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?

Not allowing the child to learn to read is what was said though. Not not formally teaching them but both are very different things!

DS is far from in the minority in having an interest in words at this age.

Bruffin, I think I did not explain myself correctly. I was not comparing them, but the levels that the school expected them be on in reading and arithmetic were roughly the same levels.

So what I am saying really is what ds learned in three years, dd learned in one.

My youngest son went straight from nursery in Norway to a Y2 class in the UK. He spoke rudimentary English. He spent Y2 catching up, and by the middle of year 3 he had caught up, and started racing ahead in Y4. He missed out on reception, and Year 1, and was not disadvantaged in any way.

I think the nursery in Norway had prepared him very well. Rather hours of outdoors activities, skiing, trips to the beach, foraging for berries, cooking, and painting and free play, than reception and Y1.

I think the reason why children start school so early here is that it is a free alternative to the extortionate and mostly very poor nursery provision in the UK.

If you account for confounding factors that are known to cause variations in academic attainment, then the case for starting later isn't very strong. In fact if you look at similar groups of children across countries, there is some evidence that those that start later might do worse academically than similar children in countries that start earlier.

The UK has a very different social make up to some of the countries being talked about here. Which is why adopting their systems might work well for the children of MNers but won't really work for anyone else.

thebody that might be the way your school's reception class works, but it certainly isn't my experience. It is very still play based learning with some literacy and numeracy.

Most 4 year olds have some interest but not the ability to learn to read.

Really? I find that somewhat surprising.

I think it is probably a historical decision that has never been changed. However, the age seems to be creeping down - although children don't legally have to be in school (or education) until the term after their fifth birthday, most start at four. My two are both winter babies, which is probably just as well as they will be a bit older when they start.

I presume that in countries where they don't start until six or seven they are in some form of nursery/kindergarten before then - some people say that Reception is not much different from that. I'm not sure how much that is the case though. Certainly it's a big change when they get to Year 1, which would still be pre-school age in some countries.

Rosa, the problem however with the Italian system is that the children finish school so late (have to stay until they are 18/19) and when/if they do a degree (which they can take their sweet time over) they are woefully behind English peers who are ready to start work at 21. A friend is a teacher and he says it is nigh on impossible to teach a class of 18 year old adults who are forced to stay in school until then and who don't want to be there. Discipline is awful he says.

Bear in mind that, at least south of Rome, school finishes at 1pm and children have to go to school on Saturday mornings. So working parents have to rope in grandparents to look after children (so mostly spending the afternoon in front of the tv - my MIL looks after my niece and is not active enough to offer any outside activity) and the children also get hours of homework each day that the parent is expected to do. Effectively the parents have to carry on teaching the child because school finishes at lunchtime. Saturday school means no weekend trips away, and apart from the long summer break (end June - middle September) holidays during the rest of the year are short. Learning by rote is also popular rather than being encouraged to think outside the box. My teacher friend is full of admiration for the English system.

My oldest did reception in the uk (and Y1), and I was relieved for his sake when we left the UK as he got into trouble all the time for not being able to sit still. He was 4! I was so happy our youngest, who was all over the place like a duracell rabbit on speed did not have to endure that, but was placed in a more nurturing child friendly environment. The Norwegian nursery focused on team work, behaviour, friendships, social skills, empathy, play, learning letters and numbers, sharing stories, and outdoors fun.

You need 3 years of early years teacher training after A levels to work in a nursery (unless you join as an assistant - but the ratio of teachers and assistants are set, and dependent on amount of kids in the setting - usually 1 teacher per 3 children), and it is a well respected profession. Most people working in my sons old nursery were in their 30s, mums or dads themselves, and with a passion for early years learning and child development.

We can argue about individual children until the cows come home and of course each child is an individual but the facts and research are there.

Kids starting formal education later do as good or better than the UK and according to the WHO our children are amongst GGE most stressed and unhappy in the civilised world.

Are we seriously smug about that.

Our way is not the best way. We need to look abroad and face facts.

quint exactly. Just can't understand why British people defend our ridiculous system when the facts and research condem it. Totally bizarre.

I agree with thebody and quint. It's inextricably linked with childcare (to state the obvious) so I can appreciate its widespread support, but what I don't understand is that it's mandatory.

The social inequality in the UK is different to other countries mentioned. This has to be taken into account when looking at stats on happiness. Not just school age.

True.

And one way to make the population more equal (should the goverment want to) would be to subsidize nursery fees to the point that all could afford it. This would give all children a more equal and a good start in life, and more people would be able to seek employment and earn a living.

We paid just £240 per month for a full time nursery place (7.30 to 5), with a healthy freshly made meal and a snack included. 50% sibling discount. In London we paid £760 per month for two children, 3 days per week more than 6 years ago. I dread to think what a full time nursery place cost for two kids now.

The 3 hours per day for 3 year olds is pitiable.

I think school starting age and UK early years education comes very, very far down the list of stuff that affects happiness in children.

Correlation is not causation.

surzy Can I please correct murphys mistake where she states that "in the Waldorf schools reading is not allowed".

Reading is not taught, but if children want to learn to read then they can do so by themelves, at home or elsewhere. Those children that have learned to read prior to the age of 6/7 are welcome to show their skills to the class, e.g. reading the class register in the morning. Waldorf parents don't rush around covering their child's eyes on the off-chance they will see a printed word anywhere

Oriunda- do you live in Italy ? I do and as I stated there are problems ahead but I consider the system at the start better than the Uk.
You have made some wonderful sweeping statements and each provincia is different as are family circumstances. It is by no means obligatory to stay until 18 and the lasy few years the children are generally in a school for which they intend then to proceed career wise. We have concerns about the future of schooling but they have got off to a good start.

