It appears that private schools are as popular as ever despite the economic slowdown. Perhaps the truth is that the holy grail, TARGETS, have not been met.

Isn't 4 a bit young to have to go to school? We went at 6 years of age, not 4.

ANNE GILES wrote:
Isn't 4 a bit young to have to go to school? We went at 6 years of age, not 4.

The starting age for school is 5 as ststed in the 1944 Education Act.

However, I believe there are now reception classes for 4 years olds and you can bet a certain part of society snap those places up so they can enjoy themselves during the day without having to worry about 'junior.'

My daughter, due to her jan bday, started reception at age 4 and was very ready to learn. She is at the end of her reception year and already reads at a 6 year old level and has started to learn addition and subtraction. Kids from age 4 up need social interaction with their peers, they are very open to learning at this age, and can strive forward if given the chance. Very unfortunate for many primary and secondary Sutton children to be denied a Sutton education. Obviously with all the high rises being built we need more schools built in the area. Their is enough money for this if the council would stop wasting it on those with free housing demanding new kitchen and bathrooms to be fitted (I've heard these single mum teenage leeches in the council office demand these new fittings, how dare they, but the council must give into them). Cut the scammers and put the money back into the taxpaying community.

You can bet that government ministers do not have problems getting places for their chidren. It's their policies which have led to this situation. No wonder private education has never been in such demand.

I suppose working mothers need some time and space for themselves, so do want their children to start early. I don't think children need social interaction with a load of other children that early. I had a governess and went to school at 6, already knowing how to read, so was moved into a class of 7 year olds. I had plenty of social interaction with other children in my home and in theirs, without having to be in a crowded classroom. A cleaner who worked for me took her child out of school because he was being forced to "socialise" when he found it difficult. He is now studying medicine and is very happy, having been to a private school.

Bob Peel wrote:

ANNE GILES wrote: Isn't 4 a bit young to have to go to school? We went at 6 years of age, not 4.

The starting age for school is 5 as ststed in the 1944 Education Act. However, I believe there are now reception classes for 4 years olds and you can bet a certain part of society snap those places up so they can enjoy themselves during the day without having to worry about 'junior.'

Yes, Bob. But then, that's government policy. Get Mum out to work so that a child-minder can look after her children. It all helps the unemployment statistics. In the meantime, our benefits culture attracts all and sundry from around the world.

I totally agree with you Kes and Bob Peel too.

The system is ripe for the picking by those who will not work because they get the lot laid at their feet.

What is sadder is those who need it can't and struggle to pay their council tax bill and fares because they have the 'work ethic.'
Strange that those without the 'work ethic' find themselves unable to work because 'they will have to pay council tax bill and fares.'

Just lazy, parasitical bstards.

Strange that those without the 'work ethic' find themselves unable to work because 'they will have to pay council tax bill and fares.'Just lazy, parasitical bstards.

Stranger still is that people still vote for the same two political parties that created this and our chav culture over the years.

I am luicky to be a stay at home mum with a husband who takes care of his family by working full time. We have 2 lovely children who both started school at age 4. I believe this gave them a leg up over kids who started later because, no matter what Anne Giles says, some children like to have friends at a early age they chose themselves and given the structure of a classroom has given them early responsibility and continued structure outside of the home which is very good for a child. Not that Anne is wrong in her views, but I didn't know any other mums before my children began school, I am not a selfish person who has a big social life with other women, so when they began school and quickly made good friends, all us stay at home mums met each other and our children connected naturally. They loved attending birthday parties and having playdays. A governess, well most of us don't have this small little circle away from the rest of the world (let's face it, that's what is wrong with so many wealthy children, such as the Queens socially inept children and many more I've met from these limited backgrounds, not all but many). I was raised by very wealthy American parents and went to exclusive private schools so I'm not so out of touch with that world, but my children do benefit from being able to choose their own friends instead of having their society mother choose for them. My eldest is a cardiothoracic surgeon but not only is she intellgient, she is well liked because she isn't a snob and can interact with people of all backgrounds and I'm convienced this is due to her starting school and having peers from age 4. That is a very important developmental age. They begin to need independence away from their mums and dads and they want to have the right to develop their minds and social circles. She's a social butterfly because I didn't keep her from choosing friends and having a wonderful reception teacher who gave her a love of education early on. I think keeping a child away from a school structure and their own choosing of friends as a bit selfish and weird and not at all helpful to ones development. Classrooms aren't crowded and dirty, they are wonderul places to open ones mind, to dream outside of yourself, to express yourself in a way you may not feel comfortable doing in your home. It gives you new questions, new answers, age 4 is not too young to start learning in a big environment. My children would have been very lonely without school at age 4. If a child is content under a mothers wing for longer without any want to explore then that child may have personality problems, or for the instance Anne stated about the unfortunate situation of a child not being able to socialize normally and being taken away from school. This person may have gone on to do wonderul things in medicine but is he a normal happy person within himself? Normal meaning can he deal with the people he comes in contact with everyday or does he still have problems, I mean he was never taught to work through difficulities with his personality during his formative years, so in short, can he be happy, not just smart? Was he ever taught to interact with his peers in a healthy manner or just to run away? Will he be able to deal with a spouse or work colleagues if he had problems in his formative years. Maybe he is lucky, but children with early social problems often hide a deeper problems in adulthood. Best of luck for those children as adults, but my personal view as a former child psychologist is that children need to be with their peers from age 4 and this very thing actually aides them in learning and that children themselves help each other develop and learn. Oh, and my youngest was reading at the level of a 6 1/2 year old when she was 4 due to a wonderful teacher as well as home encouragement and I myself graduated school 3 years ahead of time with honours without the aid of governess' but due to great old fashioned teachers. And I don't need a cleaner to keep my 2 homes in order, taking responsibilty for oneself and ones own mess is another good thing taught by teachers, not to be lazy, especially if you are a homemaker.

