What age do you think children should start school?

[LucyLight]

I really strongly believe that the school starting age in this country is too young. My youngest will be starting school next September at 4 years and 2 weeks. Our primary belief systems are in development at this time and children are required to fit in with school learning styles and discipline when they are often just not develope enough to do this. This often leads children to think that they can't do things and I have seen this with my daughter's friends who are all summer birthdays. If you feel stongly about this please sign this petition to get the government to rethink school starting age in line with the Cambridge Review.

petitions.number10.gov.uk/Startat6/

Thank you!

[halia]

4

DS was very very ready for school at 4yrs 5months, tbh he was ready in July at 4yrs 2m.

reception class isn't formal schooling - DS seems to spend as much time up to his knees in mud or making junk models as he does reading stories or learning to write his name.

[MumNWLondon]

My DD's birthday is in October, and reception isn't really formal school anyway - yes they learnt their letters and had a very slow intro to reading (only 2 books a week and very slow progess), but lots of playtime and learning through play, and not very much writing at all.

So she hasn't really started formal schooling (ie year 1) until the month before her 6th birthday and for her this has been a bit late. I wish she had been born in August!

I think the system would work between if those with summer birthdays (ie May-Aug) were given the choice whether to be held back and it really was the free choice of the parents with no stigma attached.

Ds's birthday is in May and he'll def be ready for reception by September.

[SofaQueen]

6 for formal schooling.

Anything below should be optional.

[halia]

what do you do with them from 3-6 then?

[PacificMistletoeandnoWine]

6 years. No doubt about it.

5 is young, 4 is too young.

Britain is the only country in Europe where kids are started in school that young. Nothing wrong with 3 years of nursery from 3 to 6.

[LynetteScavo]

5 or 6, but I think there should be a qualified teacher in every nursery class.

DS2 has always really enjoyed school, especially the social side, but has only really been ready for formal learning since he turned 6.

[LucyLight]

I agree that Reception is mainly play and little formal education until they are in the summer term (I have an older girl who is a March birthday). When they hit year one they get homeowork and are put into sets. The children are not told what set they are in but all know. My eldest was in the top sets for everything and everyone else apart from her were September and October birthdays). So I would summise that this has little to do with academic ability more to do with social ability. My friends children (particularly boys) really struggled with some aspects such as holding pencils and writing neatly up until this year - (year 3 when they are 7). This is mostly to do with fine motor skills which children develop later.

My little boy is well on track for his development and is as bright as my older daughter. Any changes will not have any impact on him but on other children. I think pre school education should be expanded with an emphasis on development of imagination and socialisation and the 3 Rs incorporated into this. Then our children might have a hope of attaining the long term achievement of our more englightened neighbours.

They might be ready through your skilled parenting but through making them conform they are turned off education in the long term.

[expatinscotland]

6

[halia]

I'd agree with 3 yrs of nursery - I guess as DS has just started in reception the only difference i notice from preschool/ nursery to reception class is that he goes every day and he has learnt to write his name.

A optional 3 yr program (3-6) of nurseryschool in classes of 10-15 would be great, fully funded for f/t if you wanted it but no pressure to attend at all.

[bruffin]

Both mine are september babies. DD was desperate to start school from 4.3 and would have had no problems academically or socially. DS was also more than ready at 5.

So in my experience no later than 5

[littleducks]

Next sept is the first yr my LEA is taking rising 5s, up until now most children have been in nursery/preschool from 3 until 5 then started school in the sept/jan/easter after their 5th birthday, it was brilliant but unfortunatley has been scrapped and now dd will start school in jan although she wont be 5 until the may

She will go from 4 members of staff in a class of 24 to a teacher and a ta is similar class size/poss larger,

One of the reasons they scrapped it here was the schools had probs of keeping empty room/extra staff on each school year if they were not required till easter

[MollieO]

Ds was more than ready at 4.2

[BexieID]

Tom will be 4 in April, so will get 2 years at nursery, which will do him good as he is a slow talker. I'm due xmas day, so DC2 will only get 1.5 years at nursery. I think that it is a little unfair, that sep-dec kids get less time at nursery than the jan-aug ones. Also depends on the child as well.

So Tom will be starting Primary 1 when he is 5.4. I don't think they have a reception year here in Scotland?

[Bleatblurt]

7

Which is why I chose to HE rather than send my DS1 to school.

[cory]

Funny how you never seem to come across Scandinavian children who are desperate to start school at 4. Or Scandinavian parents who worry that their dcs are missing out because they are so ready to start formal learning. Could it be because Scandinavian nurseries are more interesting places?

