To ask do you think children start school too young in England?

[Tangerineandturquoise]

I know there will be differences, some children seem too young even by the end of Year R, others including a couple of young relatives I have are chomping at the bit to get started.
Scotland start at P1, so most skip starting at the age of reception, but then I have just seen this www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/05/7940/4 which is similar to the American system for starting Kindergarten (which is our year 1) and it can be deferred, which for some reason they call red shirting in the USA but it seems some parents in Scotland can also defer entry, I know technically you can defer in England but you do seem to be expected to jump through many many hoops..
Most of the continent start later for formal schooling-and are still quite play based when they start.
We tend to start at 4 (with some lucky children very nearly five) with full days quite quickly.

Sorry it is a rambled post

Yes I do. DD3 is summer birthday as is her English cousin. He will start school a full year earlier than her. They will both leave school at the same age. She could actually leave a year earlier if she gets tertiary education qualifications at the age of 17 which would be fairly normal. I do not see what the benefit of all this extra formal schooling to her cousin will be.

In Scotland school entry cut off is age 4 by end of February preceding school entry. Parents of DC born in January and February are always given option to defer and a few in March and April go early. Even the youngest standard entry will be 4.5 at start of school. That said our preschool nursery year follows a curriculum very similar to reception but is only half days.

Both of my DC are winter born, just either side of Christmas and they were both more than ready to start school. I think they had totally outgrown preschool and would have been bored of another two years of more of the same.

DD in particular was more than ready for school when she just turned 4 and had to wait until she was 4.7 and was champing at the bit.

I realise it's different for different children but I think it's too much of a generalisation to say that the starting age is too young, it's definitely isn't for lots of children.

Yes, dd's birthday is August 28th and she just wouldn't have coped, since we live in Scotland she stared a year later and was fine.

I'm confused about the whole education system in England in general. DS will go to school age 4 (summer baby) if I have understood correctly? And then the first 1-2 years will be more play based rather than trying to achieve targets? I guess I'll find out. I do think if we're talking about school as in sitting down and learning numbers and dates and figures for 6-8 hours a day then 4 years is way too young. But if it's school as in learning to function in a group and learning soft skills like teamwork, sharing etc then I think it's a good age. The only downside is that at 4-5 years the differences between childrens abilities are bigger where as 6-7 years they'll be less so.

I think it's fine. DS1 is summer born and I really worried he wouldn't last the day but he was fine. Lots of play etc, he was just tired when he got home.

That said if i had my time again I would avoid trying to have a summer born baby, as I did feel it was a game of catch up all the time academically.

From personal experience Yabu. Dd is the youngest in her year and was absolutely reading to start. Ds was born mid year and is ready. He starts in September.

Some kids will always not be quite ready. Even if they start at 7. Some kids are ready earlier. No system will meet all kids needs.

If you feel yours are not ready keep them out until they are 5 or home school for the first few years if needed.

Too early. They would benefit from more free play for longer. This is the Nordic way and they trounce us in PISA rankings for academic skills at age 15. Most countries start later and do better. Let 'em play (and by play I don't mean circulate through a 'learning through play' environment in Reception).

If you don't think yours are ready at four don't send them, you don't have to.

For some that are saying that there is less play-based, free-flow and more formal learning in other countries are forgetting a crucial factor. Those countries start real formal learning at a much later age. My son will start formal learning when his UK peers will already be taking Year 2 SATS. So although he has a much more structured day and no active free-flow he will also be well adjusted to structure by the time his formal learning starts and he will be far older than his UK peers.

We live in the U.S. where my younger 2 started school at 5 in Kindergarten. My elder 2 both started in the UK at 4. Both systems have their positives and negatives. My youngest child would have really struggled with Receptionas did DC1, whereas keeping DC3 entertained was a full time job in itself as they were soooo ready for school at 4.

There were 30 kids (iirc) in the Reception classes. There were less than 20 in Kindergarten. There has never been more than 20 children in any of my children's Elementary school classes. 30 is just too many 4/5 year olds imo.

Re holding your child back. This is something I find very frustrating as a lot of people here use that system to their competitive advantage. Hold your child back and they are bigger and have a better knowledge and understanding than their younger classmates. This gives them a running start in our very competitive school district. The people who suffer are the youngest classmates who are in the right class for their age. They seem very young compared to kids 18 months older than them and are in a race to catch up from Day 1. I would be very pleased to see a complete overhaul of that system.

depends on the child and what they are used to.

Min were/are in full time nursery from a couple of months old. They started/will start full time school (in a nursery class obviously but still full days in normal infant school setting) at 2 years 9 months. Reception was just like moving up another year for them, no issue at all.

