Delay formal lessons 'to age six' औपचारिक शिक्षा छः वर्ष के बाद

• 
  

  The call for a later start has been rejected by the governmen

  This is an interesting research. If I am recalling right  than this kind ofresult and result also found in India before this. But for India tag isimportant.So now we have BBC and UK tag. OK well. In my personal observation,experience andknowledge I found that early "schooling" is lacking socialization andsociability in personality. They are people wholove individuality and this is became nature of his/her personality.They are lessassociate with family so they became less responsible to family too.And so they are less responsible to the rest of society. They havetendency to think that "what ever I am doing for my self is good, so it(must be) good for society. This is also proven in many studies inIndian and aboard. The present situation in India as I know that. many pre-nursery school mushrooming from metro cities to smalltowns. Their main purpose to make money rather give any kind of education. So children missing both family socialization and their childhood. But in India people thinking that if they enrol their child with English medium school in early age then their child's life will be bright future. 
  
  • Now Read The Original Article
  • http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8309153.stm
  • Page last updated at 11:04 GMT, Friday, 16 October 2009 12:04 UK
  • Delay formal lessons 'to age six'
  • By Hannah Richardson
  • BBC News education reporter
  
  
  
• Children should not start formal learning until they are six, a review of primary education in England says.
• Insteadthe kind of play-based learning featured in nurseries and receptionclasses should go on for another year, the Cambridge Primary Reviewsays.
• There is no evidence that an early introduction to formallearning has any benefit, the review says, but there are suggestions itcan do some harm.
• Ministers say a starting age of six would be completely counter-productive.
• Mostchildren start primary school in England aged four, and a largeproportion are taking advantage of free, part-time pre-school places inlocal schools and privately-run nurseries from the age of three.
• Too much too young?
• Thekind of learning that goes on there follows the government's "EarlyYears Foundation Stage", which currently runs to the age of five and isa play-based curriculum which includes some early literacy and numeracygoals.

• 
  
  
  
  

  COMPULSORY SCHOOL AGE Five years old: England, Scotland, Wales, N. Ireland, Malta, the Netherlands Six years old: Austria, Belgium, CzechRepublic, Denmark (6-7), France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland,Irish Republic, Italy, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden (6-7) Seven years old: Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania Source: Eurydice

  
  
  
  
• Continuing this informal but structured learning for a year or sowould bring children in England in line with many European countries,where school starts at six or even seven, and standards are oftenhigher.
• A similar step has already been taken in Wales andNorthern Ireland where a play-focussed curriculum has been extended tothe end of Key Stage 1, when children are aged seven. But Scotlandfollows the English model. "This would give sufficient time forchildren to establish positive attitudes to learning and begin todevelop the language and study skills which are essential to theirlater progress," says the review, which is based on six years ofacademic work.
• It stops short of calling for the age ofcompulsory schooling to be put back to age six, but does call for anopen debate on the subject.
• Reactions to school age proposal
• However, it adds, that the issue is less about where children learn than what they learn.
• DameGillian Pugh, who co-authored the review, said play-based learning wasnot a "wishy-washy, 'just let them get on with it' thing".
• "It's a balance between children-initiated and adult-initiated learning," she said.
• 'Social disadvantage'
• Shesaid four and five-year-olds tended to be at a stage where they werejust "tuning in" to learning and that they could be "turned off" ifthey were made to follow too formal a curriculum, too early on.
• HAVE YOUR SAY
• 
  
  
  
  

  Sometimes I think people are more interested in the childmindingaspects of primary schools and nurseries than whether or not they arehaving any actual benefit

  
  
  
  
• Lee Brown, Thornhill
• Send us your comments
• This would be of particular benefit to children from disadvantagedbackgrounds and those with speech and language delays, she added.
• Butshe argued it would not hold back brighter children who were ready tobegin basic numeracy and literacy in reception classes.
• Thereview also notes that there are downward pressures to get children inreception year ready for the early years of school and the tests thatfollow.
• It also calls for free part-time nursery provision tobe offered to two-year-olds in areas of social disadvantage and forchildren with particular needs.
• 'Pillars of stability'
• This would help them get the most out of school and hopefully close the achievement gap, it says.
• Theauthors also call for national assessment tests, known as Sats, to beabandoned, saying their high-stakes nature, being linked to leaguetables, encourages a too-narrow focus on literacy and numeracy.
• Professor Robin Alexander: ''We don't think Sats are fit for purpose''
• Instead, children should be assessed on the broad range of subjectsthroughout primary school and at its end, but these assessments shouldbe used to monitor children's progress rather than hold teachersaccountable.
• Welsh schoolchildren no longer sit Sats at 7, 11 and 14, nor are school league tables used there any more.
• Thereview team also called for a major review of the way schools arestaffed, arguing that there is a case for using more specialistteachers alongside the traditional class teacher.
• But they also said primary schools were "pillars of stability" that were highly valued by parents and pivotal to communities.

