+ Reply to Thread
Page 7 of 24 FirstFirst ... 5678917 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 240
  1. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Posts
    4,323
    Thanks
    5,640
    Thanked
    4,546
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Squared View Post
    THANK YOU!! I think we all need to stop using both terms. Everyone is sending their child when their eligible to attend.

    Sending early would be sending a 3 year old turning 4. Sending them late would be sending them 7 turning 8

    None of us are doing that. So yay for everyone!!
    I agree. I don't like the terminology of sending 'late' or 'early'. Where there is a permissible variance each parent is exercising their right to choose so they aren't sending them early or late they are sending them within the permissible parameters.

  2. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to gingermillie For This Useful Post:

    cheeeeesecake  (11-09-2016),MrsSS  (11-09-2016)

  3. #62
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    13,067
    Thanks
    9,846
    Thanked
    12,964
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Rose&Aurelia&Hannah View Post
    Sometimes parents make decisions because they learn from their previous kids, new research coming out or because of their parental styles and values.

    I've got a June baby who could have started kindy (QLD) this year but as we've moved to the ACT can't start till next year. I'm happy with this as she isn't emotionally ready.

    Btwi did start my dd3 on solids at 8 mths. She sailed thru it wonderfully. Best decision I made. But then I'm only her mother ... How could I not know what she needed?
    Fair points. I still think it's a bold call stating with a newborn that you're going to delay solids until 8 months.
    Can I have me some of that crystal ball

    Welcome back.

  4. #63
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    18,327
    Thanks
    1,453
    Thanked
    7,932
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by cheeeeesecake View Post
    Hm I found it interesting, and as a topic I have studied at a tertiary level, this article was in direct contradiction to almost everything that I've read. Funny that the authors talk about 'studies show....' and 'evidence..' and 'multiple studies...', yet at the end of the article, they only have 3 citations - one is an article from 'The Guardian' and the other two are both research studies conducted by the same person a year apart. So hardly a strong argument there. I would be interested to see the original study and it's data from the one person who's research they are citing.
    Yes! This article was linked before in another thread. Interestingly, the guardian article cited spoke about the benefits of brain development of 4 year olds who are with their parents *at home* playing, not in a formal school setting learning. Also, if you look at the studies and the man who conducted them, they are discussing children who start school after already turning 6, not 5 year olds.

    I also found it interesting that it discussed studies but no links to said studies???

    Let's just have a think again about all the other countries that rank ABOVE Australia in educational outcomes all have a starting age of AT LEAST 6, some 7 and even 8. This is including Asian countries!

  5. The Following User Says Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    cheeeeesecake  (11-09-2016)

  6. #64
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    18,327
    Thanks
    1,453
    Thanked
    7,932
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by A-Squared View Post
    THANK YOU!! I think we all need to stop using both terms. Everyone is sending their child when their eligible to attend.

    Sending early would be sending a 3 year old turning 4. Sending them late would be sending them 7 turning 8

    None of us are doing that. So yay for everyone!!
    Sending children at 3 years old or at 7 or 8 is against the law.

  7. #65
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    13,067
    Thanks
    9,846
    Thanked
    12,964
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 9/1/15Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 7/11/14Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 3/10/14100 Posts in a week

    Default Kinder program in childcare if funding isn't approved?

    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Let's just have a think again about all the other countries that rank ABOVE Australia in educational outcomes all have a starting age of AT LEAST 6, some 7 and even 8. This is including Asian countries!
    That disparity could be due to starting age or it could be due to something totally different like the various Departments screwing up programming and the government being Scroogey with the education budget. Or funding for a more robust early education program (preschool) in the 'Asian' and other high performing countries.

  8. #66
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8,396
    Thanks
    5,947
    Thanked
    4,955
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/4/15100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Sending children at 3 years old or at 7 or 8 is against the law.
    Exactly my point. Therefore if you're sending at 4 turning 5 you aren't sending them 'early', likewise if you are sending them 5 turning 6, you aren't sending them 'late' either.

  9. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to A-Squared For This Useful Post:

    cheeeeesecake  (11-09-2016),gingermillie  (11-09-2016),VicPark  (12-09-2016)

  10. #67
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    18,327
    Thanks
    1,453
    Thanked
    7,932
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    That disparity could be due to starting age or it could be due to something totally different like the various Departments screwing up programming and the government being Scroogey with the education budget. Or funding for a more robust early education program (preschool) in the 'Asian' and other high performing countries.
    Many things would be a factor but you can't dismiss the importance of starting age!

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    cheeeeesecake  (11-09-2016)

  12. #68
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8,396
    Thanks
    5,947
    Thanked
    4,955
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/4/15100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    Yes! This article was linked before in another thread. Interestingly, the guardian article cited spoke about the benefits of brain development of 4 year olds who are with their parents *at home* playing, not in a formal school setting learning. Also, if you look at the studies and the man who conducted them, they are discussing children who start school after already turning 6, not 5 year olds.

