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

Each child is different. I do not think it should be a legal requirement until the age of 6.

My DS1 will be 4½ when he starts school in September and I am happy for him to go :)

My DD is ready but my friends DD who was prem and still like a little doll is not (same age). Another mum I know has a very bright child who will be 4 in sept but won't start for another year even though more than ready to start now. Works both ways. Her child should be allowed to start school this sept not be bored in nursery for a year first.

I think the formal teaching starts too soon, i would like to see reception and year 1 being almost entirely play based. i think I am in the minority though

I agree with the OP.

We're just about to move from Scotland to England and, when we were trying to get school placed we discovered that my daughter (who turns 5 on Aug 31st this year) was going to be forced to skip a year. Up until the summer hols, sye was in nursery for four mornings a week and was due to start school this Aug. We were told she would skip Reception and start in Yr1 - we were lucky that the school we chose and the local authority were happy to let her start in Reception once we explained the situation.

There is no way she would have been ready for school in August last year.

Our younger son will skip a year as well (he should be starting P3/Y2 but instead will go into Y3) as he has a July birthday. My older son will stay with his peers as he has a September birthday.

Ah ok i read about the deferrment i should rtft i think our nursery system here is a bit like year R . If we defer scottish children can do p1 and be 6 when they go into p2 i should have deferred as it makes a huge difference later on in school

The Cambridge review didn't conclude that the school starting age should be raised to 6 IIRC. It suggested there should be a discussion about it, but that the discussion would be unnecessary as raising the starting age would make little difference.

It's recommendation was that EYFS principles should be extended to year 1 but that would still have included some formal teaching of literacy and numeracy.

Snowgo I am so glad I could avoid that for my daughter and sorry for your experience. The school told me she was going to have to start on reading readyness books, they didn't even have words!

At her playgroup a teacher came from the local school that wasn't our catchment area and happened to hear her reading a library book to her friends. At first she thought it was a book she knew off by heart, as kids do with their favourites, but when I explained she had never seen it before she said I must be careful when she started school as it could cause problems. Seems ridiculous doesn't it? Even when she started school in year 4 she dreaded literacy and said it put her off books and yes she got told off for reading in playtime/lunchtime.

So essentially, as I posted upthread, the review recommendations were in line with:

"children don't start too early BUT that there is, in many schools, too rapid a 'progression' from play-based child-led free-flow [Reception] to formal learning [Year 1]"

I'd be in agreement with that. I do think that deferring the starting age would especially disadvantage children who are already disadvantaged - children from deprived areas or communities with low levels of adult numeracy / literacy, who do not always attend any form of setting before school and are well behind more privileged peers even when they arrive at school at rising 5.

"for most children (and especially those from disadvantaged backgrounds) earlier school starting ages tend to be worse than systems with later starting ages."

i would argue the reverse - that because children from disadvantaged backgrounds fall behind from the very earliest ages, due to lack of exposure to speech, books, adult interaction, toys, they actually benefit the most from being in good quality EYFS setting such as Reception the most, and from the earliest ages.

Would you, as a teacher, prefer to have a child who is non-verbal becuase they have never been spoken to from the age of 4 (when there is more time to make up the deficit) or from the age of 6? Nothing in that child's home environment is going to change in the 2 years they are waiting to start school to accelerate the development of speech...

It took me ages to understand (via Mumsnet) that deferring in England just means missing out on Reception - which to me seems illogical, as the deferred kids would be at even more of a disadvantage

In Scotland, deferring means exactly that - winter born kids can genuinely start school a year later and end up being the oldest in their year rather than the youngest.

We often talk of P1 being equivalent to Reception - but it's not quite as simple as that. Both systems have 13 years of "formal" education: P1-P7 and S1-S6 in Scotland, and Y1-Y13 in England. So if you count Reception in England, then that's an "additional" year.

As MrsJayy said, Reception is probably best thought of as most similar to the Nursery year in Scotland.

DS was going into P1 (Scotland) at 4 and a half, the nursery teacher said he was ready academically but not emotionally, so he started at 5 and a half and I'm so grateful for that teacher

My DD wasn't really ready for year R and settling in took a long time despite her enthusiasm.

