Why is Duncan Garner such a dickhead? The argument against sending 4 year olds to school

By   /   May 9, 2017  /   10 Comments

TDB recommends Voyager - Unlimited internet @home as fast as you can get

Duncan couldn’t understand why starting school at 4 was a problem for anyone, here’s why it’s a problem Duncs. The Government wants to lower the age of starting school to 4 so that they can force beneficiaries into work a year younger and they can save on the pre-school costs.

Duncan Garner must have been told by management his terrible Breakfast show is rating badly because this morning he was trying to make every molehill a crusading mountain.

This morning it was the idea that Kelvin Davis has an opinion different from Labour, but the big issue he was digging his heels in this morning was over the Government’s aim to lower children starting school at the age of 4.

Duncan couldn’t understand why starting school at 4 was a problem for anyone, here’s why it’s a problem Duncs. The Government wants to lower the age of starting school to 4 so that they can force beneficiaries into work a year younger and they can save on the pre-school costs.

Lowering the school age to 4 is all about being able to be more spiteful towards beneficiaries, the fact that this doesn’t even appear in the mind of Duncs simply highlights his white male privilege, in fact that’s pretty much what the name of The AM Show should be ‘White Male Privilege for Breakfast’.

Lowering the school age to 4 so that the Government can pressure more beneficiaries into work a year earlier has nothing to do with the benefit of the child, it has everything to do with cutting back the benefit for the child’s parent.

***
Want to support this work? Donate today
***
Follow us on Twitter & Facebook
***

10 Comments

  1. mpledger says:

    All the educational evidence says that delaying starting school is better for children especially boys.

    It just sounds like someone thinking “more school must be better” and in their arrogance thinking they must be right.

  2. CLEANGREEN says:

    Duncan Garner has been polluted by being always sniffing around the Key corruption club of bribery so he became dazzled by the immense power they wielded over anyone they are in contact with.

    Perhaps he was somehow drunk with feeling that power and cant relent now?

  3. saveNZ says:

    More disastrous ideas on top of disastrous National Standards.

    Yep the Natz can’t wait to shoot us down the education league tables as fast as they can say ‘public money for charter schools’ and ‘low wage economy’.

    Many schools in Scandinavia have children start school at 7. They do better, have lower crime rates etc.

    The government need to be going in the opposite direction with education. Like their quest for oil in the age of solar, their stone age ideas on education of rote learning and testing in the age of creativity and individuality. Clue technology is going to take all those rote learning jobs – what’s left is what technology can’t replicate.

    Very good article about education… how important ‘free play’ is.

    http://www.newsweek.com/creativity-crisis-74665

    • Strypey says:

      Well put SaveNZ. This is a classic example of creating a social engineering policy and then scrabbling around for any research evidence that doesn’t point out what a bad idea it is. If someone has the misfortune to be out of paid work while their children are between 4-7, why not let those children gain the benefits of fulltime one-on-one attention from their parents? It might counterbalance the many disadvantages of being subject to the financial waterboarding (pushing them under the surface of the poverty pond) that results from a series of governments who refuse to pay benefits at a livable rate.

  4. Thadius says:

    It is not a full year younger it is not only optional but just the term nearest their birthday. Fake news.

  5. Kevin says:

    Doesn’t matter if it is a year early or the term of their birthday, it is doubtful that starting school at five years old is even appropriate. Can’t see any logical benefits to the child , parent or the government ,just plain nonsense.

  6. Mike in Auckland says:

    Put them into school earlier, and put them to “useful” work earlier, that will make the bosses happy, I guess. Do not forget to raise the retirement age also, to extend the lifespan of “fulfilled” work for people, as work is the purpose of life, nothing else.

    It is all working as planned, it seems, at least they try to make it work like that, English and his colleagues pushing that “investment approach” again.

  7. AB says:

    http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SE.PRM.AGES
    Economies we might want to emulate (Norway, Denmark, Germany) have starting age of 6. Finland with reputedly the world’s best education system – it’s 7. Even in the USA it’s 6.
    Who has a starting age of 4? Almost nobody – only Gibraltar.
    I wonder if there are any umm, you know, educational reasons for not starting at 4 seeing virtually nobody does it?

  8. Siobhan says:

    “If 4 years was old enough to be out there selling matches and developing phossy jaw (you don’t want to know) then its darned well old enough to go to school and think how lucky we are…”

  9. crissie says:

    Starting children in groups has it benefits. However the groups should be between the ages of five and six not 4 and 5. Some of these children will have been out of nappies for only six months it is crazy. A reason for it being forced on to 4 year old is to reduce the costs, as it costs more to have a child in a kindergarten than it does in a classroom. As in a kindergarten the ratio of 10 child to a teacher and in a classroom it is any amount of children to the teacher. Children get to stay at kindergartens in New Zealand now for up to 6 hours per day which is 30 free hours per week and this is a simplar length as a school day. Many kindergarten now offer 6 hours per day free to all four year olds and in fact 3 year old also.