Preparing nursery children for school

[hypochondriac]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26853447

 

comments out today by Michael Wilshaw, the chief inspector of Ofsted who says that nurseries are not preparing children for school. He wants a greater emphasis on structures learning, the removal of learning through play and the notion of free-play and the introduction of school-based nurseries. This view concurs with the current government thinking headed by Elizabeth Truss who believes in the "schoolification" of early years and an overhaul of the ratio system so that more highly qualified staff can look after a much greater number of children. These approaches would put us more in line with France and differ greatly from other European nations such as Sweden and Finland where they have no formal Early Years education and do not start school until they are seven in many cases.

 

As someone who has a vested interest in these findings and who has strong opinions, I would be interested in your views on this. Should we be supporting the government in this? The inspector recognises quite rightly that the Early Years sets children on a path for life and so it is vital to concentrate resources to Early Years at it will save us money in the long term. I would love to hear your thoughts.

[Goatboy]

Jeez. Stick em up chimneys why don't we? Do we want to nurture rounded human beings or box ticking, homogonous, tax paying dullards?

[trousers]

The primary responsibility of "preparing (their) children for school" should rest with parents, not nurseries. The main goal of nurseries, as I see it, is to help young kids integrate with each other to help shape their social skills. I prefer the Scandinavian model where children aren't "schoolifed" so early.

 

IMO of course.

Edited 3 April, 2014 by trousers

[buctootim]

The primary responsibility of "preparing (their) children for school" should rest with parents, not nurseries. The main goal of nurseries, as I see it, is to help young kids integrate with each other to help shape their social skills. I prefer the Scandinavian model where children aren't "schoolifed" so early.

 

IMO of course.

 

Totally agree with that. The Scandinavian model is far superior. Critics point to lower literacy levels at age 7 - unsurprisingly since they have only just started school. What they dont point out is that by 11 the Scandis are ahead. Most importantly, they suffer far lower levels of disaffection and drop out amongst teenagers - essentially because they havent been hothoused since the age of 3 or four and have been allowed to develop and explore naturally.

[shurlock]

Totally agree with that. The Scandinavian model is far superior. Critics point to lower literacy levels at age 7 - unsurprisingly since they have only just started school. What they dont point out is that by 11 the Scandis are ahead. Most importantly, they suffer far lower levels of disaffection and drop out amongst teenagers - essentially because they havent been hothoused since the age of 3 or four and have been allowed to develop and explore naturally.

 

In lalaland perhaps. Next time anyone invokes the magical scandis and their social democratic nirvana based on high levels of equality, mobility, trust and homogeneity, do enlighten us how that model applies to the very different conditions of the UK.

 

Perhaps early schooling is a way to compensate for the things that the UK lacks but the Scandis have - or perhaps the positive outcomes you mention have nothing to do with the age kids start school but the wider socioeconomic environment.

[pap]

In the right light, study becomes insight...

[bridge too far]

.I'm in agreement with Trousers :shock:

 

They're little for such a short time and nursery / pre-school should be about playing, socialising, having fun. It'd be awful if we went down the Asian hot-housing route.

 

Having said that, my SiL who is primary teacher, says some children start school still in nappies and unable to feed themselves. These are the skills pre-school are and should be 'teaching' maybe?

 

And the irony of the government wanting this whilst cutting Sure Start funding doesn't escape me

[Big Bad Bob]

.I'm in agreement with Trousers :shock:

 

They're little for such a short time and nursery / pre-school should be about playing, socialising, having fun. It'd be awful if we went down the Asian hot-housing route.

 

Having said that, my SiL who is primary teacher, says some children start school still in nappies and unable to feed themselves. These are the skills pre-school are and should be 'teaching' maybe?

 

And the irony of the government wanting this whilst cutting Sure Start funding doesn't escape me

 

As my kids are of the age where they are at kindergarten I know this is the case, however I disagree that it is down to the school to teach them these skills. Toilet training and feeding is skills that the parents should be teaching not some in loco parentis.

 

It would appear that there are some parents these days who lack the skills or desire to teach their own kids and would rather a school (or their own parents) do it. That is why the youth of today is the way it is. Kids bringing up kids.