I am lucky enough that my daughter was accepted to our 1st choice primary school, but that is more likely because our son already attends.

But my view is that if all BRITISH peoples children were given priority over asylum seekers and non british spongers there would be enough places to go around, with a little bit of shuffling, as looking at the stats school acceptions have never been this bad.

Well, Kathy - bully for you! I can see that you have an enormous chip on your shoulder about upper class or middle class people. I am registered disabled because of RSI and, if I didn't have a cleaner, I would be constantly spending a lot more on physiotherapy. I have not been able (since 1990) to clean my car, mow the lawn, do any ironing, or - for that matter - do any of the hobbies like playing in a band as I used to, or golf. Secondly, my family were not wealthy - we had a governess because we lived abroad. I had plenty of children to interact with outside school and - even better - had the good luck to interact in two languages rather than the boring old ONE. May I suggest you take your prejudices elsewhere.

kathy wrote:
I am luicky to be a stay at home mum with a husband who takes care of his family by working full time. We have 2 lovely children who both started school at age 4. I believe this gave them a leg up over kids who started later because, no matter what Anne Giles says, some children like to have friends at a early age they chose themselves and given the structure of a classroom has given them early responsibility and continued structure outside of the home which is very good for a child. Not that Anne is wrong in her views, but I didn't know any other mums before my children began school, I am not a selfish person who has a big social life with other women, so when they began school and quickly made good friends, all us stay at home mums met each other and our children connected naturally. They loved attending birthday parties and having playdays. A governess, well most of us don't have this small little circle away from the rest of the world (let's face it, that's what is wrong with so many wealthy children, such as the Queens socially inept children and many more I've met from these limited backgrounds, not all but many). I was raised by very wealthy American parents and went to exclusive private schools so I'm not so out of touch with that world, but my children do benefit from being able to choose their own friends instead of having their society mother choose for them. My eldest is a cardiothoracic surgeon but not only is she intellgient, she is well liked because she isn't a snob and can interact with people of all backgrounds and I'm convienced this is due to her starting school and having peers from age 4. That is a very important developmental age. They begin to need independence away from their mums and dads and they want to have the right to develop their minds and social circles. She's a social butterfly because I didn't keep her from choosing friends and having a wonderful reception teacher who gave her a love of education early on. I think keeping a child away from a school structure and their own choosing of friends as a bit selfish and weird and not at all helpful to ones development. Classrooms aren't crowded and dirty, they are wonderul places to open ones mind, to dream outside of yourself, to express yourself in a way you may not feel comfortable doing in your home. It gives you new questions, new answers, age 4 is not too young to start learning in a big environment. My children would have been very lonely without school at age 4. If a child is content under a mothers wing for longer without any want to explore then that child may have personality problems, or for the instance Anne stated about the unfortunate situation of a child not being able to socialize normally and being taken away from school. This person may have gone on to do wonderul things in medicine but is he a normal happy person within himself? Normal meaning can he deal with the people he comes in contact with everyday or does he still have problems, I mean he was never taught to work through difficulities with his personality during his formative years, so in short, can he be happy, not just smart? Was he ever taught to interact with his peers in a healthy manner or just to run away? Will he be able to deal with a spouse or work colleagues if he had problems in his formative years. Maybe he is lucky, but children with early social problems often hide a deeper problems in adulthood. Best of luck for those children as adults, but my personal view as a former child psychologist is that children need to be with their peers from age 4 and this very thing actually aides them in learning and that children themselves help each other develop and learn. Oh, and my youngest was reading at the level of a 6 1/2 year old when she was 4 due to a wonderful teacher as well as home encouragement and I myself graduated school 3 years ahead of time with honours without the aid of governess' but due to great old fashioned teachers. And I don't need a cleaner to keep my 2 homes in order, taking responsibilty for oneself and ones own mess is another good thing taught by teachers, not to be lazy, especially if you are a homemaker.

Graduated 3 years ahead of time?

I'd have kept you in school for those 3 years, if I was your English teacher. Never heard of the paragraph?