[PacificMistletoeandnoWine]

No doubt some children are ready at 5 however I do not see the need for any kind of rush.

Kids started school v young leave school young, have to make decisions about jobs/further education v young etc etc.

No, Scotland does not have reception year, however the "cut off" for starting school in August is 1. March so children are a minimum of 4 1/2 years old when they start.

I feel v lucky that mine were March babies and started at 5 1/2; well early enough in my opinion.

[ProfessorLaytonIsMyLoveSlave]

In principle, 6. But DS just started in September at 4.5, is loving every minute of it and seems to be blossoming, so my belief that 4 is way too young has taken something of a hit.

[TheFallenMadonna]

Depends on what they are starting IMO.

Reception at my DC's school was immensely enjoyable for them. Lots of play. Lots. Bugger all homework (hurrah!).

When we think of 'school' - are we thinking about the same thing, and are we thinking about what they actually experience?

[colditz]

4

BUT I think they should do 2 years in reception. Ds1 found reception a doddle but severely struggled in year one when he was expected to follow lengthy instructions, concentrate and write all afternoon, and he just couldn't.

[nooka]

My dd is a September baby and would very happily have started earlier, especially as all her friends/peers in nursery went the year before her. ds is a May baby, but didn't start until January. That seemed to work for him, although he didn't really settle at school until the routine tightened up (he threw terrible wobblies as nursery too, so no change there). When we moved to Canada they changed grades, as here they use the calender year (although still with a Sept start date). dd has effectively gone up three quarters of a year and ds has gone down a quarter. It doesn't seem to have caused a problem.

I don't think ds would have coped very well with starting school in September, so maybe the campaign should be about bringing back January start dates?

[stuffitllllama]

but you don't have to start at four, you have to start at five -- don't you?

[SofaQueen]

LOL about the lack of Scandi children begging to start school early!

I agree that it is parental expectation which is part of the "begging to start school". There is such a push in this country to learn to read early - something which had been shown to not be of much value. The country in the EU with the highest results in English and Math is Finland - also the country which starts formal school the latest.

To the person who wondered what kids would be doing from 3-6, what about play? I mean really play - like exploring the outside world, make believe, etc. Perhaps the reason why childhood is getting shorter is partially to do with the emphasis on early school?

I don't think that this system will change unless the 7+/8+ exam is abolished in the private sector. The level of academic attainment required to do well on these exams results in private schools which are geared to move children into these schools starting elementary reading (lists) in Nursery and ramping up in Reception and Year 1. Because of this, the level which children who go to these schools are at are at least one year ahead of their state school counterparts.

If the state school requirements changed and the private school ones did not, there would be and even greater perceived gap between private education and state education, that people would be in arms.

[Earthstar]

Age 7 would be my preference for formal schooling. I also think there should be LESS school - shorter days, longer hols and less homework, more physical exercise

[BlauerEngel]

Both my dc started school at the age of 6 here in Germany (dd1 at 6.0, dd2 at 6.3). At first I was a bit hmm but it has worked wonderfully and converted me to the idea totally. Dd1 went to the school's (voluntary) pre-school between 5 and 6, which was then abolished at government level, and dd2 had a free year of kindergarten instead. The main goal of a free nursery year is to ensure that all children can speak German before starting school.

Our experience was that the children learned enormously quickly between 6 and 8, and dd1 at 11 has now certainly caught up with British children in all subjects. And that in two languages.

However, there are certain problems that have to be addressed before 'school at 6' can be introduced. Traditionally, the German system only has 4 years in a primary school before a selection is made for one of three school systems (grammar school, secondary school, and then a school for the children who are written off at the age of 10). Obviously a child who comes from an underprivileged background has very little time to catch up with one who has learned letters and early numbers at home. Secondly, the nurseries have seen their role as teaching social interaction, crafts, music, etc, but have not touched formal learning (because the children are 'too young' for that). Now there is recognition that the system is unfair and is being reformed gradually.

Ironically one of the reforms is bringing forward the age at which children enter school! Now there are school starters as young as 5.6. Unfortunately the teachers (used to first graders of 6.6) are making little allowance for the fact that these children are of course more socially immature.

The main solution would be the introduction of the Scandinavian system - a single school for all until 16. Oops, you had this in the UK and got rid of it because it's so much better tutoring your kids to destruction through the 11+.

The other solution would be free universal nursery between 3 and 6, a (small) component of which is the gradual and playful introduction of letters and numbers. Dd2, now 7 and a fairly average learner, has proved that if children know the alphabet when they enter school at 6, they can learn to read pretty competently within a year.