• Welcome to DOSBODS

    Please consider creating a free account to be able to access all the features of the DOSBODS community. It only takes 20 seconds!

Sign in to follow this  
Frank Hovis

Pupils unable to read is 'a scandal', says minister

Recommended Posts

Education Secretary Damian Hinds says it is a "scandal" that some children still start school unable to speak in full sentences or read simple words.

Children who start school behind their peers rarely catch up - "the gap just widens", he will say in a speech.

He has pledged to halve the number of pupils starting school behind in early talking and reading skills by 2028.

A group of companies and charities have been brought together to work out how best to support families in England.

Educational researchers have long said that social mobility - or the lack of it - starts at home with what's known as the home learning environment.

The idea is that a home with a lot of books and other early learning materials, plus engaged parents giving their children quality time, talking with them and teaching them how to make letter sounds, for example, provides a good start.

 

Firstly I am heartily sick of the repeated use in the left leaning press of emotive language: "disgrace", "must", "demand", "scandal"; when it is nothing if the kind.

Children, in the main, are raised by their parents and it is down to their parents to bring them up and prepare them for education and career.  If their parents either prioritise other skills (e.g. following in their father's occupation such as tradesmen, farmers, or gyppoes) or do not give a stuff about education then, as long as it does not constitute neglect, that's their right as parents.

It is not a scandal; it is familial choice.  Not everyone can get twenty O Levels or whatever the norm is these days, not everyone wants to, and for some it would be a total waste of their time.

 

Here's an idea for Damian Hinds: leave people alone to make their own choices themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parents have more to occupy them now. In the old days, people used to do jigsaws, and spend more time ironing (a good thing). 

Today parents have to "make" time to invest time into their children.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure.

The report seems a bit massaged.

What they are getting are gets who cannot speak or use the toilets.

And these are the natives.

Not everyone can get 20 gcses but ... if we are spending 6k/head Id expect kids to leave school being able to read and do simple maths.

The report just goes to show that the state can do very little when you encouraged a bunch parents to do fuck all.

There's a bit where Mrs pst talks about what kids want to do when the grow up. Normally stuff - vets, drs, footballers. All parts of imaginative play .

Im not shitting you when I say shes now getting 2-4 kids now saying they want to go on benefits.

 

3 minutes ago, 201p said:

Parents have more to occupy them now. In the old days, people used to do jigsaws, and spend more time ironing (a good thing). 

Today parents have to "make" time to invest time into their children.

The nice aprents do.

The crap parents just use their mobiles and ignroe the kids. I see it at the school gate. A herd of fat single mums, texting away.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, 201p said:

Parents have more to occupy them now. In the old days, people used to do jigsaws, and spend more time ironing (a good thing). 

Today parents have to "make" time to invest time into their children.

And outside of the benefits culture with both parents having to work to meet housing costs they do genuinely have less time and energy for their children.

I know a number of decent families where they do generally take the soft option of letting their children have a tablet and headphones as it keeps them quiet.  These are good parents but they work all week so they just want to sit around as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, spygirl said:

 

Not everyone can get 20 gcses but ... if we are spending 6k/head Id expect kids to leave school being able to read and do simple maths.

And after eleven years of state funded education so would I.

That is what the school is for.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Children?

I've met quite a few adults that can barely write their own name and struggle to read a takeaway menu. Half of the contestants on reality shows come under this category too.

The Government hasn't got much to do with this to be honest. There is an education system in place which is more than adequate in enabling children to read and write. If someone's children have got to the age of 18 and are unable to read, then rather than blaming the government, they want to be taking a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.

The government isn't a babysitting service. If someone is too stupid/lazy to teach their kids the absolute basics then it's on them. You can lead a horse to water...etc.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The first 3 years are the most important for language development. I know of an 8 year old with very poor speech who was sat in front of a tv for first 4 years until adopted. It becomes very difficult for them to catch up. Not sure how this can be prevented though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gloommonger said:

The first 3 years are the most important for language development. I know of an 8 year old with very poor speech who was sat in front of a tv for first 4 years until adopted. It becomes very difficult for them to catch up. Not sure how this can be prevented though.

Unless you are going to have the government directly controlling and monitoring every aspect of people's lives you can't.

All people are not equal; life is not fair.

I have banged on about the upcoming resource crisis being triggered by oil beginning to splutter in 10 - 15 years which will mean genuine hardship and conflicts; whilst I'm not looking forward to having no car and being hungry it will at least mean that the endless SJW-originated discussions in the media will disappear.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Gloommonger said:

The first 3 years are the most important for language development. I know of an 8 year old with very poor speech who was sat in front of a tv for first 4 years until adopted. It becomes very difficult for them to catch up. Not sure how this can be prevented though.

 

47 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Firstly I am heartily sick of the repeated use in the left leaning press of emotive language: "disgrace", "must", "demand", "scandal"; when it is nothing if the kind.

Children, in the main, are raised by their parents and it is down to their parents to bring them up and prepare them for education and career.  If their parents either prioritise other skills (e.g. following in their father's occupation such as tradesmen, farmers, or gyppoes) or do not give a stuff about education then, as long as it does not constitute neglect, that's their right as parents.

 

Friend of mine is a speech and languages therapist, she doesn't even need to see the child to identify the likely issues, just needs to look at the parents. 

Prime example, parents in sports gear, kid will more than likely be ahead in development physically, i.e. walking, but way behind in language.

Edited by gilf

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, gilf said:

 

Friend of mine is a speech and languages therapist, she doesn't even need to see the child to identify the likely issues, just needs to look at the parents. 