[bridge too far]

I don't entirely agree wih you Bob. Of course parents should teach the basic skills of life but nursery is great at reinforcing these. My youngest grandchildren (each 18 months old) learned to feed themselves from about a year old and sing many number and letter songs and games - learned at nursery. Toilet training comes about further down the line.

 

I'm sure most parents DO teach these skills but if one or other or both have to be away from their little ones during the day because they have to work then it's good nurseries (and grandmothers ) can help out.

 

I don't think your last sentence is valid. The 'kids' of today bringing up kids are your kids and mine. Mine are doing a fine job and I'm sure yours are too.

[buctootim]

In lalaland perhaps. Next time anyone invokes the magical scandis and their social democratic nirvana based on high levels of equality, mobility, trust and homogeneity, do enlighten us how that model applies to the very different conditions of the UK.

 

Perhaps early schooling is a way to compensate for the things that the UK lacks but the Scandis have - or perhaps the positive outcomes you mention have nothing to do with the age kids start school but the wider socioeconomic environment.

 

There is also a lot of evidence to show that too much formalised early education and hot-housing throughout school produces a cohort of clones who think and behave in the same way. Thats fine if you want to produce factory fodder as in China - not so good if you're a high wage economy which needs to rely on lateral thought, innovation and invention.

[Big Bad Bob]

I don't entirely agree wih you Bob. Of course parents should teach the basic skills of life but nursery is great at reinforcing these. My youngest grandchildren (each 18 months old) learned to feed themselves from about a year old and sing many number and letter songs and games - learned at nursery. Toilet training comes about further down the line.

 

I'm sure most parents DO teach these skills but if one or other or both have to be away from their little ones during the day because they have to work then it's good nurseries (and grandmothers ) can help out.

 

I don't think your last sentence is valid. The 'kids' of today bringing up kids are your kids and mine. Mine are doing a fine job and I'm sure yours are too.

 

Ah now you're going from pre-school to nursery, slightly different things.

 

And when I say "kids" I mean the ones that can't even look after themselves without their parents help.

[Minty]

I think it's important to differentiate between the different kind of skills too... feeding and toilet training etc, should be taught and reinforced by both parents and nurseries IMO, wherever the child happens to be when it needs to eat/go to the toilet basically.

 

But other developmental work needs to centre around allowing the child the time and space to learn and explore more freely, similar to the Scandinavian model, IMO. And the thing that I always struggle with is the fact that some people see it as one or the other... either let them be creative and free with their time, OR learn in a more structured way. Well, it seems to me that kids can still learn a huge amount whilst playing, counting and reading things with them as they go, etc, and it's more likley ot stick because they're having fun whilst they're doing it... it's almost subliminal teaching.

 

I'm no expert btw, I don't have kids and I'm not a teacher or anything like that, but I am very interested in all this so have done a fair bit of reading, primarily in anticipation of starting my own family soon.

[Minty]

So what are your strong opinions then Hypo? I can probably guess, but credit (IMO) for not stating those views too early in the thread... so often discussions on here get sidetracked early not because of the subject but because of the opinion of the OP.

[hypochondriac]

Totally agree with that. The Scandinavian model is far superior. Critics point to lower literacy levels at age 7 - unsurprisingly since they have only just started school. What they dont point out is that by 11 the Scandis are ahead. Most importantly, they suffer far lower levels of disaffection and drop out amongst teenagers - essentially because they havent been hothoused since the age of 3 or four and have been allowed to develop and explore naturally.

 

The reason for the success in Scandinavia is down to two things. Firstly they recognise the value in early years education and trust their staff as professionals to look after their children without inspection regimes and without an early years curriculum. Staff here are undervalued by the government who never takes a long term view. Investing properly in children from the earliest ages will save millions in later life through antisocial behaviour levels, NHS bills etc etc but this is never recognised. Secondly Children spend their days learning through play and looking at things they are interested in. Children are then excited when they start school and a love of learning is fostered naturally and not rammed down children's throats. The answer is never school readiness, but making children ready for life and an absolutely huge part of this is allowing children to be children not forcing them into the uniformity and greyness of the school regime at an earlier age.

[hypochondriac]

In lalaland perhaps. Next time anyone invokes the magical scandis and their social democratic nirvana based on high levels of equality, mobility, trust and homogeneity, do enlighten us how that model applies to the very different conditions of the UK.