World Many thanks for clarifying, this is what I meant, but sometimes I thinking and typing brain aren't in sync...

Rafals obviously that isn't the single cause but we go need to look at the way we treat out children In the UK and stop being so bloody smug that we are right and these foreigners with their sloppy approach are wrong.

If you her a chance please go work in a year 1 class like I do and them you will see the immense pressure on teachers to hit targets and the subsequent pressure on the children to hit those targets.

It's wrong. Research shows it's counterproductive but as usual we just don't listen.

Why are our children so unhappy?

We need to look at everything and school is a huge part of children's life so of course it has a massive impact.

I don't believe that if children are in a stimulating environment which challenges them physically and mentally they will be yearning to be learning to read. There is a huge amount of early years education that doesn't require the child to be able to read or write, I would think a 6 year old who is sat watching tv all day or left with the same bunch of toys day in day out may well be desperate to learn to read but a 6 year old who is challenged and inspired by their teachers and allowed to have some control over the direction of their education will surely be happy. I have worked with quite a few children in their last years at nursery and I have not met one who is yearning to be doing worksheets and reading levels.

Another big difference between the early education in Sweden and the UK is how physically affectionate the teachers are, the children are often sitting on the teachers knee having cuddles, the classes are small, in my ds's nursery just 10 children with the same 1 or 2 teachers they have that teacher from the age of 3 until they leave at 6 or 7 so the bond they have is really strong.

I remember being in reception in the early 90s and there was a no cuddling or sitting on the teacher'a knee rule, a friend's little girl had the same experience recently, it just seems so mean to not give physical affection to tiny children :(

I'd like to see more flexibility in the system. My DD was born in September. She is much more at ease with the cohort in the academic year above her and her nursery staff have commented that she is "ready for school". She will be the oldest and probably tallest in reception when she gets there and does look out of place in nursery, both in terms of size and behaviour. I don't really care when she starts formal learning, but would like the opportunity for her to be with her 'natural cohort' developmentally. It's all a nonsense for the few days that separate children into year groups.

Pico2, I also think there should be more flexibility. Some summer born children might be better off being held back a year whereas some September borns could do well to start early.

However the cut-off is organised, some children will always be 11 months older than others. The summer born effect might be less pronounced if all children started school a bit later - Scotland does things differently so I think the youngest a school starter could be there is 4.5, rather than just 4 - although that is still quite young.

Quintessentially I don't particularly wish to go to work to pay more tax so that other people can look after my children at a reduced rate when I could look after them myself.

If poor parenting is holding some children back shouldn't we address that to make the population more equal rather than putting the emphasis on subsidised nurseries?

Here's a sample of 'Ingrained British madness':

St. Cedd's School, 'Reception Year, Presentation of Work Targets'
'In Reception to get a 'P' I must ensure:

1. I have formed my letters / numbers correctly.
2. My words sit on the line.
3. My letters and numbers are roughly the same size.' presentation of work... ???

St. Cedd's School 'Literacy in EYFS - Goals for the End of Reception'
Reading:
'To read and understand simple sentences
To use phonics to decode words
To read ‘tricky’ words'

Writing:
'To use their phonic knowledge to write words.
To write some ‘tricky’ words correctly.
To write simple sentences using phonics'

Phonics:
'We follow ‘Letters and Sounds’ brought in by the Department for
Education & Skills in 2007:
Children will learn the phonemes (sounds) for a number of letters
(graphemes).
They will also learn that some phonemes are made up of more than one
letter.
We use actions to help to remember the phonemes'.
We teach children how to say the sounds aloud and then merge together to make the whole word.
The merging is called blending, and is a vital skill for reading.
Eg: c-a-t = cat
Children will also learn to do this the other way round.
Eg: cat = c-a-t.
This is called segmenting, and is a vital skill for spelling.
Children are taught how to pronounce the sounds (phonemes) correctly
to make blending easier.
Sounds should be ‘soft’ sounds where possible.
Try to avoid saying ‘p-uh’, ‘c-uh’, ‘m-uh’ or‘cee’, ‘bee.

Tricky words:
Your child will also learn tricky words (High Frequency words); those that cannot be sounded out.
Eg: the, to, I, go, no
These are sent home weekly to learn for reading and then writing and
spelling.'

And it goes on and on, in considerable detail.
This does not look like 'play based learning' to me, I am afraid.

Mathanxiety - the list you wrote is completely true - of year 1 at DS school.

He 100 percent did not do this by reception but if you had told me this was written for year 1 at DS shook then that is correct down to a tea.

I suppose each school is individual too.

Coming soon to a school near you.

I think the trend is to test more, to hold schools publicly accountable for results by use of tables, and thus to force schools to toe the line and adhere strictly to the EYFS curriculum, with teachers and admin probably inclined to err on the side of covering their asses and making sure their students meet or exceed standards. This means more and more formal instruction and homework in areas that will be tested, and more demands placed on parents to support the work of schools in their precious free time.

When schools have the stick of conversion to academy status held at their backs there is a high degree of motivation to produce the desired results.

Because there is pressure from above I would expect to see more and more schools following the St. Cedd's approach as time goes on.