My DS attended full time nursery year plus wrap around care from the term after he was 3, and he was more than ready for it and absolutely flew. He's just finished R and is very ready for the more structured setting of Y1 whereas I think some of his peers may struggle.

Has anyone seen this Ken Robinson talk on Ted Talks?
He has some interesting points to make not necessarily about when they should start school- but also what school should offer to engage the children that enter into the school system. And I think the biggest resistance to children starting school early is that they wont engage.
Many of his talks these days are American based as that is where he now lives, but he did narrate this video which I think is interesting
www.ted.com/talks/ken_robinson_changing_education_paradigms#

I do think though that it economically impossible to put his good ideas into practice..

Depends on the child. My dsis dd was ready at age 4 (in fact past ready). Her ds wasnt. Each child is different.

The evidence into synthetic phonics doesn't show anything even close to it being better to start at 6/7 rather than 5. I think you've misunderstood it.

What it suggests is that almost all children are capable being able to read at an age appropriate level by 6. Not that you should start at 6. That's backed up by the number of schools getting all of their children reading by the end of year 1. Many of those schools are in deprived areas with high levels of EAL.

Welsh do you think that nursery FT prepared him for school or that the two of them are just different?

I do think it's too young. My two who have been to school so far are both Autumn birthdays and really struggled with tiredness. I got the worst of them at home and I believe it interferes with their develop as they are too tired to play and learn effectively. All the evidence from research shows that early academic training is counterproductive. That's not to say that we stop a child from learning but that we should allow a pace of learning that is right for that child. Emotionally, I think four is far too young. They need to be with their main caregiver and to build other social relationships from that place of safety.

In Wales the EYFS extends through years 1 and 2 - so play based in theory although it does depend on the school's interpretation.

My dd's Reception year has been less play based than I would like. She is quite academic and fortunately for her enjoys the formal work so far. She tells me that her friends hate the work though and I know a friend's little girl has got quite stressed about it.

I live in a country where the school start age is 6- so adjusted for age ds1 went at 6.5 and ds2 at 6.8. Things change so much when they start school. I'm really happy that we had those 'extra' years of no stress.

Its not as play based as it should be. Pre-school/nursery setting extended until year 1/2 would be ideal. I agree with the previous poster who said how beneficial it is for more disadvantaged children to be somewhere where they are spoken to, listened to, sang with etc but it's not all play. Too much too young. And yes, there are targets and gratings from day 1.
I wonder how many of the people saying how play based reception is are teachers?

I'm in Scotland and defered my daughter who was born on 29 of February because she just wasn't ready and her nursery key worker agreed, she is one of the oldest in her class and doind well in school. Also know of someone in Scotland with a July child who has defered until age 6 due to special needs.

I don't think it's too young to be in school, but I do think the curriculum is too formal in Reception and Year 1.

Writing in particular causes so much angst for little 4 and 5 year olds who just don't have the motor skills for it, I think it would be so much more sensible to leave it a year.

Reception should just be play focussing on communication/language, physical development and personal/social skills. Still play based but with more literacy and numeracy in Year 1. Formal school in year 2.

"I think whether a child is ready or not is more often a reflection of whether the parent is ready rather than the child."

IME that's absolute rubbish.

My daughter started at 4, rising 5 and was more than ready. She's excelled at everything, is considered G&T and hasn't struggled with the emotional / social side at all.

My son is an August baby, so he's still 3, but would be expected to start in September just a couple of weeks after he turns 4. He's not ready. Not even close to ready. Nothing to do with me not being ready, I'd dying for him to be at school so I can resurrect my career. But he's not ready, school would crush him. Settling him at preschool was horrific and he's even now, a year in, barely settled. So I've deferred him. It was a long and drawn-out affair, but eventually my local council agreed that he wasn't ready nad it was in the best interests of both him and the school for him to start Reception in Sept 2016, just after he turns 5. He is ?ASD and reacts very poorly to change and most social situations, but that's not why I'm delaying his start, I'm doing it because he's too damn young.