Are we making our children learn too much too young?

In a letter to today's Times, some leading authors and educationalists unite to accuse the government of putting our children's development at risk with their new pre-school education targets.

They are not the first to draw attention to the huge shifts in the under 5's agenda since 1997. With initiatives such as Sure Start and children's centres, the government has shown that it doesn't want any children to be (as they say in America) "left behind". Research clearly shows that the earlier you intervene to help disadvantaged children, the bigger difference it makes. One of the big motivations behind the changes (to be implemented in September) is to safeguard those who are the least advantaged. Surely that's a laudable aim?

Why then is scepticism growing? Perhaps it's because many see this particular kind of intervention as the wrong way to go about helping children from all backgrounds. British children begin formal education very early. True, the new targets are supposed to be a framework, offering guidance rather than being an actual curriculum. But with 69 goals and more than 500 developmental milestones, they do seem rather overwhelming.

The Open Eye campaign (from where today's letter originated) see things very differently from the government. They say that children should be allowed to play when young, improving their social skills and learning to talk and communicate properly (a real problem for many these days) before moving onto "proper" learning. They specifically argue that the disadvantaged won't be helped by introducing a more learning-based curriculum so early.

So much recent research, including a landmark Unicef report has shown that British children are unhappy and stressed. The answer doesn't seem to be implementing more targets and pressures for youngsters. Very few countries demand that their four-year-olds be able to write in sentences and use punctuation!

Carl Honore, author of the fascinating book Under Pressure: Rescuing Our Children from the Culture of Hyper-Parenting, tells me that the "joy of childhood" is being squeezed out. He thinks all this matters hugely - for the children and society as a whole. "We're producing children who can't think for themselves and only have the oven-ready answers they were given at school," he says. "Our children are becoming unhealthy, unhappy and exhausted." I wonder if we are witnessing the beginnings of a backlash - with demands for less testing all round and a more holistic approach to bringing up children.

Read School Gate on:

When should summer babies start school?

The importance of play for children

Why too much homework doesn't work

Comments

[JK]

I work in a tutor centre, and I see more and more 4 year old children being pushed into learning by parents, we aren't meant to take them till they are at least 5 but some parents even put a higher age down, we recently had someone with a child who had only just turned 4 and they insisted he was 5, the work was too hard and he only had the attention of a few minutes, parents need to understand that a child will learn and that they can't push them to be a genius.

[Joseph]

As a child I was very ill and as a result was unable to attend school until I was 7, as I was in hospital for most of my life until then, I couldn't be home schooled either. My twin sister though started school when she was four and a half. Now as 30 year olds, my sister passed all school exams mainly at A grades and now has a 1st class degree, where as I still struggle at maths and reading and failed the majority of my school exams. I am not thick by any means, but due to the fact that I was denied the chance to read and write at an appropriate age, until well into my twenties I still struggled to write down my knowledge on paper.

[Margaret]

What are we doing to our children, they look to adults to care, protect and nurture them, we are failing! Listen to your instincts as parents, if you feel they are not ready for formal education then they most probably are not.
We need a holistic, child centred approach for our children. All shortcuts come at a cost. If we as parents decided that our 8 week old should learn to stand and kept subjecting the infant to putting pressure on these under developed and immature limbs, yes eventually the infant might stand a little earlier than their peers, but the damaged and malformation of subjecting inappropriate pressure prematurely will be life long and visable. I fail to see the difference, the huge increase in demand on mental health services is just the invisable making itself heard!

[Whimsey]

I can remember a parent interviewed on TV about teaching reading in schools, saying to camera 'I was shocked to discover Little Timmy couldn't read'.

How come she didn't know? How come she hadn't the faintest idea that Little Timmy couldn't read? She obviously took no interest whatsoever in her own child, and clearly never read with him, or listened to him reading, or, presumably, had the faintest idea what his education was all about in the first place.

[Clive]

Each child is different, but schools are unable to cater to this because of limited time, resources, etc.
It's up to the parents to step in and make sure their child has a good start in life. Sadly we see that many parents are not up to the task.
As a result of the lack of early training we see (I am a teacher) children in secondary achool unable to do mental math - totally reliant on a calculator - unable to read properly - and above all unable to think logically. This is one subject that needs to be taught, (learning how to think) and yet it doesn't exist on the curriculum. We should also teach how to deal with this 'Brave New World' so that after schooldays are over, young adults will know that credit cards are not 'free money', that bling is just bling, and that there is an enormous difference between cooking real food and eating junk. In general I believe school has been very much dumbed-down compared with years gone by.

