National Curriculum for Babies
Discussion
Labour's lust for control over every aspect of our lives now extends to control over how babies are educated at nurseries.
This will no doubt require a few thousand more civil servants to administer and will add further paperwork to the beleaguered educational sector.
BBC article
Baby education 'absolute madness'
Maths, language and literacy would be taught to toddlers
A national curriculum for babies and toddlers has been dismissed as "absolute madness" by parents who fear childhood could be taken from children.
Under the Childcare Bill, childminders would teach the curriculum to children "from birth" until they start school.
All three-year-olds in childcare in England would learn rudimentary maths, language and literacy.
But the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations described the proposal as "bizarre".
Spokeswoman Margaret Morrissey said: "We are now in danger of taking away children's childhood when they leave the maternity ward.
"From the minute you are born and your parents go back to work, as the government has encouraged them to do, you are going to be ruled by the Department for Education.
"It is absolute madness."
The proposals for the first threee years of children's development give statutory force to existing guidelines, Birth to Three Matters, published two years ago.
But the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses (PANN) also expressed concern.
'Different abilities'
Tricia Pritchard, from PANN, said: "We hope that this will be age-appropriate and flexible as young children develop at different rates.
"Children of the same age have different abilities."
Deborah Lawson, former chair of PANN and now vice-chair of the Professional Association of Teachers, said: "We do need to have some guidelines and parameters but nothing that is too prescriptive."
We are not talking about sitting very young children in chairs and making them learn numbers and letters
Beverley Hughes
Children's Minister
Children's Minister Beverley Hughes said the curriculum would indeed be flexible and "age specific".
The Bill tells childcare providers to give a mixture of "integrated care and education from birth".
Introducing it, Ms Hughes said: "We want to establish a coherent framework that defines progression for young children from nought to five.
"We are not talking about sitting very young children in chairs and making them learn numbers and letters where that is inappropriate."
Existing scheme
The government drew up the new curriculum for toddlers, arguing that research showed earlier education helped children develop faster socially and intellectually.
It will build on an existing system which teaches three-year-olds "mathematical development and communication, language and literacy", the Education Department said.
The early years foundation stage will have the same compulsory legal force as the national curriculum for schools, Ms Hughes said.
She said young children's learning deserved "parity" with that at primary and secondary level, but denied that this would be at the expense of play.
This will no doubt require a few thousand more civil servants to administer and will add further paperwork to the beleaguered educational sector.
BBC article
Baby education 'absolute madness'
Maths, language and literacy would be taught to toddlers
A national curriculum for babies and toddlers has been dismissed as "absolute madness" by parents who fear childhood could be taken from children.
Under the Childcare Bill, childminders would teach the curriculum to children "from birth" until they start school.
All three-year-olds in childcare in England would learn rudimentary maths, language and literacy.
But the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations described the proposal as "bizarre".
Spokeswoman Margaret Morrissey said: "We are now in danger of taking away children's childhood when they leave the maternity ward.
"From the minute you are born and your parents go back to work, as the government has encouraged them to do, you are going to be ruled by the Department for Education.
"It is absolute madness."
The proposals for the first threee years of children's development give statutory force to existing guidelines, Birth to Three Matters, published two years ago.
But the Professional Association of Nursery Nurses (PANN) also expressed concern.
'Different abilities'
Tricia Pritchard, from PANN, said: "We hope that this will be age-appropriate and flexible as young children develop at different rates.
"Children of the same age have different abilities."
Deborah Lawson, former chair of PANN and now vice-chair of the Professional Association of Teachers, said: "We do need to have some guidelines and parameters but nothing that is too prescriptive."
We are not talking about sitting very young children in chairs and making them learn numbers and letters
Beverley Hughes
Children's Minister
Children's Minister Beverley Hughes said the curriculum would indeed be flexible and "age specific".
The Bill tells childcare providers to give a mixture of "integrated care and education from birth".
Introducing it, Ms Hughes said: "We want to establish a coherent framework that defines progression for young children from nought to five.
"We are not talking about sitting very young children in chairs and making them learn numbers and letters where that is inappropriate."
Existing scheme
The government drew up the new curriculum for toddlers, arguing that research showed earlier education helped children develop faster socially and intellectually.
It will build on an existing system which teaches three-year-olds "mathematical development and communication, language and literacy", the Education Department said.
The early years foundation stage will have the same compulsory legal force as the national curriculum for schools, Ms Hughes said.
She said young children's learning deserved "parity" with that at primary and secondary level, but denied that this would be at the expense of play.
Guidelines are a good idea.
Enforcement is not, allow nurseries to differentiate themselves by demonstrating how they help develop children rather than having one, lowest common denominator, blanket rule.
I cant say it surprises me that proposals like this come along as there are some abysmal nurseries out there.
Enforcement is not, allow nurseries to differentiate themselves by demonstrating how they help develop children rather than having one, lowest common denominator, blanket rule.
I cant say it surprises me that proposals like this come along as there are some abysmal nurseries out there.
Jeez. Teaching toddlers is actually very important. It doesn't have to be the "sat at desks, learning times tables" kind of teaching. Play that encourages learning is the way to do it and, from the article quoted above, seems to be what they're talking about. Storm in a teacup. As usual.