 

Perhaps early schooling is a way to compensate for the things that the UK lacks but the Scandis have - or perhaps the positive outcomes you mention have nothing to do with the age kids start school but the wider socioeconomic environment.

 

Your comments fly in the face of all research on the subject. Scandinavians are freed because their early years workers are trusted as professionals to look after the children on an individualised basis, tailoring any 'learning' to each child and allowing them to come to concepts such as mathematics on their own rather than being forced to learn concepts whether they want to or not from an earlier and earlier age.

 

Interestingly I am showing a Swedish nursery owner around today and she has expressed similar thoughts (albeit she says it is going more the way of the UK depressingly.) if you do have an interest in the subject, then I would suggest reading any articles from the brilliant Alistair Bryce clegg who has his finger on the pulse regarding these matters.

[Pancake]

In the right light, study becomes insight...

 

Took me far too long to place that

[hypochondriac]

I don't entirely agree wih you Bob. Of course parents should teach the basic skills of life but nursery is great at reinforcing these. My youngest grandchildren (each 18 months old) learned to feed themselves from about a year old and sing many number and letter songs and games - learned at nursery. Toilet training comes about further down the line.

 

I'm sure most parents DO teach these skills but if one or other or both have to be away from their little ones during the day because they have to work then it's good nurseries (and grandmothers ) can help out.

 

I don't think your last sentence is valid. The 'kids' of today bringing up kids are your kids and mine. Mine are doing a fine job and I'm sure yours are too.

 

It's the job of the nursery to work in partnership with parents to reinforce skills and values from home. It's not the easiest thing in the world but you get used to it!

[hypochondriac]

Ah now you're going from pre-school to nursery, slightly different things.

 

And when I say "kids" I mean the ones that can't even look after themselves without their parents help.

 

O rly? What in your mind is the difference

[Minty]

Interesting stuff Hypo, I might have to look up that Alistair Bryce Clegg chap, ta.

[pap]

Took me far too long to place that

 

First thing that runs through my head whenever education is discussed

[hypochondriac]

So what are your strong opinions then Hypo? I can probably guess, but credit (IMO) for not stating those views too early in the thread... so often discussions on here get sidetracked early not because of the subject but because of the opinion of the OP.

 

Hopefully I've outlined some of what I think there. I mostly didn't say much at the start because living and working where I do, I am obviously heavily biased towards rejecting the current government crusade. I see children and their learning on a daily basis so I have actual experience and know what works best for children.

 

I am worried because I think career politicians with no experience of childcare are deciding what is best for our children. I am concerned by this because I recognise the clear correlation between achievement and wellbeing from a young age and then subsequent achievement and wellbeing in later life. As someone has already said, school readiness is code for forcing children to conform as soon as possible. School readiness is designed to kill creativity, individualism and force a child into an adult world before they have even started to be children. This approach goes against the vast majority of studies and is not supported by anyone with any experience of working in Early Years (that I know of).

 

I would suggest that anyone who has not done so watches this video as it says a lot:

 

[shurlock]

Your comments fly in the face of all research on the subject. Scandinavians are freed because their early years workers are trusted as professionals to look after the children on an individualised basis, tailoring any 'learning' to each child and allowing them to come to concepts such as mathematics on their own rather than being forced to learn concepts whether they want to or not from an earlier and earlier age.

 

Interestingly I am showing a Swedish nursery owner around today and she has expressed similar thoughts (albeit she says it is going more the way of the UK depressingly.) if you do have an interest in the subject, then I would suggest reading any articles from the brilliant Alistair Bryce clegg who has his finger on the pulse regarding these matters.

 

None of this can be divorced from the wider environment - for instance, why are professionals trusted in Scandinavia whereas they are more tightly regulated in the UK. One possibility is that this is due to a more consensual political culture which benefits from Scandinavian countries being more egalitarian and homogenous.

 

It is also arguable that schools in the UK and US have to play a larger role in formal learning to offset socioeconomic disadvantages at home, especially at an early age - hence the motivation for some of the classic interventions in this area such as the Perry Preschool Program.