    I also found it interesting that it discussed studies but no links to said studies???

    Let's just have a think again about all the other countries that rank ABOVE Australia in educational outcomes all have a starting age of AT LEAST 6, some 7 and even 8. This is including Asian countries!
    What are these educational outcomes? I'm not questioning that Australia is behind, however I'm sure it's an amalgamation of A LOT of factors over and above starting age that has led to us being behind the 8 ball

  13. #69
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    23,246
    Thanks
    6,367
    Thanked
    17,670
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by VicPark View Post
    Fair points. I still think it's a bold call stating with a newborn that you're going to delay solids until 8 months.
    Can I have me some of that crystal ball

    Welcome back.
    I think though, that many decisions as parents are made bc of our philosophies. With my first child I delayed solids bc that was the guidelines back then. With my boys I introduced at 4 months bc I felt given the info that had emerged since my first that delaying wasn't what was best for us.

    You sleep train all your children bc that's your belief system about sleep. I co sleep and don't sleep train as it goes against mine.

    While I acknowledge kids are different I also feel as humans we tend to go with what works and what feels right. I feel turning 5 is too young given the high expectations in that first year of school. The evidence shows older starting kids perform better and cope better. Thus why I would say 90% DS2 will go turning 6 not 5 even though he's still little.

  14. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    BornToBe  (12-09-2016),cheeeeesecake  (11-09-2016)

  15. #70
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    8,396
    Thanks
    5,947
    Thanked
    4,955
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 posts
    Awards:
    Busiest Member of the Week - week ended 17/4/15100 Posts in a week

    Default Kinder program in childcare if funding isn't approved?

    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    I think though, that many decisions as parents are made bc of our philosophies. With my first child I delayed solids bc that was the guidelines back then. With my boys I introduced at 4 months bc I felt given the info that had emerged since my first that delaying wasn't what was best for us.

    You sleep train all your children bc that's your belief system about sleep. I co sleep and don't sleep train as it goes against mine.

    While I acknowledge kids are different I also feel as humans we tend to go with what works and what feels right. I feel turning 5 is too young given the high expectations in that first year of school. The evidence shows older starting kids perform better and cope better. Thus why I would say 90% DS2 will go turning 6 not 5 even though he's still little.
    I agree, what *if though* he showed signs of being ready before that age, would you ignore those signs or go with your philosophy no matter what?

    Also you've hit the nail on the head when you said we all tend to do what feels right at the time, there are some kids who are ready at 4 turning 5 and others who aren't.

    I did have some initial concerns about DD but sent her to kindy at 3 turning 4 (after 1 month of starting) because I
    didn't want to miss the chance of sending her as soon as the rules allowed it, knowing I could hold her back if need be. But after her first term her kindy told us she was doing really well and obviously wasn't ready for school yet, but showed she was ready for kindy and had a few fine motor and gross motor things to work on, but now they're really happy with how far she has come with all of that, that they think she is absolutely ready.

    I started off going with my philosophy of sending her when she was first eligible (because why not? I didn't see any real reasons for me not to other than her individual 'readiness', but knowing at the time I went in with an open mind that if she wasn't ready then she could go to kindy again next year.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to A-Squared For This Useful Post:

    babyno1onboard  (12-09-2016)


 

Similar Threads

  1. If 2nd year kinder funding is denied...
    By Rebecca79 in forum School aged children
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 29-08-2016, 14:32
  2. Guns and kinder
    By SookiLala in forum General Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 25-07-2016, 06:21
  3. dsq funding
    By kazza87 in forum Parents of Children with Special Needs
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 31-03-2016, 10:09

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
FEATURED SUPPORTER
KindyROOKindyROO offers activities for babies & toddlers in a fun learning centre, focussing on developmental education. ...
FORUMS - chatting now ...
Delightful DecemberConception & Fertility General Chat
Noble NovemberConception & Fertility General Chat
High Natural Killer Cells #10Reproductive Immunology
Hard to settle day and nightGeneral Sleeping & Settling Chat
Positive Ovulation Test 6+ days in a row???Conception & Fertility General Chat
Toenail fungusGeneral Health
Come chat, Ladies who are 40+ TTC or ExpectingConception & Fertility General Chat
ThanksGeneral Chat
Daycare educator / teacher giftsGeneral Parenting Tips, Advice & Chat
REVIEWS
"Made bed time less anxious"
by Meld85
My Little Heart Whisbear - the Humming Bear reviews ›
"Wonderful natural Aussie made product!"
by Mrstwr
Baby U Goat Milk Moisturiser reviews ›
"Replaced good quality with cheap tight nappies"
by Kris
Coles Comfy Bots Nappies reviews ›