Children start school at 5, oh no they don't

Practical subjects are considered very important, they have to take at least two as electives in their last two years of comprehensive (they get 3 electives, so only one can be a more academic subject). But it does mean that a lot less time is spent on academic subjects, and they do less hours in school overall than British kids, so catching up by 15 with much less time to do it means they're doing something better.

My elder daughter is a primary school teacher in Scotland. Both her children started school aged 5.

Thanks that’s really interesting, particularly the focus on more practical learning like sewing and using machinery.

I think this every time there is a headline in the news re: shoddy parents mean kids can’t do x, y, z when they start school now. Many of those berating modern parents will have sent their kids to school age 5 in the 70s or been sent at that age themselves. I’m not sure when the change actually happened with all
kids starting at 4… overall it is better to start them all in the September. I can still remember the names of the kids in my
infant class who had been there for a full term before I went to school. They had their own fiefdom and went on to get all the roles in plays, top in reading etc and perceived to be more intelligent as they had a term head start in education as well as the additional life experience. Equally, I remember the summer born kids arriving; they got 1 term of education in reception before moving on! Those kids struggled and continued to struggle through primary.

Mine went at 4, including the one with additional needs. I don’t think it’s good to be the eldest in a nursery or playgroup setting by a noticeable margin, or to join in a y1 class at 5 without the benefits of being in a reception class with the other kids. My ds with additional needs had speech therapy and physio support in school for his development delay. Most countries where children start older aren’t going straight from home with mummy into school- most will have been in some sort of childcare setting for years.

Yes, children start school at 4, but school doesn't mean formal sit down lessons from 9-3pm every day, or even at all. The reception class should be all about play based learning and just building on their nursery experience if it is a good school, and it looks like there's going to be switch back to continuing this style of learning until the end of KS1 in the not too distant future (fingers bloody crossed!)

He's barely out of nappies and bottles and I'm already choosing a school for him.

Well, that's because the process takes a long time. 1000s of parents in each LA have to review all the options, fill in the paperwork, provide evidence and the LA then have to allocate all those places based on everyone's choices and needs and if MN is anything to go by, their dodgy new addresses next to the school gate. All of this has to be done 6 months before start of term.

I'm not clear what the issue is with starting school at 4/5. Have any longitudinal studies been done on compulsory age for schooling (for what it's worth it's three in France) that control for the many other factors impacting children's outcomes? Most of us went to school age four or five, I did. Children of that age are immensely curious about the world and other people and ready to read and write.

Both my girls were 4 when they started school (just over 4 and 4.5 respectively) and it has worked out fine for both of them. However, we do have some friends whose kids (boys) were a little less mature at the same age (they were just over 4 like my oldest) and who did struggle with toileting and other issues - one of their mums has said before that she wishes she'd held hers back a year. Now they're all a few years older it's generally settled down, however. 😊

Its not really true. I'm in Finland, yes they start at 7 (actually they start the year they turn 6 for preschool but proper school starts the year they turn 7) but by age 11 I would not say they are ahead of British kids, and in areas like maths they are definitely behind (at least from my memories of what I was learning in maths age 11, and what my DD learnt age 11 here. Might even be a wider gap nowadays). They don't catch up until upper school, which starts the year they turn 13, when school gets very intense quickly and they learn a lot more. By the end of comprehensive (age 15/16) they are at least on par, if not ahead, and then there's still 3 or 4 more years of school so they finish well-educated.

On the other hand, by age 11 they will be learning two other languages besides their mother tongue and many 11 year olds I've come across are near fluent in English already, and they will be able to sew, knit, crochet, build things out of wood and metal and operate the powerful machinery needed, and navigate with a map and compass around a forest by themselves.

YABU as I don't think anyone does say.they start at 5. Most people are aware that school isn't compulsory until 5. As you are aware, yiu can choose to.delay the start if you wish. However, it's worth bearing in mind the proportion of his life that will be lived again on the next 12.months. a year is a lot at this age. Consider your options carefully and don't make a decision on point of principle or based on what he is like.now.

We have a village primary school (maximum 60 children in the entire school), and they have an included nursery, so the youngest are 2. They integrate with the older children during play times,meal times, and also the older children read stories to them. The shift through school is so lovely and gradual, that the children are very happy and confident.

Reception is very free play placed. I think you’re overreacting.

The school system is set up to educate a whole cohort of children. It’s not set up to deliver a bespoke education for children of parents who don’t like the idea of what the state is offering, or feel their child is too young/haven’t taken steps to ensure their child is school ready. Note that I am not talking about cases where SEN is involved.

By all means find a private setting that will cater to your every whim, but don’t expect a state system that’s already on its knees to cater to what is in many cases middle class angst. As a PP said, the worst case scenario is the Scottish system where teachers are having to deal with young children with significant age gaps in the same year - and it’s already disadvantaged children who will lose out.

Scotland here.

in primary one we have

x. 4 years old, 5 in January.
y. 6 years old on 1 September. Had not turned 5 by start of term last year so deferred.
then a b and c. All 5. Between March and end of October.

huge variety of ages.

I’m not disagreeing with you but do you have any evidence of that you could share? If it’s true, I’m sure there are numerous factors -cultural, economic etc. linked to how Finnish society is set up that enables that later school start to happen that increases success? Rather than the later start alone being the reason for better pupil outcomes?

You have the option to delay their start if a summer baby or homeschool, lots of children are very close to 5 when they start and I know a few summer borns that haven’t started until the following year.
My nephew is now the oldest at nursery (early September birthday) he is 4, most of his friends started school in September and he is bored at preschool. He can write his name, knows his phonetic letter sounds, colours and numbers up to 50 etc
He is ahead of my year 1 child is some aspects who has 0 interest in reading/maths and loves outdoor play, pe, forest school etc mine was a summer baby.
Foundation/reception is all learning through play, hardly any sit down lessons etc my son noticed no real difference to foundation then preschool.
In an ideal world we would send children to school when they are ready.
Given the amount of children starting school in nappies without a medical need (i used to be a TA) some children need the support that a school can offer.

Count yourself lucky. Our DD is oldest in her year, so missed admission criteria by a day. Which mean we paid a childcare bill the size of our mortgage for an additional year. It depends on your LA, not all will offer a school place the term after their birthday. It varies we were told.

Hold him back, Op.
Buck the trend and do what suits your child.
He will benefit playing and imagining for longer.
Play is the best educator for small children.
It will never be the wrong thing to keep him back one year until he turns five.

Sorry forgot to add, you should be able to reapply for the same nursery - under these circumstances you get two year funded nursery.

I would definitely defer him and opt for two years of nursery. Four years old is such a young age to begin formal education. The UK has one of the youngest school starting ages in the world (alongside France and Germany), whereas in many other countries children don’t begin until around seven.

Research shows that the extra years of play before entering formal education are hugely beneficial for building strong emotional and social foundations. Even a single year makes a noticeable difference. Starting at five is still considered very young compared to international standards, and the additional time for play and development can be invaluable.

You don’t need to send them until the term after they turn 5, but the government provides a school for them from the September before their 5th birthday.
It’s up to you what you do with that, but if you don’t want them in school you need to make alternate arrangements or stay home and look after them yourself.
Your nursery may not wish to hold your DC’s place if they can only be there for a part of the school year, but if your child’s birthday is between April/May and August, you could hold them back for that whole year and I’m sure your nursery would be happy to keep them?

I think children start formal schooling at 7 years in Finland. They are way ahead of British children when they get to 11 years.

Yes when i went to school it was september/Christmas/Easter intake, depending on when you turned 5. It was widely considered to be disadvantaging the later born kids as they got less time in reception class, so schools then changed to offering everyone a place from september. (My school kept the summer born cohort in reception an extra term into what should have been year 1, but then year 1 was cut short so they still effectively had less time to learn.)

Go with your gut. If you think another year will be of benefit then keep him off school a year.

However, kids change massively between 3 and 4. When I was applying for schools last year for my summer born I was feeling some of the same reservations as you but now I can see that DD is ready to gently start learning more and that more preschool would be of no benefit to her.

School readiness is a collection of skills that parents work to give their children in the year before starting. You can help DC by counting things from one to ten daily, reading books to DC daily, and giving lots of opportunity to do activities that develop fine motor skills. (Like playing with play doh which you can make yourself at home) Eating meals together and helping them learn to use a knife and fork will also help.

If you do keep them back a year it may be worth moving from a nursery to a preschool where they will learn school readiness skills.

It really is. My son didn’t potty train til 3 - he was resistant earlier on and we decided to take our time, then at 3 it was very quick and easy. I know a child who eats very well but still likes a warm drink from a bottle. Both were very ready to start school at the typical time. Neither point implies anything much.