 

It would take a statistical miracle to show that the different status of early years workers caused improved educational outcomes at 11, 16, 18 etc given that they are so many confounding variables. I'm sure it plays some role but so do lots of other things - from the number of books at home to the composition of peer groups such that it's difficult to know where to start, what gives the biggest bang for the buck and how policies should be sequenced.

Edited 3 April, 2014 by shurlock

[shurlock]

There is also a lot of evidence to show that too much formalised early education and hot-housing throughout school produces a cohort of clones who think and behave in the same way. Thats fine if you want to produce factory fodder as in China - not so good if you're a high wage economy which needs to rely on lateral thought, innovation and invention.

 

 

It obviously depends on context: if kids are getting the basics at home -e.g parents reading to them- then they need less structure at school. Indeed this is the most desirable scenario. But it is not always the case -what do you do if a parent is illiterate? In these circumstances, nurseries and schools arguably have to carry the load and be more prescriptive, especially given what neuroscience tells about the early years.

 

China's a different matter - rote-learning is institutionalised and incentivised at so many different levels -partly reflecting history and it's level of development. The UK is thankfully more pluralistic such that introducing more structure along one small part of the pipeline is unlikely to make much difference -let alone transform the population into mindless factory fodder.

Edited 3 April, 2014 by shurlock

[bridge too far]

There is also a lot of evidence to show that too much formalised early education and hot-housing throughout school produces a cohort of clones who think and behave in the same way. Thats fine if you want to produce factory fodder as in China - not so good if you're a high wage economy which needs to rely on lateral thought, innovation and invention.

 

This is what we'd be wanting in our children in their later years isn't it? I heard someone on TV yesterday saying that we're good at innovation and invention and the Chinese are good at copying. A bit of a generalisation, I know, but I hate the concentration on levels and grades. I'd rather children and young adults thought for themselves - our country has always been ahead of the game in invention and long may it continue.

 

Speaking the 12 times table by rote doesn't encourage innovation.

[hypochondriac]

None of this can be divorced from the wider environment - for instance, why are professionals trusted in Scandinavia whereas they are more tightly regulated in the UK. One possibility is that this is due to a more consensual political culture which benefits from Scandinavian countries being more egalitarian and homogenous

I agree that Britain will never be able to be as free as the Scandinavian countries but we could certainly be a hell of a lot better than we are today. The blame culture in the UK has a lot to answer for in that regard. For the past year, any complaint about a setting for whatever reason has triggered an inspection. This has meant that inspectors have never got around to inspecting the settings they were scheduled to inspect as they have had to constantly follow up with complaints. It was found that 63% of these complaints had no basis in reality and were in fact malicious yet Ofsted inspected anyway. My last three inspections have been malicious in nature and one was inspected just 9 months after being given an outstanding rating based on a spurious complaint. This regime has now been shelved following outcries from virtually every setting in the country. I agree that there should be regulation in place, but I believe it is much too flawed in its current guise.

 

It is also arguable that schools in the UK and US have to play a larger role in formal learning to offset socioeconomic disadvantages at home, especially at an early age - hence the motivation for some of the classic interventions in this area such as the Perry Preschool Program.

 

I think UK nurseries have a very important part to play. Two of my settings do not make any money but are kept open because they provide a valuable service to the community so it's fair to say I know the importance of nursery for less economically well off families. I think nurseries have a role to play with learning and that a small amount of number or letter work during the day can be beneficial but my view is largely mirrored by Liz Bayram who says:

"The evidence shows that high quality childcare delivered through a play-based approach to learning is vital to help children develop the social, emotional and physical skills they need to thrive and is one of the most effective ways to lift children out of disadvantage. A child's confidence, independence and willingness to learn is more important than being able to recognise letters, sit still and focus on a task."

 

It would take a statistical miracle to show that the different status of early years workers caused improved educational outcomes at 11, 16, 18 etc given that they are so many confounding variables. I'm sure it plays some role but so do lots of other things - from the number of books at home to the composition of peer groups such that it's difficult to know where to start, what gives the biggest bang for the buck and how policies should be sequenced.