And that's just for starters...

mad mum wrote:
I am lucky enough that my daughter was accepted to our 1st choice primary school, but that is more likely because our son already attends. But my view is that if all BRITISH peoples children were given priority over asylum seekers and non british spongers there would be enough places to go around, with a little bit of shuffling, as looking at the stats school acceptions have never been this bad.

Yep. There's always someone else to blame, isn't there...

And "acceptions"?! I've been laughing for 5 minutes at that clanger.

To refer to non-British as spongers is disgraceful. There are plenty of British spongers about. Most people who come from abroad work extremely hard and their children deserve top priority places.

I Jock is back with his petty comments again. Just likes the sound of his own keyboards! Surprised he is back so soon again after his battering by the Star Wars wedding people on another comments stream for being an ****.

Pete wrote:
I Jock is back with his petty comments again. Just likes the sound of his own keyboards! Surprised he is back so soon again after his battering by the Star Wars wedding people on another comments stream for being an ****.

Battering? What battering?

I made a perfectly valid comment on the "Star Wars" wedding story. I stopped commenting when all the puerile and abusive replies started. I've no time to waste on children, adolescent males who think mentioning the reproductive system constitutes humour, or people who resort to the language of the guttersnipe.

Oh, incidentally, look at the your own comment again. You call mine petty?! Pot, kettle, and black spring to mind!

it wouldn't matter matter if they started school at 4 or 6 the problem of no spaces will still be there. Where is the new school being built to cope with all the houses on the hamptons, worcester park? why should all our children go without schools places when we have lived here a long time

Whilst we are talking of primary school places, let's not also forget the debacle of secondary school places in Kingston. Children in North Kingston do not have a secondary school to go to. Susan Kramer and her LibDem cronies on Richmond and Kingston councils all think we should send our children to Grey Court - a school that has been in special measures and despite what we are told does not seem to be improving. Looking at the exam results over the last four years the number of children getting five grade A - C passes at GCSE has risen, BUT the number of children with five A - C passes INCLUDING English and Maths has fallen. If a CV landed on my desk without English and Maths passes, it would go straight in the circular filing tray! Can we not even teach the basics first? Also, Richmond schools do not have a Sixth Form, whereas Kingston schools do.

Susan and Co, please drop the silly idea of trying to do something with Grey Court School and look at improving education for ALL age groups in Kingston.

Abolish comprehensives and bring back grammar schools.

Adam,

your issue isn't a shortage of schools per se, but rather a perception that your local secondary school is sub-standard.

Surely, your real problem is that if your high profile campaign brands your local secondary as sub-standard, then it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Hoardes of middle class families, whose kids should bump up the grades, will take flight and send their kids elsewhere instead.

Alternatively, if you all sent your kids there, grades would probably shoot up.

It is clear that the demographics of North Kingston are changing rapidly.

As property prices soared, there appears to be a big spill of middle class type families, priced out of Putney and Wandsworth.

Typically, the kids from these family types will do well above average, and in timke, I would expect that Grey Court would become another oversubsribed school, like Coombe.

One thing you have failed to mention is why Kingston BC still pays out for Grammar school places for kids from whole swathes of west London.

Surely, its time that Kingston BC residents demanded a cap on funding non-residents, just as Sutton BC have done.

Sorry Paul, but I disagree, it wouldn't be a self-fulfilling prophecy. You only need to go on to the DFeS website and search for Grey Court to see their results. They are not good! They also only study to GCSE, whereas Kingston Schools study to A-Level. The facts speak for themselves.

Why should I have to sacrifice my children's education on the altar of LibDem expediency? It suits the LibDem councils of both Richmond and Kingston to just use Grey Court. How much money will Kingston waste on this, when there is a demand for a new school in the North of the Borough. Why are Kingston so concerned about what effect a new school would have on Grey Court, when Richmond really should look at sorting out Grey Court and Shene themselves.

Why should our children be the ones sent to a school that has been in special measures (in another borough) in order to try to improve it, when the LibDems are quite happy to approve planning for more and more properties in the borough and then bury their heads in the sand when there are not enough school places?

To set the record straight, I am nothing to do with the 'high profile' campaigns that you mention, though I do agree with and support them. I have lived here for over 12 years and am also not one of the people from Wandsworth that you mention.

Probably one of the main drivers for not capping the number of out of borough pupils at the two Tiffin schools, is that this would possibly make the borough's schools drop in the league tables.

We are paying Kingston's exorbitant Council Tax, so one does expect that the council would do its duty and give us an adequate number of school places both primary and secondary.

The main problem is the fact that the government decided that the inclusion policy would benefit children without really considering the effect of this on everybody. There were no extra schools built to cover the closure of special schools and more importantly no staff added to mainstream trained to teach children with SEN's.
This is bound to have an effect on school places and on a schools results thus changing peoples reasoning in their choice of school.
As posted by another comment, this ridiculous idea of constantly building housing with no other amenities eg GP surgeries, schools etc has got to be addressed. Perhaps our local government and MP's could start earning their expenses and salaries for once.