[Tom Burkard]

The notion that 4-year-olds are learning to write in sentences is pure moonshine--a lot of undergraduates can't manage this. Teaching basic skills at an early age is fine, providing you take the trouble to ensure that skills are steadily built from the bottom up, and that children are always 'getting it right'. This goes against the wisdom of the modern educator--the unstructured methods they advocate simply don't work. At the schools where our "Sound Foundations" early reading programme are being introduced, teachers are often amazed at how much children enjoy learning when they aren't making mistakes. They simply can't believe that kids like books without gimmicks and cuddly animals.

[whimsey]

I think this shows that it can really vary enormously between individual children, and no one rule suits all. Be guided by what they take to, what they seem to be good at, what they enjoy. But I agree it can be a delicate balence when to 'let them off learning' and when to say 'OK, now it's time to learn'. The last thing we want is for children to slip into illiteracy, and end up educationally disadvantaged all their lives, and stigmatised as illiterate. Far too many school children cannot read, or read well enough to be functionally literate.

[Kate]

As a mother of 2 boys who have struggled to grasp reading and writing at age 4-5 years, I agree wholeheartedly with this. Children aquire these skills so much more quickly at 7-8 years. To me the early years should be about learning through play and doing things like drawing, baking, being read to etc. I welcome any change in this direction and think it will be much better for parents and children. Both our boys are now through the early years and flying,although the first 3 years of school were bumpy (they just were not ready for formal leaning)

[GSJ]

Provided that learning is made rewarding and enjoyable, it is a good thing to learn basic literacy and numeracy early on. Young children enjoy soaking up all sorts of information and new skills, if presented in creative and enjoyable ways. Arguably, the younger a skill is learned, the more it will seem like "second nature" later on.

[Kate]

I would agree, 4 or 5 strikes me as a very young age to be pushed to learn. As I grew up in Germany I guess I am more used to the idea that children under 6 years of age should be allowed to be children - be sent to Kindergarten to make friends and interact, but not enter the "education race" yet. (in Germany each child of "school age" - 6 years old - has to undergo medical/psychological examination by a doctor who will then inform the parents whether it is "ready" to go to school yet, if not, they strongly recommend giving the child another year in Kindergarten).

I obviously cannot judge the British system as I have not been through it myself, but it seems as if there was more concern with producing and turning out diligent achieving little workers than protecting them and letting them be children.

[Catel]

I went to nursery schhol at the age of three,in the nineties, and learnt to read,write, count, etcetera at four, and never stopped. A year and a half later my parents moved to France and I was enrolled in a French school, where they only learn these things at six, so I gained a year on my schoolmates, an advantage i still benefit from, while my brother, educated solely in the French system, has had many more difficulties. I don't know if the age at which we learnt had anything to do with it, but I know my brother's intelligence is equal to my own, if it doesn't exceed it.

[A mother]

Shelli - he doesn't have to. Legally, children in the UK do not have to be in full-time education until the term after they become 5, and then it can be "at school or otherwise" (i.e. Elective Home Education). The schools, who want to maximise funding, don't usually tell you this...

[newjerseygirl]

According to the government, I should probably start chaining my three year old to the table, pen in hand, until he can write his own name and recognise a full stop and a comma before he starts reception. Yet kids manage to get a grade at GCSE without being able to do either it seems...

[PATRICIA]

My 5 year old son started Reception this year but still can't read.

He is very happy though, and I really don't worry about it.

[Mollie]

My son has just turned 4 and will start Reception in September too. He knows his numbers and letters and can read very basic words. All taught to him at his Montessori nursery. He can also talk for England and has good social skills so I have no worries concerning his development being sacrificed in the pursuit of learning.

The only downside I have experienced is that I can no longer leave him looking at a book after his bedtime story - 'Mummy I can't read the words'. He is hugely frustrated he cannot read and I am looking forward to seeing his development through reception class.

[Shelli]

Coming from Israel, I am very worried that they start teaching letters and numbers at reception. I wouldn't want them to do it before this.

I look at my little one who will be going to reception in September and my stomach turns. He is only 4 years of age, sucking his thumb and needs his hugs and kisses every five minutes. Will he be able to learn letters and numbers, and does he really need to at this age????