Now this I will have to disagree with you on the strongest terms. Not sure what you mean by the status of early years workers. My point was that ensuring that children are cared for, shown love, compassion, looked after properly, allowed to try things and fail etc etc should be the most important goal that we as a society has since there is no doubt that it is these factors that directly effect children as adults. There is no doubt that there are a number of factors that contribute to life chances but there are any number of studies (as well as my own experience) that conclusively show that there is a direct correlation towards effective childcare and a secure childhood and someone's outcomes in later life.

[hypochondriac]

It obviously depends on context: if kids are getting the basics at home -e.g parents reading to them- then they need less structure at school. Indeed this is the most desirable scenario. But it is not always the case -what do you do if a parent is illiterate? In these circumstances, nurseries and schools arguably have to carry the load and be more prescriptive, especially given what neuroscience tells about the early years.

 

China's a different matter - rote-learning is institutionalised and incentivised at so many different levels -partly reflecting history and it's level of development. The UK is thankfully more pluralistic such that introducing more structure along one small part of the pipeline is unlikely to make much difference -let alone transform the population into mindless factory fodder.

 

Why are you lumping nurseries and schools in together? They are completely different and should perform different functions. Why for example should a child be forced to read at three if they do not want to? What life advantage do they derive from this that they would get over for example learning to read at five?

[hypochondriac]

This is what we'd be wanting in our children in their later years isn't it? I heard someone on TV yesterday saying that we're good at innovation and invention and the Chinese are good at copying. A bit of a generalisation, I know, but I hate the concentration on levels and grades. I'd rather children and young adults thought for themselves - our country has always been ahead of the game in invention and long may it continue.

 

Speaking the 12 times table by rote doesn't encourage innovation.

 

WHen you post on these subjects BTF I like you more and more . The whole schooling system is flawed because it teaches that people below a certain intelligence level have failed. I want people to be able to reach their potential and to have fulfillment and happiness in their lives but they don't bother with that sort of thing at school (and increasingly if the government get their way at nursery!)

[Minty]

I would suggest that anyone who has not done so watches this video as it says a lot:

 

 

I just listened to that on the way home and it was excellent. Cheers hypo.

[LGTL]

It's complete nonsense. Wilmshaw is a big a cock as Gove, and that's saying something.

[hypochondriac]

It's complete nonsense. Wilmshaw is a big a cock as Gove, and that's saying something.

 

Certainly some of what he has come out with today is not only worrying for the future of our children, it's incredibly insulting to the huge number of professional and dedicated early years workers across the country.

[hypochondriac]

I just listened to that on the way home and it was excellent. Cheers hypo.

 

Glad you liked it minty. Here is another one if you are interested.

 

[Saint in Paradise]

Yes leaving all the little dears with their chav parents is a great idea, it has worked so well

over the last few years. Oh hang on I wonder where all the new chavs and yobs have come

from then? Surely they can't have been caused by out of control parents ?

[KelvinsRightGlove]

That is why the youth of today is the way it is.

 

What a moronic statement.

 

If the "the youth of today" are so bad - maybe we should question those that raised them.

[norwaysaint]

Well, I worked in primary teaching for years, over here and in the UK and I've had two kids go through the Scandinavian nursery system. Academic stuff does start a lot later here, which takes a bit of getting used to for a British parent. What has impressed me is what takes it's place. In nursery my kids spent a huge amount of time out in the forest and in the mountains, very often building shelters and learning quite a few good skills. It wasn't unusual to go in to get my kids and find groups of four year olds being shown how to use big camping knives, in fact my eldest has had her own sheathed camping knife for a couple of years and she's only eight now.

 

Learning outdoor skills is considered a natural part of nursery here. At nursery and school, the children are always outside for a large part of the day, there is no such thing as wet play time like we had in the UK, with kids staying in because it's raining. In Norway the saying is that the is no bad weather, only bad clothing.

 

I like the attitude towards practical education here a lot. On kids TV the other day, they were talking about where food comes from. The presenter went to a slaughterhouse and was presented with a live pig. She killed it on screen, then butchered it and eventually turned it into chops, all on screen on kids' TV. My kids were fascinated and I think that's a good thing to show, so that kids understand things like that.

 

On average I would say that Norwegians are no worse academically than British students by the time they finish school, despite the late academic start. I've taught every age group from 4 up to 40, so I'd like to think I'm qualified to comment.