Prime example, parents in sports gear, kid will more than likely be ahead in development physically, i.e. walking, but way behind in language.

I wonder if we know the same person. The woman I know in the same job is absolutely scathing about a lot of the parents she deals with. Apparently they don't like being told that their parenting is sub-par and that has more to do with why their child is sat in front of her than anything else.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Sgt Hartman said:

I wonder if we know the same person. The woman I know in the same job is absolutely scathing about a lot of the parents she deals with. Apparently they don't like being told that their parenting is sub-par and that has more to do with why their child is sat in front of her than anything else.

Who would want to be told that? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Sgt Hartman said:

Sometimes they need to hear it.

Agree. The establishment has spent the last 20 years absolving people of their responsibility. It is always someone else’s job/role/ responsibility. It’s time we started blaming parents when their children fail to develop or conform. 

I remember that if I went home from school saying I had been told off, I would get another telling off. Now the parents are more likely to storm the school with a Khoi very dare you’ attitude 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone with an IQ of 85 or less is going to be functionally illiterate.

 

Why do our dumbass politicians seem unable to grasp the concept of normal distibution?

main-qimg-caee2f48b41008a2591b011ad9c8e914-c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, Sgt Hartman said:

Children?

I've met quite a few adults that can barely write their own name and struggle to read a takeaway menu. Half of the contestants on reality shows come under this category too.

The Government hasn't got much to do with this to be honest. There is an education system in place which is more than adequate in enabling children to read and write. If someone's children have got to the age of 18 and are unable to read, then rather than blaming the government, they want to be taking a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.

The government isn't a babysitting service. If someone is too stupid/lazy to teach their kids the absolute basics then it's on them. You can lead a horse to water...etc.

 

Try timetables. Seriously.

You'll get an idea of how literate/numerate a locality is by standing in the main bus or train station after 12am.

Why 12am?  Thats when 24h times kick in.

Seriously.

Ive been to loads of places where people walk up to the bus station. Look at the timetable. Then ask someone.

Its always after 12am.

41 minutes ago, Gloommonger said:

The first 3 years are the most important for language development. I know of an 8 year old with very poor speech who was sat in front of a tv for first 4 years until adopted. It becomes very difficult for them to catch up. Not sure how this can be prevented though.

They can catch up.

All you can do is get them to redo a year.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If the government are so concerned about children being given the best start they should allow Summer born kids to start school later. This would not be such a problem if we didn’t start schooling at such a young age - expecting a four-year-old to be at the same level as a child of five creates unnecessary stress and has been shown to be a reason why Summer born children fail to achieve the same GCSE grades.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, OurDayWillCome said:

If the government are so concerned about children being given the best start they should allow Summer born kids to start school later. This would not be such a problem if we didn’t start schooling at such a young age - expecting a four-year-old to be at the same level as a child of five creates unnecessary stress and has been shown to be a reason why Summer born children fail to achieve the same GCSE grades.

As a summer born I totally agree; where practical I'd have half years running in parallel in all aspects of school to give pupils a chance.

Whilst I did well academically I didn't in sports because being nearly a year younger than others in my year meant a huge disadvantage in size and strength; I didn't start getting into teams until about fourteen when the physical advantage of a one year age difference is much reduced.  Though by that point I had missed ten years' of matches and coaching through being younger and hence too small.

Whilst life is unfair the whole school system seems incredibly arbitrary by bracketing together children of up to 364 days different age and making zero allowance for that in teaching or access to sport.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To expand on my previous post it is also incredibly stupid in terms of national sporting achievement.

Whilst I can do nothing now about my having had to watch school teams rather than compete in them it also means that nationally a vast pool of talent is being wasted purely because selection for school sport happens by school year rather than age.

Here's a recentish survey on it; it's pretty damning:

 

In 2009, professional English youth academies (aged 16-20 years) were grossly over-represented by players with birthdates in a three month period. 57% of youngsters were born in September, November or December whilst only 14% celebrated their birthday in June, July or August.

This is not a one off. At a recent U17 European Championship, 75% of the footballers were born in a four month window. Similar results were detected in Canadian ice hockey and at the 2008 Beijing Olympics.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/olympics/18891749

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Frank Hovis said:

Whilst life is unfair the whole school system seems incredibly arbitrary by bracketing together children of up to 364 days different age and making zero allowance for that in teaching or access to sport.

Many countries have a staggered start based upon age and a more relaxed early years teaching structure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is exactly the same as that cooking thread. There is no lack of resource, there's just lack of interest/motivation.

My wife started learning English aged 11, now speaks it without an accent (well posh English private school accent, not a foreign accent) and could thrash 95% of native speakers at Scrabble.

Rather than berate parents who have had their hopes and optimism destroyed by the current economic settlement for passing their despair on to the kids, if you want them to learn something "gamify" it. It's amazing what kids learn when it's formulated as a game. My kids learnt a phenomenal amount about dinosaurs purely as a function of playing Ark, and I'm sure there would be lots of ways of making genuinely engaging games that have fantastic educational value. Racing games, where you can swap all sorts of car parts, to learn what they all do, and how they affect the car's performance. Tycoon games where you need the maths skills and understanding of balance sheets etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speaking and reading are two different skills that shouldn't be conflated.  I know reception year teachers and they prefer children to not have had too much exposure to 'reading' because they so often have to unteach the ones that have been taught badly.  Speaking, however -- that is learnt through social interaction with others, and there should be a presumption of relatively complex speaking by reception.  

But maybe not all cultures are the same...

But as for toilet training -- that's just (extraordinarily) lazy parenting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.