Retro Pastiche,
I constantly hear of the term “early childhood development”, but this is a recent term that was rarely used years ago.

“Early childhood development” is just a glorified term for removing the child from its parents and institutionalizing them at a very early age. That is Marzist/feminism, and if anything is to be tested and placed under close scrutiny in the education system, then I’m inclined to think that it should be the “early childhood development” side of the education system.

Finland’s education system does not pay much attention to educating young children, and the children are only enrolled in grade 1 when they are 7, and then they only go to school for ½ a day.

Within a few years the children are ahead of most other children in Europe (and in Australia for that matter). So the proof is in the pudding.

HRS you fail to respond to the issue, but I have noticed that is your practice. Again, how is placing children in child care Marxist (correct spelling please) or feminist? Finland is noted for its social democratic leanings, and it appears that its government provides for its children to remain in the family home until they are aged 7. According to you this is a good thing “Within a few years the children are ahead of most other children in Europe (and in Australia for that matter).”

Australia however, that bastion of Western capitalist democracy in the South Pacific, is intent on destroying our childrens’ futures by placing them in a hotbed of Marxist/feminist thinking (ie school) from 4 or 5 years old?

I suspect that parents in Finland may have more choice over their lifestyle and which family member works and which stays home to look after the kids than we have in Australia, having been sucked into the ideology of choice over the past decade. I fear that you may have been sucked in too.

I read it three times, but I still couldn't work out what you mean, Retro Pastiche.

>>I suspect that parents in Finland may have more choice over their lifestyle and which family member works and which stays home to look after the kids than we have in Australia, having been sucked into the ideology of choice over the past decade. I fear that you may have been sucked in too.<<

Is it the Finns who have been "sucked into the ideology of choice"? That would seem to be the case from the sentence construction.

Perhaps you could also take a few moments to explain your take on the concept of "the ideology of choice", and why you appear to think that it is a bad thing - "sucked into" being somewhat pejorative in this context.

Backing up just a little, what prompted the idea that parents in Finland "may have more choice over their lifestyle". Are there studies that show this? And is it a consequence of, or in spite of, their "social democratic leanings"?

This thread has the potential for quite an interesting discussion, and I'd like to understand your point a little better.

As you are presumably by now inside the teaching profession, or just about to join it, you are going to need to keep an open mind for a while, and avoid knee-jerk reactions to observations that don't sound right.

Retro's comment was quite clear to me. I took it that he/she was saying that perhaps Finnish parents have a better work-life balance than we do here, meaning more choice about the hours they wish to work in order to sustain their lifestyle, thus leaving them with more time with young children. We've been sucked into an "ideology of choice" - a different thing - by those who advocate that governments divest themselves of social responsibility.Instead of ensuring that all in society have equal access to quality, free public education within their own community, governments are encouraging "good parents" to choose, and pay for, "good schools" for their kids - and those parents are getting sucked into paying for what shoud be a social right.
Drive a '75 Datsun or a new imported Lamborghini, and the government will still put a road to your door. The rich aren't yet demanding a choice of roads ("with government funding - we're taxpayers, too!") but I bet they'd sooner not have rustbuckets scraping past their luxury cars. We're doing it with schools - why not with roads?

Retro Pastiche
One of the reasons the Finnish went to their current education system was to create industry that was more technologically based, as they realised that this was the way to increase living standards (and allow people more choice).

This is definitely the way Australia should go also, but we seem to be going in the opposite direction and are giving up on science and technology, and are now becoming a giant quarry for the rest of the world. There is almost nothing made in Australia any more.

Our education system is actually declining also if you look at figures from student bench mark tests undertaken over the last 20 – 30 years.

There will probably be more day-care centers in future years, and I have also heard talk of making pre-school compulsory. However the Finnish experiment proves that institutionalised education of very young children is not conducive to their development, and can actually be the opposite.

Marxists have rarely been in support of families and feminism is closely aligned with Marxism, with many feminists describing themselves as being Marxist. I see the day care centers and the pre-schools and the institutionalisation of 5 or 6 year olds into primary schools as being a part of a system of removing children away from their parents and their families as early as possible.

It is unlikely to improve their education, unlikely to improve our technology base in industry, and it is unlikely to provide people with more choice in the longer term

HRS writes:

>>...our highly Marxist/feminist education system, where families are destroyed and the children are institutionalised into pre-school and primary school at the youngest of ages.<<

>>Finland’s education system does not pay much attention to educating young children,<<

The Marxist/feminist Finnish welfare state guarantees the availability of subsidised childcare (higher-income parents pay more) for pre-school children:

"Roughly 25 per cent of children under 3 years old, and 64 per cent of children 3–6 years old were in municipal day-care. Of the children receiving municipal day-care, 64 per cent had a place in a day-care centre [staffed by degree-level pre-school educators] and 36 per cent had a place with a [trained] family day-care provider ... For children whose parents do shift work, municipalities also provide round-the-clock day-care."

http://pre20031103.stm.fi/english/pao/publicat/welfare/welfare5.htm

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/05/AR2005080502015.html

Educational and social outcomes don't seem very much differentiated between kids who do and don't go to daycare before they start school.

Finnish children mostly don't "stay at home to play" before school age but go out and play with other kids, mostly in an institutionalised setting. For as long as a parent chooses to stay at home with a child under three, she or he is *paid* the going rate to do so, irrespective of other family income or level of training. Quite a few of the stay-at-home parents receive some of their income by taking other peoples' kids while they're out at work. This "family day-care", unlike the Australian equivalent, requires a childcare qualification.

And while compulsory school attendance is only half a working day (ours is three quarters), all schools offer after-school care (again, institutional and supervised by qualified workers) until the parents are able to collect their children. Australian schools rarely do this (or provide minimal supervision for hot, tired kids) and many parents are severely restricted in their "work choices" by the obligation to supervise their children after school.

Don't try contrasting Scandinavia's all-inclusive welfare states with the haphazard "Marxism/feminism" of Australian state governments. Someone might laugh!