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

My two eldest started just before 5 and seemed fine, next one was very bright and reading fluently at 4, she was reading things like Famous Five and Secret Seven, we went to see school and they said she would have to do all the learning to read steps like everyone else. I understand everything can't be individual but reading is something I think they can do at their own pace.

I talked to a couple of experienced teachers I knew, both said generally they didn't agree with home education but both said they thought reception would drive daughter mad if the school weren't prepared to make allowances.

We kept her at home till year 4, it worked out really well. It was best for her.

Child 4 wasn't ready for school at 4/5 so he stayed at home till year 3. He started year not reading much, not writing much, reasonable at numbers. By the end of the year he was on top table. Worked for him.

I suppose what I mean is they are all different, just like the rest of us.

We're in Scotland & deferred DS as he was 3 months premature & had ongoing health/development issues related to that. He was a December birthday & we had to go through a process to defer him (unlike the January/February birthdays which are automatically allowed).

Unfortunately many competitive parents defer here, which is unfair; it should not be based on parental choice but on professional opinion (ie some kind of nursery/school assessment) & on extenuating circumstances.

We had very clear evidence re: DS & he really benefitted from holding back. I firmly believe that it will also have benefits in years to come, in terms of maturity for exams, university etc.

When I read threads about children in England starting reception when they're not ready, I'm very grateful we have a choice & flexible system in Scotland.

Yes, far too young IMO.

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

Carrie, that is simply not true. The 'building called school' may not start until 7, but formal instructiojn starts much earlier, in the previous setting, whatever it is called.

It is as if we called Reception / KS1 'not school' and KS2 'school', but kept the learning done in each the same - in much of Europe, that is exactly what happens BUT they may not be play based even as old as 4/5 as we have in Reception.

I'm in Ireland. Here the parent decided when they start.

Dd1 was 5.25, Dd2 was 5.5. Both are among the oldest in their class, but there are a few older. Both have children who are almost or more than a year younger than them.
Both of mine have thrived, but had some problems initially. They would have struggled if a year younger.

I am delighted my girls will be 13 starting secondary, and 18 starting college. That extra bit of maturity should stand to them.

I'm glad the parents here gets to decide which age will best suit each of their children.

One of the most intriguing statistics from international comparisons is the lack of relationship between hours in the classroom and educational achievement.
Finland, a global superstar in education terms, is consistently among the top performers. But it is also at the very bottom of the league in terms of the hours spent in the classroom.
Finnish pupils start formal education at seven and then enjoy 11-week summer holidays - and they end up with the highest educational standards in Europe.

As someone said up thread - children who have already been in childcare fro 6months or earlier may seem more 'initially ready for school' at 4 than children who have been at home up to that point.

So the latter group of parents may defer entry even further, if given the chance - but that doesn't make those children 'readier', as sometimes the lack of readiness was simply due to the lack of 'institutional exposure' IYSWIM?

The children who seem 'readiest for school as an institution' at the point of entry (often due to early childcare experiences) may actually not be those who 'make the best progress in the early part of school once settled' - so choosing an arbitrary and equal age for both does seem sensible.

I don't know. I've got 2 girls, dd1 is May and dd2 July. Dd1 coped fine with the social/emotional side of things but was completely unready to learn until the end of y2. At which point she shot through the reading levels and suddenly found herself in the top maths group. Teachers were shocked as they'd written her off.

Dd2, on the other hand, has done the reading/writing/maths at a steady pace but cannot hack the physical/emotional side. School exhausts her. By the end of any term she is sleeping 12 hours/night and more on weekends.

I think they both would have benefited from starting a year later and part time! I don't think that anything essential happens in reception--they can learn to sit quietly and line up in y1 just as well.

Sauvignon that's interesting, so competitive parents defer so their children will be older and thus at an advantage to their peers throughout school and into university? I can see that happening here very easily if it were an option!

Do universities in Scotland take age into account when looking at intake I wonder. Obviously they can go to university anyway but with the fees being as they are & etc i expect a lot of their intake is from scotland.

I think that it should be easier to defer your child for a year and as a parent decide if they are ready

DS (5) loved learning with a passion before school, but it didn't include, eg sitting repeatedly writing letters. He has just started enjoying learning to read after nearly being put off this year by having to read before ready. This is despite previously having had a lot of fun with language. I think that making a system work for all/most is a bit easier as they get older.