 

Additionally, in my opinion, in an ideal world the state would make it possible for kids to be at home with a parent until the age of three, before starting nursery. I think as a society we've made a big misstep making it so that parents have to go back to work while their children still need close care and role models more than anything. Sadly that's an unrealistic idea nowadays.

[hypochondriac]

As an update to this, I've just spent the day at community playthings near Kent. For those who don't know what that is I would highly recommend reading up on them. They are a Christian community that make furniture and play equipment for nurseries.

 

They are a community of about 300 here but they also have locations in Australia, USA, Germany and South America. They have being going since the 30s and during the war they had to flee Germany so ended up in England. Yes they dress a little funny and they sing before lunch but today's visit was truly inspiring. They run their own nursery and school for their children and encourage children to do practical activities in the afternoons, building dens and playing in the woods. Their philosophy of children learning through play is something I wholeheartedly agree with and the results speak for themselves. They were really welcoming and warm and I would seriously recommend a visit if anyone gets the chance.

[hypochondriac]

What a moronic statement.

 

If the "the youth of today" are so bad - maybe we should question those that raised them.

 

I think that unfortunately there are a number of parents who either through neglect or ignorance do more harm than good for their children. Much of this can be fixed through Education though as most parents do want to do what is best for their children but they have never had the skills to do so. I would recommend the incredible years course in Southampton and not just because I have a hand in it

[Ken Tone]

Totally agree with that. The Scandinavian model is far superior. Critics point to lower literacy levels at age 7 - unsurprisingly since they have only just started school. What they dont point out is that by 11 the Scandis are ahead. Most importantly, they suffer far lower levels of disaffection and drop out amongst teenagers - essentially because they havent been hothoused since the age of 3 or four and have been allowed to develop and explore naturally.

 

I'm against what Wilshaw said, and have respect for the Scandinavian system , but I'm surprised by what you say about its effects as children get older. I thought there was a growing problem of youth crime, neo- nazism,etc in Sweden in particular. Is that not the case? Genuine question.

 

It's certainly true that the Scandinavian countries have higher suicide rates than Britain, so so something there ain't perfect.

[norwaysaint]

I'm against what Wilshaw said, and have respect for the Scandinavian system , but I'm surprised by what you say about its effects as children get older. I thought there was a growing problem of youth crime, neo- nazism,etc in Sweden in particular. Is that not the case? Genuine question.

 

It's certainly true that the Scandinavian countries have higher suicide rates than Britain, so so something there ain't perfect.

 

Certainly true? Based on what? Norway and Britain have a similar rate, while the suicide rate in Sweden and Denmark is lower than in Britain. That's just a made up fact, it doesn't become more true just because you use the word certainly.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

as far as neo-nazism goes, I've lived here 15 years and have never met or seen a neo-nazi. I lived a year in Sweden too and if it exists, it isn't an open and significant problem.

The crime rate here is very low, I never lock my car in the evenings and I often leave downstairs windows open when nobody is home. I haven't heard of any crime around here at all, although I don't live in the inner city.

[hypochondriac]

I've worked in childcare in this country all my adult life and have visited Scandinavia twice to look at how they do things over there. It is not perfect but it is better than the system we have here.

[Ken Tone]

Certainly true? Based on what? Norway and Britain have a similar rate, while the suicide rate in Sweden and Denmark is lower than in Britain. That's just a made up fact, it doesn't become more true just because you use the word certainly.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

as far as neo-nazism goes, I've lived here 15 years and have never met or seen a neo-nazi. I lived a year in Sweden too and if it exists, it isn't an open and significant problem.

The crime rate here is very low, I never lock my car in the evenings and I often leave downstairs windows open when nobody is home. I haven't heard of any crime around here at all, although I don't live in the inner city.

 

I stand corrected re suicide rates. Guess I was thinking of Finland, which I know is peripheral to Scandinavia and not usually taken to be part of it. Or maybe I was thinking of Sweden having a high suicide rate because that is something I grew up believing . See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_in_Sweden

 

It *was* very high.

 

Either way I should have checked my facts

 

However the neo-nazism in Sweden is something covered a lot in the media. See a few links below I found in seconds. Features a lot in Henning Mankel's books too!

