Each individual mind has to create his knowledge for himself. Educators cannot control how and when this happens, all they can do is to become better at facilitating knowledge.
To know how good educators are at educating, you have to look at how friendly they are, what they know and what they share with the children.
Since there is no advantage of not knowing how to read, write and count, it makes sense educators offer the opportunity early and are evaluated by how well they facilitate that education.
But this evaluation is not a job for the goverment. Parents should be left alone to do this. Parents cannot just become breeders for the state.
If the children don't want to learn to read or whatever yet, nevermind.
It should not be expected that children keep up with this construct, the "average child", the product of ageist prejudice.
It's like expecting women to be pretty, feminine, to know how to cook, sew, be submissive in bed and take care of the home so their potential for marriage is fulfilled.
Nobody would have their "full potential" restricted if these ageist agendas didn't exist.
Post a Comment