I think I have a different idea of what being ready for school means. To me it is much more than not crying at the door. DS loves going to school and particularly loves the company. However I have no doubt in my mind that the balance in his life has been completely wrong over the last year (reception). 5 days a week he gets home knackered. Family life is limited to a bit of tired after school time and 2 days a week. Added to that, I think 6+ hours a day where as one of 30 children does not meet the emotional needs of a typical 4/5 year old.

Re education, until children are old enough to be taught lessons as a whole class, they get very little adult attention in a class room. I'm not sure therefore why entire days based in a classroom/playground would be preferential to a balance in favour of more time at home/experiencing the real world.

I very much agree with teacherwith2kids - being "socialized to an institutional setting" is not at all the same thing as being "ready to learn". It is so very hard to judge DC aged 3/4 that it is probably wisest to keep to the same age for starting school for all DC but with a flexible attitude to the skills DC need to acquire, and in what order and in which timeframe, in the first year or so.

teacherwith2kids This article here is interesting, as it shows the compulsory ages for school across Europe, and how much better other countries do than the UK.

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7234578.stm

Carrie, what % of Finnish children are excluded from the ISA statistics due to having Special Educational Needs (often self-defined by the countries as 'those with low attainment')?

PISA methodology allows up to 10% of students to simply be 'removed' from the statistics - and as we all know, there is the scandal of China selecting only one of two high performing cities that have residence / schooling laws that exclude low-performing children.

Finland MAY have excellent educational standards (it has a phonically simple language, and is both racially and socially homogenous, both factors that contribute to successful statistics in this area), but using the PISA studies as the sole evidence for this is fundamentally flawed.

I don't think so. I think that the formal setting is much, much better for kids who would otherwise be at home and not getting any sort of attention, and not harmful to others. Also as others have said a lot of play goes on in reception.

whirl not always. some children don't get into schools even though they live within a couple of hundred meters.

Either way, it's difficult to get in.

Carrie,

VBut that article, as your posts do, asks the wrong question.

The question is not 'when do children enter the building called school?'.

It should be 'when does instruction in reading, writing and maths start?'

As an example, Denmark as a later 'school entry point'. But IME some years ago, a child not in childcare at a year is VERY unusual, and not in state nursery full time by 3 equally so. The latter includes instruction in reading, writing and maths.....

We're in Switzerland. DCs now start at the same age as in UK but only attend 4 mornings and 1 afternoon a week. That gradually increases as they move up a year, but all kids come home for approx 2 hours for lunch, right through their school life. I do think that the UK school day is long for young DCs.

Spartans yes I live in one of those areas! Religion is the be all and end all for most primary schools around here, it a notoriously difficult borough. You're still going to be better off while you're in with a chance of doing the religion / moving house / jumping through whatever hoops it is for normal intake though because once it's a list, then you're stuck.

In this area anyway I'd think trying to get a place in year 1 via waiting list would be very tricky indeed. So it's good what a PP said about them being able to start in reception.

Bretzel I understand the German schoolday for younger DC is much shorter for much longer as well.

EYFthingy has phonics and stuff on it doesn't it? I'm sure mine were started on numbers and letters at preschool.

Many countries that start at 6 also have kindergarten beforehand. I don't think it's too young to be socialised, to play with other children, meet and trust other adults and work out how they do things. But it's way too early to be sitting still for hours, doing literacy and phonics. they should be just painting, playing with sand and water and dressing up, having stories read to them. We'd have far fewer incidences of dyslexia if children weren't shoved to learn to read before their brains are capable.

Yes to early and yet study after study shows it is detrimental to start formal schooling early

Exactly EYFthingy has phonics and stuff - but so do the programmes of study for 4-5 year olds in many European countries with supposedly 'later starting ages' ... it just happens in a building 'not called school'.

Can you give links to 2 studies that show it's detrimental, IvyK?

They need to be studies that show that it's detrimental for everyone to start so early, not just for the youngest 20%.

I can easily find studies for everywhere that show the youngest 20% are at disadvantage whether they start at 3 or 10.