 

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/sweden-is-hotbed-of-neonazism-1336125.html

 

http://rt.com/news/sweden-anti-racism-rally-648/

 

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/12/15/world/europe/sweden-nazi-attack/

 

http://www.socialismtoday.org/46/sweden.html

Edited 4 April, 2014 by Ken Tone

[Grey Crab]

As an update to this, I've just spent the day at community playthings near Kent. For those who don't know what that is I would highly recommend reading up on them. They are a Christian community that make furniture and play equipment for nurseries.

 

They are a community of about 300 here but they also have locations in Australia, USA, Germany and South America. They have being going since the 30s and during the war they had to flee Germany so ended up in England. Yes they dress a little funny and they sing before lunch but today's visit was truly inspiring. They run their own nursery and school for their children and encourage children to do practical activities in the afternoons, building dens and playing in the woods. Their philosophy of children learning through play is something I wholeheartedly agree with and the results speak for themselves. They were really welcoming and warm and I would seriously recommend a visit if anyone gets the chance.

 

I don't think advocating a cult is a good thing to replace a proper education.

[Grey Crab]

Certainly true? Based on what? Norway and Britain have a similar rate, while the suicide rate in Sweden and Denmark is lower than in Britain. That's just a made up fact, it doesn't become more true just because you use the word certainly.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

 

as far as neo-nazism goes, I've lived here 15 years and have never met or seen a neo-nazi. I lived a year in Sweden too and if it exists, it isn't an open and significant problem.

The crime rate here is very low, I never lock my car in the evenings and I often leave downstairs windows open when nobody is home. I haven't heard of any crime around here at all, although I don't live in the inner city.

 

What is it that they say? If you live in Norway and you've never met a neo-Nazi, you must be one.

[hypochondriac]

I don't think advocating a cult is a good thing to replace a proper education.

 

Tbh that's a pathetic comment as you have never been there. Read up on visit yourself then you wouldn't be so ignorant:

 

http://www.communityplaythings.co.uk

[teamsaint]

schools are not, in the main, very healthy places, despite the dedication and skill of most teachers.

 

This is a terrible idea, a grotesque step backwards, and has a lot more to do with social control than any good intent for children.

[pap]

Tbh that's a pathetic comment as you have never been there. Read up on visit yourself then you wouldn't be so ignorant:

 

http://www.communityplaythings.co.uk

 

Actually, hypo - I think Grey Crab may have a point.

 

Community Playthings is run by Church Communities UK. They're part of the Bruderhof.

 

http://www.perefound.org/em-s_sp.html

 

Fill your boots, sir.

[hypochondriac]

The

Actually, hypo - I think Grey Crab may have a point.

 

Community Playthings is run by Church Communities UK. They're part of the Bruderhof.

 

http://www.perefound.org/em-s_sp.html

 

Fill your boots, sir.

 

Go and visit for yourself and form your own opinions. Much more useful thing to do. Besides, the flaws in their organisation do not make their views in childcare less valid.

Edited 4 April, 2014 by hypochondriac

[Big Bad Bob]

What a moronic statement.

 

If the "the youth of today" are so bad - maybe we should question those that raised them.

 

Exactly what I was saying dear boy...

[pap]

The

 

Go and visit for yourself and form your own opinions. Much more useful thing to do. Besides, the flaws in their organisation do not make their views in childcare less valid.

 

This organisation that you are praising so much is financed by an overall movement that seems to exclude its members when they offer any sort of dissent.

 

Given the guiding principles and the apparent vengefulness of the parent organisation, do you think it is appropriate that one of their companies should be entrusted with the development of children?

[Goatboy]

schools are not, in the main, very healthy places, despite the dedication and skill of most teachers.

 

This is a terrible idea, a grotesque step backwards, and has a lot more to do with social control than any good intent for children.

 

Agree.

[Grey Crab]

Tbh that's a pathetic comment as you have never been there. Read up on visit yourself then you wouldn't be so ignorant:

 

http://www.communityplaythings.co.uk

 

They've clearly got you brainwashed already.

 

Mods, I think it might be a good idea to delete hypo's posts on this topic, or at least the links. He's obviously here on a recruiting campaign for his cult, and I don't feel particularly comfortable with it. Lots of young kids use this site.