In a report, the cross-party Commons public accounts committee said that access to a high quality early years education was supposed to have a “lasting positive impact” on standards.
But MPs found “no clear evidence” of a knock-on effect on pupils at the age of seven, raising concerns that up to £1.9bn a year is being misspent.No kidding..?
Oh, and the government’s desire to try to ignore the laws of economics isn’t working, either. How surprising…
Access to state-funded childcare was introduced under Labour in the late 90s and expanded by the Coalition. Currently, all three and four-year-olds receive 15 hours of free education each week.
But the report found that large numbers of parents were being forced to pay “top-up” fees – often equal to hundreds of pounds a month – because nurseries refused to accept the cap on state funding.Nurseries exist because they are businesses. Not because they like to mind the screaming, snotty-nosed offspring of the proletariat, and are happy to make a loss doing so...
Assessments carried out last summer showed some 15 per cent of seven-year-olds – 80,000 – were unable to read after two full years of primary school.As someone who was able to read (thanks to my parents and grandparents) before starting primary school, I find that astonishing, but sadly, less than surprising.
A Department for Education spokeswoman said: “We’ve seen big year-on year improvements in children’s development at five as a result of free early education – but we know there are many factors that influence attainment at school.
“We are commissioning a major piece of longitudinal research to look at how early education impacts on later attainment and to understand more about how a high quality early education leads to better results at seven and beyond. “Well, clearly, for a significant minority, it doesn’t. So wouldn’t that research be better targeted at finding out how to identify the 15%?
Or would you not like to see the results of such research? Might it pose too many questions?
9 comments:
Two years in a school at any point in a child's life is more than sufficient for any child to start from scratch and learn to read. It's certainly more than long enough to identify any physical/mental incapacity.
Whether they received any education from anyone at all prior to that is therefore irrelevant.
I strongly suspect it's the ability or success of the teacher in getting them to sit down, shut up and pay attention in the first place that is the REAL problem.
My grandchild can read and write.
She went to a nursery running the surestart program and then into early years and is now almost half way through year one. Most of the other children who went that route can also do the same.
Or perhaps people forget that in 2012 both parents have to work ?
Certainly, in this area, one always has a fulltime job and the other part time....sometimes the fulltime job also has a part-time job.
Sheesh. Alright touchy. So your grandchild can read and write - that's good. But it doesn't change the fact that 15% of SEVEN year olds apparently can't.
For the life of me, I can't think how that shocking statistic can have occurred: education has to be the most thoroughly Progressive-ised sector in the land, after all. And those people always know what's best and never fuck anything up.
XX “We are commissioning a major piece of longitudinal research to look at how early education impacts on later attainment and to understand more about how a high quality early education leads to better results at seven and beyond. “ XX
If those that set it up wrote English, instead of shite like that, maybe there would be a better chance?
I wonder what longitudinal research is, as opposed, say, to latitudinal research?
With the amount of paperwork needed in schools now, I'm surprised teachers have any time for teaching.
Have you even seen a checklist they have to check, tick and sign before the school even allows children in ?
Every child that gets hurt, and that means any fall/trip/graze/bruise receives a signed accident report to take home....all the playground gear has to be checked....doors, windows, the list is long....fortunately, most can be done by teaching assistants....who are first in line in saving money..
"Two years in a school at any point in a child's life is more than sufficient for any child to start from scratch and learn to read."
If so (and I doubt it, if in a home with no reinforcement) then the only answer is that the teaching's not up to scratch...
".. education has to be the most thoroughly Progressive-ised sector in the land, after all. And those people always know what's best and never fuck anything up."
Well, quite! I suspect the answer will be 'more of the same' though.
"I wonder what longitudinal research is, as opposed, say, to latitudinal research?"
It's just businesssspeak creeping in everywhere.
"some 15 per cent of seven-year-olds – 80,000 – were unable to read after two full years of primary school."
A teacher told me some years ago that for the first time in her long career she was seeing nine-year-olds who could not read or write. What had changed? The introduction of the National Curriculum.
It seems that any government intervention, however well-intentioned, is doomed to be a miserable failure.
Any initiative that shows good results in a pilot study with carefully selected pupils and well-motivated teachers is almost guaranteed to fail when rolled out nationwide.
What I find of major concern, is the "snow ball" effect.
Eventually so many school leavers will be thick bastards, that there will not be enough to form the next generation of teachers.
It must be the first time in history, whereby we are DEvolving.
I seem to remember Leggy writting something similar a month or two back.
Post a Comment