Good article. It should be noted that in Queensland at least preschool is supposedly optional but both state and private schools are informing parents that if their children are not enrolled in preschool , then they are not permitted to hold a Year 1 place for them.
There was far too little public discussion about this prior to it's introduction.

Compulsory Pre-School(or Prep)? No, there is no need for this. There is however, need to truly reform schools where the system is nationalised so that the education is uniform across the nation.

An area in need of reform in Queensland is fixing the system so that Year 1 becomes Kindergarten, Year 2 becomes Year 1 and so on until there is a full 13 years of education.

Also, the age entry requirements of Pre-School is ridiculous. We just had our daughter refused entry for next year as she is born after June(b. Aug). She is able to count to 10 to 15, learning to count to 20, keen to learn more.

She is hungry for knowledge yet the QLD governments wants to hold her back a year. This would put her behind and quite possibly bore her into low marks which is common.

Real reform is necessary. Not politicians known for their backyard mechanics.

"Preschool should remain optional so that parents are in control of the amount of time their children spend there."
I agree with the author- preschool should be free but not compulsory. It's a good article.

Making pre-school compulsory would mean some parents would have to take their children kicking and screaming when they are obviously not ready or do not want to go.

I don't agree with the whole idea about 'preparing' children for school.

Why do they need to be prepared and for what?
The school should adjust to the children's capabilities and cater for all levels- there should be no preparation needed.
Schools should adapt to whatever stage the children are up to; children should not be made to adjust to 'fit into' a school neither should they have to be 'prepared' for school.

SCHOOLS should prepare!

Spider,
I know what you mean. To be honest, my kids learnt next to nothing at preschool because they, like your daughter, were eager to learn naturally from an early age at home.
Going to preschool for some mature children is like repeating what they already know.
I do understand that there will have to be some cut-off age, but I also think that this schould be a guideline. In your daughter's case, if she is socially and emotionally ready and a mature child, I'd like to see preschools make exceptions and accept such children, at least for a trial period.

Preschool can have some social avantages, but many kids are not ready for socialising with a rather big group of children at this early age.
Mixing with kids in the street, at playgroup, or with siblings, other kids in the family or kids of friends of te parents will provide all they socially need for these early years of their lives.

My youngest son didn't want to go to pre-school at all. He hated it, said it was too loud, too many unruly kids, no doors on bathrooms, forced to rest when he had stopped his day nap years before. He complained that teachers were often too busy doing other things to supervise the kids. My son didn't feel safe and it made him sick in the stomach and made his bones ache, literally.

I don't think that it is a good idea to make pre-school compulsory. It doesn't suit all kids. My son tried it a few times, didn't like it so we gave up and he just stayed home where he felt protected and safe.

He is 9 years old now and for fun and pleasure he is reading Harry Potter. Not attending pre-school didn't do him too much harm and given that he would have become very unhappy if forced, I think it did him good. Not to mention the fun that we had together. To think of all the fun that I would have missed out on as his mum if he had gone to pre-school.

Good one - free but not compulsory, although with a certain degree of "encouragement" for those children in a pretty poor home situation.

Normally I have a set of alarm bells that go DINGDINGDINGDINGDING whenever I see or hear the word "homeschooling" (and normally they turn out to be right! Unfortunately homeschooling parents can be wackos at times) but Susan Wight has written a very well-balanced article. Nice.

Yes Sue! It's so good to hear some sense being spoken on this topic. Homes are very social places. Why should children learn more from time spent in structured institutions run by paid strangers than from the many activities in their own homes? Mums need to gain confidence in their own abilities to provide for their children's learning instead of believing the brainwash that tells them that home is no good for children. Thanks Sue.

petal, how many homeschooling parents do you actually know personally and what criteria do you use to determine whether they are wako?

I am just curious.