I saw this on Sky News this morning 
pdV6 said:
Jeez. Teaching toddlers is actually very important. It doesn't have to be the "sat at desks, learning times tables" kind of teaching. Play that encourages learning is the way to do it and, from the article quoted above, seems to be what they're talking about. Storm in a teacup. As usual.
That may be the case but it does not require a prescriptive national curriculum.
My Mother worked at a nursery attached to an infant school (I think for 4 & 5 year olds) she was required to spend hours and hours working out lesson plans about how playing in the sand box was advancing this or that objective.
Until Labour realises that it cannot control every aspect of public services by 'national plans', enforced by hundreds of thousands of busybodies, public services will not get any batter.
Job creation for tw@ts!Personally i think its a cracking idea - My son has attended a Montessori school/nursery since he was 6 months old - in that time he has learnt french, basic math and basic speech, grammar and phoenetics - he's just started at school and to the point where he is a good 18/24 months more advanced that the rest of the kids - He's been moved up a year and is only 4 himself, even he finds it a bit tedious learning the same things again and again - he may be exceptionally bright, or it may be that he had a good start at the nursery, either way i cant see educating kids at a younger age a bad thing, can you ??
Can't we all see what BLiar wants.
Get kids taught by "professionals" to guidelines and not by parents.
This means parents have even less control over their children since the child doesn't look upto the parent as much.
Good way to put "New Labour" ideas into a kids head, and not the parent putting their beliefs into their childs mind.
Tis like Orwells 1984, the kids are the states biggest commodity, as they have fresh minds to mould. Give the state the power to mould using a curriculum and your kids are gonna end up opinionated to the states ideals, not yours or what you believe.
OK, this is only the start, but considering how nannying Labour are already, imagine what kinda crap is gonna be on a curriculum for kids. Half of it will be lies and social orientation to what suits the government. All our kids will want to be members of Transport 2000 etc
Dave
Get kids taught by "professionals" to guidelines and not by parents.
This means parents have even less control over their children since the child doesn't look upto the parent as much.
Good way to put "New Labour" ideas into a kids head, and not the parent putting their beliefs into their childs mind.
Tis like Orwells 1984, the kids are the states biggest commodity, as they have fresh minds to mould. Give the state the power to mould using a curriculum and your kids are gonna end up opinionated to the states ideals, not yours or what you believe.
OK, this is only the start, but considering how nannying Labour are already, imagine what kinda crap is gonna be on a curriculum for kids. Half of it will be lies and social orientation to what suits the government. All our kids will want to be members of Transport 2000 etc
Dave
Yugguy said:
Your kid, does he just play or is it all learning?
Yes he plays, he's like a normal kid, they made learning fun, so actually they dont feel like they are learning - he's at school now and still get to play - The good thing is he's used to learning so knows how to behave at school, where as most of the kids that havent been to Nursery etc tend to be disruptive, hence the decision with the school to move him up a year - at least he's with people that are on the same learning curve as him...
Did anyone watch the TV prog recently about unteachable kids, they learnt Grammar by using karate - I.e an ! would be a high kick a . would be a punch etc,
Harry my boy was doing this last year at nursery by saying S and drawing it in the air, saying k but differentiating a curvy C or a kicking K, the kids he was with for the 1st few weeks didnt even know what an s was let alone able to interact with other kids in a sensible way ...
Mr Whippy said:
Twaddle... 
I cant see the problem with this, do you not want your child to be well educated ??
Kids are so different to when we were kids, they learn quicker, schoolings come on in leaps and bounds, gone are the days of slate and chalk my man.
I want my kid/s to have the best start in life, which is why we decided to put him in a Montessoi in the 1st place, it cost nearly a grand a month, but it was bloody well worth it, kids in a few years time will get it for free, gotta be worth it hasnt it ??
Hughesie2 said:
Personally i think its a cracking idea - My son has attended a Montessori school/nursery since he was 6 months old - in that time he has learnt french, basic math and basic speech, grammar and phoenetics - he's just started at school and to the point where he is a good 18/24 months more advanced that the rest of the kids - He's been moved up a year and is only 4 himself, even he finds it a bit tedious learning the same things again and again - he may be exceptionally bright, or it may be that he had a good start at the nursery, either way i cant see educating kids at a younger age a bad thing, can you ??
Very true and Montessori is an incredible system.
However, there is a premium for that teaching ability because there is a huge cost attached in training the nurses to the required standard. This government nonsense is trying to 'learn through play' on the cheap and on that basis I cant see a rosy future for it, to be honest.
Depends I suppose on the developmental characteristics of the childs brain
I dont know enough about it, obviously but is there any evidence to show that a Montessori educated adult is more intelligent/logical/greater ability than a non Montessori educated adult?
Then as a side point is it the Montessori method or the fact that general education occurs earlier?
Dunno
I dont know enough about it, obviously but is there any evidence to show that a Montessori educated adult is more intelligent/logical/greater ability than a non Montessori educated adult?
Then as a side point is it the Montessori method or the fact that general education occurs earlier?
Dunno
Plotloss said:
Then as a side point is it the Montessori method or the fact that general education occurs earlier?
Dunno
I personally think its the fact that education occurs earlier, The Montessori style is creeping into schools, thats why Harry got very bored very quicky, he'd done it all before, it was old news to him, that started to show in his attention levels at school, luckily they identified what it was and with consultation with us moved him up a year, so he had stuff/things to hold his concentration levels up a bit more, even a year above he covers old ground, but its quicker to move them on up to the next level.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff