To not understand why children start school so young in the UK

[Alisvolatpropiis]

Just that really. In lots of countries children don't start school properly until 6 or 7 whereas in the UK it is 4 or 5, depending on where in the school year their birthday falls. I know some in the SW Valleys area who have started school (not nursery) at 3.

Britain doesn't appear to be topping education charts from what I can tell so what is the benefit?

I would have rather had mine home with me until 6. I realize it's not for everyone, but it's an option that parents should have. It's intrusive state meddling to force a 4.1 year old into full-time education.

We are in Italy. The approach is, from 2.5 years to 6 years you go to nursery type school, learning through play. Then onwards, formal sit down schooling starts. We need to change to that model in the UK. The foundation level paperwork is insane for teachers, showing progress in books every day, etc. so formalised, so structured. It's as if the government are just sticking two fingers up at all the studies supporting play as the best vehicle for learning, as they need a score and ofsted result for everything. Why not accept those first years for what it is, a bit of socialisation for those who want it for their children, but primarily cheap childcare.

When my DS went to school in the UK for his reception year there were 33 children in the class, one teacher and one TA.

Now he is in a class of ten children with two teachers and two TA's.(Bilingual school) In public schools here the max number of kids is 16-18 with one teacher and one TA.

I think this makes a huge difference in the pressure to get kids reading and writing. Although they are grouped by age generally, his work is set individually for language and maths. Science, French, sport music and History tend to be more of a group activity. Kids move up or down and it's quite normal.

School hours are 8-12 every day, with two afternoons 2-4. Within that time they still manage swimming lessons and sports. Homework is full on though - DS gets 2 hours of homework for his midweek afternoon off. The other afternoon is generally supposed to be time to do a personal activity - specific musical instrument, martial art, sports team etc.

Kindergarten is about making cakes, walking in the woods, collecting firewood and making campfires, learning to walk to school unaccompanied, learning to sit still and singing songs.

However the school he is in does teach reading/writing earlier than public schools and there are now higher levels of local parents putting their kids in the school because they don't feel they are challenged enough by the KG and are bored.

As others have pointed out there are many misconceptions on here. I went to school in the 70's at 4 and 3 months so it's not really getting that much earlier
Friends DC in Paris start at 2.5 at FT maternelle and do have formal learning.
I think there is a bit of 'grass is greener' without understanding they just call it different things.

TalkinPeace

I think England should have a system of staggered starts through the year, according to birthday. I don't mean a system of "if you're pushy confident and middle-class enough, you can wrangle something make individual arrangements with the Head". I mean that it should be set up so that people with August babies can have them start in a January, as an automatic option.

Queentilly
what if, like me, you have a late august baby who was more than ready to start school at 4 years and 1 week ....

also, with kids starting randomly right through the year, how on EARTH do teachers ensure that stuff is not duplicated / missed?

what if a childs birthday is in the last week of the summer term? do they do 4 days - arriving half way through play rehearsals - and then take 6 weeks off?

sorry but staggered entry is a BAD idea
and one child will always be the youngest / oldest in the year

suck it up frankly

if you don't want your kid to do year R that is your choice
but do not stop the rest of us having that option

School entrance used to be staggered, I think, when my grandparents were starting school in the mid 40's.

This thread has been really interesting to read.

TalkinPeace

That would be why I said "as an automatic option" as opposed to saying " it should be compulsory to ban four-year-olds from going within 50metres of a school RAH, RAH" , I expect.

I didn't say randomly. I said there should be staggered starts. I'm thinking that three join-points, maybe two, should sort it.

And while I'm about it, I'd like other people to stop falling out of their tree when other people's children don't do year R, and I'd like the school place issue sorted. The one that means that parents need to choose between doing year R or not having a chance at sending their child to the nearest school.

I think it's important to recognise that learning through play / experiential learning shouldn't mean not learning at all or preventing a child who is keen from learning to read and write, for example.

Also, if the education system were different, a child who hadn't started school at 6 wouldn't be bored - because their peers wouldn't be going either, there would be a kindergarten type option for part of the day, etc etc. DS wasn't bored being Home Ed because we were always out at home ed groups, sports, music, play dates...he would have been bored if he had been at home all day every day but then I expect a much younger child would be bored and under-stimulated by that too.

Talkinpeace, I believe that in Scotland (where school starting age is later anyway), parents of the youngest quarter of the year have the option of delaying their school start until the following year but are not obliged to delay...maybe that would be a better system in England and Wales?

Queentilly
I'd like the school place issue sorted. The one that means that parents need to choose between doing year R or not having a chance at sending their child to the nearest school.
where will the funding to keep these classroms empty come from?

Schools get funded by number on roll
if they start the year with 10 kids they only get funded for 1/3 of a teacher

if you want teeny classes, the taxpayer cannot afford it

My nephews were 4 on 30th August and started reception a week later.
They weren't due until the October and were almost 8 weeks prem so technically they weren't ready.
Neither could hardly talk and struggled for a while.
Strangely though there was a little girl in their class born on 31st August so was the youngest in the class but was seemingly also the brightest.
I think it's too young.
My dd is 4 in February and this time next year will be in primary school:(

When I started school it was a staggered start. People seemed to join every week. They were mixed age classes too, I know there were children in my class when I started who were in the class above for the rest of my school career. However Autumn birthdays tended to get 3 years in reception whereas summer borns tended towards only just 2 years.
I got 2 years and 1 term because my pushy Mum fought for it.

In my school we learnt "supposedly" by phonics (ITA) but I learnt to read by Look/Say which is the new method my cousins used. Oh and I was one of the few people in my school to be a good reader by 7.

I was bored at home, because there were very few opportunities to do anything outside the home (very few nurseries or playgroups, and HE was pretty unheard of).

No. I want the shortage of school places dealt with. I would suggest dealing with it by building new schools or making the developers presently building several thousand houses up the road build more schools.

YANBU - my 4.3 year old dd2 starts school in a couple of days and she is nowhere near ready, I'm dreading it!

My daughter turned 4 on the 21 August and started school the first week of that September.

I thought she was tiny but she's 7 now and loves school!

My DS is the youngest in his year (now year 2) with an august birthday so he had just turned 4 when he stared school.

He had been at nursery from 9 months though the different rooms - baby, toddler and pre school. He was so bored of preschool by the time he was 3.5 and no matter how many extra things they did or I did with him he just loves the structure and the learning.

He's also an only child so I think being around all those kids really appealed to him.

However all kids are different.

I think education at that age is necessary. Sadly a great number of people don't take care of their children and school is a great way to monitor them, make sure they are fed, educated and looked after.

I'm in Scotland - I was lucky enough to be able to work my plan of timing the kids so they'd be older when they started school. At the DCs school though basically every kid who has a birthday Dec-Feb is held back a year by their parents.

I've heard people say Reception is more play oriented that Scottish P1 but my DNephew was in Reception when DC1 was in P1 and they seemed to be doing just the same stuff.

My DCs were still peeing on the floor at least once a week aged 4.

I was staggered entry (aug birthd).
And dont agree with it. It would just improve the chances even more for the 1st term borns. They would have learnt lots by xmas and april.

I planned my child to be born jan. Except for infertility and she was born in june. For DC2 i planned oct but no baby as yet, nor pg either.

But if i had got the choice i would give them the best chance with a sep/oct/nov birthday, so they are the biggest and oldest in the year.

Maybe you should be allowed to delay them to the yr below if they are born in the summer.
As they get fewer free 15 hours a week/ time in nursery or at home with mum.

I think possibly it would make more sense to start everyone at 5 to save money/school space
But also reduce class size. I think 20 would make more sense. The countries with better academic results are their classes smaller.
Also could you compare them to private schools (smaller classes , engaged parents).
Possibly its the nature of our schools inclusivly taking all kids that lowers the results.

Some of the countries that do best in Pisa tests have big class sizes, eg. Korea.

You can keep a child below statutory school age in nursery and delay their Reception start. Until they start reception they are still eligible for their 15 hours. But if you delay by a full year, they lose their school place and you'd have to make an in-year application for Year 1, a problem with school places in some areas and also the child misses the more play-based reception year.

If a child attends part time, school still receive full funding for their place.

In the area the OP mentioned - some south Wales valleys - there's high unemployment amongst adults and high levels of low educational achievement amongst adults and children so starting school at 3 is thought to help both. At least, that's the argument. It still feels young to me.

Sadly a great number of people don't take care of their children and school is a great way to monitor them, make sure they are fed, educated and looked after.

What changes the September after a child is 4, that they suddenly need monitoring whereas they didn't before? There are also plenty of neglected, abused and undernourished children who do attend school, very sadly.

Korean parents fork over lots of money for small classes after school, intensive individual tutoring, etc.

I don't think reception class can be classed as formal education, it's still very much learning through play based, I think it's just to get children used to school. It's not until year one that more structured learning starts.

I do agree with staged intakes instead of everyone starting at once. I also think that those countries topping the tables have a different attitude towards learning and school in general which in my opinion counts for a lot more than class sizes and starting age