"Why make it compulsory?"
Going back over the last two decades, the governments both Labor and Liberal ran the childcare centers (public/council) down and literally handed over to a couple of private pre-school operators premises, land and facilities amounting to millions of dollars paid for over some decades through taxes. This was all done sneakily behind the backs of the public in an air of secrecy and fraud with no mandate.
Two operators now own 600 pre-schools. One of them, let on probably more than he should of when he exclaimed about two months ago '40 percent profit was due to government subsidies!' In other words government subsidies are so high that they cover all his staff wages and overhead costs and boost his profits! As well, it was stated openly that he was making so much money he wanted to extend this operation onto the international front. The childcare industry is recognized on the stock market as one of the fastest growing sectors and literally a good milking cow - hence the drive to make pre-schools compulsorily! This process is market driven, assett creating, exploiting the educational needs of pre-school children. If you think about it, it is like a double blow when the government use public taxes to wreck the public system then encourage and subsidise high crippling fees. The parents have struggled to keep up with the high fees.
The high taxes we are subject to, the government either misappropriate or use them as a weapon against us.
The other aspect is turning the emphasis around from the freedom of learning from play and social interaction - to a government directed more formal and disciplined oriented approach to education.

Freedom of choice means that no parent's should not be forced to send their child to pre-school. It also means that one citizen should not be forced to subsidise another's choice. In other words, pre-school education should not be free.

Hi there Jolanda. Most homeschooling parents do so because they are very strongly religious and intolerant of wider society. This is a fact. It is very easy to determine their level of "wacko-ness" within a few minutes of talking to them.

And one thing I should point out - parents who are quite obviously "wacko" (for want of a better term) because of the way they talk about their attitude to schools, and / or their child's educational prowess, and / or their child's development, _do not see themselves as wacko_, and therefore it is pointless trying to convince them of this. Does that make it a bit clearer?

What it makes clear is that you seem to have an opinion based on your own prejudices.

The same could be said about parents who see others as wako, they dont ever stop to think that they themselves might be the one that is wako.

Parents homeschool for a variety of reasons including the fact that sensitive children are bullied in school and the system does not protect them.

True Jolanda... but is the solution to not send them to school?

How will they learn to adapt to these situations? It's a hard fact, but bullying occurs in the wider community. I'm certainly not condoning it, and I don't have the answer as to how to solve this problem, but if they don't learn to cope with these kinds of situations as children, they mightn't be able to cope with them as adults.

TurnRightThenLeft. If you were in a job where you were being bullied and the bosses did nothing about it do you think that leaving you there would be beneficial to your development, ability to deal with bullies and to your health?

Some kids are just different, and they are as a result targets. Society doesn't accept difference, they might tolerate it but since there is no requirement for people to be polite or nice when tolerating often bulling and tolerating blends into one.

If a child cannot find a safe school then they are not better of at school. Sure ideally finding a school that is accepting and caring would be beneficial but in the absense of such school the child is best of protected and being taught at home.

Just because a child is homeschooled doesn't mean that they are isolated and don't socialise. They still have friends, siblings, cousins and often other activities that they are involved in.

"TurnRightThenLeft. If you were in a job where you were being bullied and the bosses did nothing about it do you think that leaving you there would be beneficial to your development, ability to deal with bullies and to your health?"

Actually, I think it would.
I'd have to find a way to resolve the situation and facing that challenge would make me a stronger person. If that failed, well, I suppose I'd lose the job - but perhaps that would be better than just leaving. There is the issue of references, but that isn't a relevant issue in schools.
My family travelled a lot in my childhood, and I had to learn to adapt to a number of schools and a number of bullies and learn how to deal with a wide variety of people.
It was a process of trial and error, and it didn't always work, but I know it did make me a stronger person.

This of course, won't work for everybody. There are some people who that won't work for, and there probably are some students who are better off being home schooled - though I still think they need to have a very real shot at the standard system of schooling, and home schooling should only be considered when this avenue has been exhausted - but that is just my opinion.

"If you were in a job where you were being bullied and the bosses did nothing about it do you think that leaving you there would be beneficial to your development, ability to deal with bullies and to your health?"

I've been in that situation, Jolanda, and the solution was indeed to leave the job - but to then get a similar job elsewhere. I also had to take a look at myself and really be tough on myself by asking "Is it me? Do I have SOMETHING to do with it?"

The answer to that question was LARGELY, but not ENTIRELY, "No". Some change in behaviour was certainly required at my end. And I have done so, and for the better in my working life.

Do you see some parallels, Jolanda? Food for thought?

petel, if you have something to say, then come out and say it. I am not into playing games.