I know other children who were at home with their mums until starting school with just one or two mornings of nursery a week from 3-4. For them school was a huge deal and they weren't all ready. I'm thinking of a couple of very young for the year boys in particular.

There should be felxibility

It isn't that simple,Suefla62-they may well lose their place.

It needs flexibility-some are and some are not.

"I think rising 4 is far too young."

They start at rising 5, not rising 4. I think Spartans has hit the nail on the head. Some children are ready at 4 and some aren't.

Always reception is not very formal and is play based rather than straightforward learning.

I think it's what they are doing not the setting they are doing it in. So as long as the younger ones are doing play stuff that's OK.

Observations from my personal experience:

Some children who have only just turned 4 when they start school - that does seem very young. Yes some are "grown up" some aren't, some are still having naps and things. Some are not 100% toilet trained (accidents happen quite a bit with reception children it seems) and the uniforms can be very difficult for them if they are "traditional" ones. The little ones seem to struggle with top buttons especially anyway at our school they stopped changing them into different clothes for PE and they just changed their shoes otherwise it was taking too long.

I don't know really. No system is perfect I guess.

I have both summer children and one has always been "grown up" so no problems with the lessons and stuff, although she did get pushed around a bit by the older girls who I guess had more emotional maturity. The other one had speech issues and so has needed quite a bit of support anyway.

"Most countries start later and do better."

Could you cite definite evidence of this, based NOT on 'age of entering the building called school', but on 'age of starting instruction in reading, writing and maths'?

The point is that many countries have later ages of 'entering a building called school', but similar, or in many cases earlier 'ages of starting instruction in reading, writing and maths'.

France, for example, appears to have a much later 'school starting age', but in fact has an earlier age for starting formal instruction.

Out of interest, the keep them out til they're 5 thing, where do they go to school then? The schools are all full aren't they, once they've done their intake? So in practice, if you don't send them at the "normal time" you are going to end up with no school place or one that is in another borough or something.

Maybe it depends on area, whether this is a practical genuine option, rather than a theoretical one IYSWIM.

That is a risk you take Whirlpool. Most primary schools fill up at reception, and unless someone leaves, there is no space in year 1 for new starters.

whirl you can start them in reception. You are differing them. If places are available they can also start in year 1.

Some LEAs done like them starting in reception after suffering but it's down to the parents choice.

It's no different to applying normally. Any school may not have places for you when you apply. Many children don't get their parents preferred school. Even if applying for them to start reception. You would need to apply for several schools

Well it's not a risk I'll take because mine are already in school

Them going into recep makes more sense. But I can see the school might not like it.

Tricky isn't it.

"which for some reason they call red shirting in the USA"

It's a term borrowed from sports, where a kid is allowed to play with the group below them in age, but wears a red shirt (I guess).

I don't believe they start too young in England.
I do believe that redshirting is a bad thing except in exceptional circumstances (premature birth or significant relevant SN).
Play-based until end of yr2 would be my preference.

DS is an emotionally immature summer-born, he'd be emotionally behind the kids in the yr below, too, though.

Spartans waiting lists here are very long so think you'd have more chance with "fresh" reception intake, if you're very nearby, or you're the "right" religion & etc, than going on waiting list where as far as I'm aware there is just a list so they'd go to the end even if you were next door / worshipping at the "right" venue & etc.

So that makes miles more sense.

Yes, far too early in my opinion.

Many European countries start at 7, and they're achievements and level of education is much higher than ours.

If the UK had their way, they'd get kids in school much much earlier than 4-5, so the mums can get back to work paying taxes.

You can home school until you think they're ready. Your children, your decision.

No, I think it is fine. Mine One boy, one girl) just got on with it - despite the fact they had only done mornings at nursery for the year before they went to school and the rest of the time at home with me.

But they were very strong healthy independent kids who thrived on school and were definitely ready for it by the time they went.

I always feel a bit on these threads, like, amothers, you say that, do you mean to imply that children who are not ready for school at 4 are not strong, not healthy, not independent & etc?

Or, is that not how it's meant?

I just read that and I think, a few people on the thread have said theirs weren't ready, is that sort of comment directed at them? Or their children, rather?

Like upthread someone said if a child isn't ready it's the fault of the parents.

I always wonder with posts like that, do you intend to say other people's children are a bit crap, or have you not thought about how it comes across, or that's your view and so what, sort of thing?

Not just you obviously I read that sort of thing a lot and I've always wondered the intention. Or is it just to try and get a rise out of some of the other parents, to get a bit of, I don't know what to call it, excitement into the thread?