• 
  
  
  
  

  If you are the minister, whether or not you believe in both localismand light-touch regulation, it is you that can be horribly exposed whenthings go wrong Mark Easton BBC's home editor Read Mark's thoughts in ful

  
  
  
  
• 'Counter-productive'
• England's schools minister VernonCoaker said the government was already reforming primary education tomake the curriculum less prescriptive and free it up for teachers.
• Headded: "A school starting age of six would be completelycounter-productive - we want to make sure children are playing andlearning from an early age and to give parents the choice for theirchild to start in the September following their fourth birthday.
• "Ourexpert group on assessment said it would be a backward step to scrapEnglish and maths tests at 11 and we are piloting a School Report Card,which will give parents a far broader picture of how schools aredoing."
• Christine Blower, general secretary of the NUT, said:"All the evidence shows that proper, in-depth early years educationprovided by qualified teachers gives the best possible start tochildren's schooling."
•  ========================
• Next Article by Mark Eston, BBC Home Editor
• http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2009/10/is_primary_education_threatene.html
• Is Primary Education Threatened by Authoritarianism?
• Mark Easton | 14:48 UK time, Friday, 16 October 2009
• "Schools are not in danger of subversion by 1970s ideologues," asserts today's review of primary education in England. The real risk, we are warned, comes from an "authoritarian mindset" which may threaten our very democracy.
• This is a report written by educationalists and academics who clearly want to wrestle control of our children's schooling back from what they call "top-down control and edict".
• "The principle that it is not for government or government agenciesto tell teachers how to teach, abandoned in 1997, should bereinstated," the report panel argues. In short, politicians should buttout of the classroom.
• The review regards national tests, national teaching strategies,inspection, centrally-determined teacher training and ring-fencedfinance as "suspect", creating, it is argued, a "state theory oflearning".
• Instead, the authors want "professional empowerment, mutual accountability and proper respect for research and experience".
• Today's report is really calling for a shift in power: away from thecentre to the local, from Whitehall to the white board. "[F]or theresponsibilities... to be re-balanced," as the panel puts it.
• Throughout the 1980s and 90s, government voices railed against"leftie" teachers and their "trendy" methods, which, it was argued,were partly responsible for the lack of discipline among young people.Schools became an ideological battleground with influential right-wingacademics convincing key policy makers that dangerous Marxistextremists had occupied the staff room. Central government increasinglytook control.
• Today's report, with its stark warnings of "authoritarian mindset","the disenfranchising of local voice" and "the rise of unelected andunaccountable groups taking key decisions behind closed doors" hints ata totalitarian ideology now at work in primary education.
• When it comes to policy in our schools, "education appears to mirrorthe wider problems recorded by those who see British democracy inretreat," it suggests. Warming to its theme, the report accusesgovernment of stifling free debate with "the use of myth and derisionto... discredit alternative views".
• Crikey! No surprise perhaps that government ministers haveeffectively responded to the review with a "thanks but no thanks". Itis not just that they are being painted as latter-day Stalins, crushingany opposition. They are the ones who get it in the neck when childrenleave primary school unable to read or add up. They are the ones whohave to justify the huge increases in spending on primary education.
• The problem for central government - and this is going to be evenmore acutely felt if the Conservatives win the next election - is that,if you are the minister, whether or not you believe in both localismand light-touch regulation, it is you that can be horribly exposed whenthings go wrong.
• No education secretary can stand up in the House of Commons and say:"Yes, I did read in the newspapers about that school where none of Year6 could count up to twenty. Nothing to do with me. It's down to localteachers and, without the inspectors, I couldn't know about it anyway."
• That's not to say that centralised authority backed up with toughaccountability is the answer. Innovation and expertise may not flourishunder the dead weight of "top-down control and edict".
• Perhaps the most telling phrase in today's review reads: "The reportunequivocally supports both public accountability and the raising ofstandards, but..." The education debate really begins with whateverfollows that "but".