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

YABU

A reception class is nothing like school in other countries. The majority of children love reception and more than ready for a little bit of formal learning. Most reception classes are play based and children are not forced to sit down at tables with maths work sheets.

Its is a complete myth about children in Finland/ Sweden not starting school. Their children are in high quality nurseries having similar experiences to English children.

In England year 1 is a complete culture shock. It is the point that children really begin school.

Y1 is still a good year before other countries start formal compulsory education though - my DS, with an early February birthday, would have been 6 years and 7 months at compulsory school entry here in France.

Yea I do

DD1 is still 3 (August birthday) and will start school in Sep

Optional half days the year of reception would be a lot better, 4 is not too young but far too long for 9am - 3.30pm 5 days a week for some children.

My DD is not ready for half days at nursery every day yet at 3.3, she's not going as I was offered no option on going three afternoons a week. She will just attend gym, ballet, lingotots classes etc this year instead.

Flexibility to go part time or 3 days a week etc would be a lot more sensible. There is only one school in my city which offers flexi school, and it 's 45 mins a way from me so it's not a very good option.

Yeah I agree that half day would be good for the younger ones

Also more continuous provision in year 1

I think the half day would be great. Just think if they all did half a day you could have 15 with the teacher and TA instead of 30. Calmer environment would be good for the quieter ones.

I know the argument will be working mothers but school isn't meant to be childcare is it.

But isn't being fine different to needing school Sparklingbrook?

I think my son and most children who are fine would still benefit from less schooling and more free play and real life experiences in a family like environment (which could be parents or childcare).

I'd be kidding myself that my son didn't need something by the age of 4. We had a fantastic time at home but after a few years I struggled to keep up the jolly stimulating home environment! Without doubt he is happy to skip off into his classroom with his amazing Mary Poppins teacher.

I think preschool hours and set up were much more suited though, esp compared to the Y1 regime. DS built up to 3 half days, 1 long day so he got used to lunch with others. Nothing Weds. I think that would still be about right.

Isnt flourishing only meaningful as relative to the alternatives?

I get that there are other factors such as the need for childcare. But that doesn't need to be school. If we acknowledge the various factors separately then we could work out what we/children need.

I am not really familiar with the notion of 'needing' school TBH Bring. He was of an age to go and he went. It's hard to say whether they are ready or not til they have given it a go.

One child out of the class of 15 did mornings only for a while but I didn't fancy that for him.

This was all in 2003. I am now sat here wondering if he needs 6th Form.

I don't understand Sparklingbrook...you mean you sent him to school without reading about every alternative form of education in the country (world) and thinking about every aspect of child development and the national curriculum, boring your DH for hours about how we've got it all wrong?! I think you need to think long and hard about 6th form....

OMG. I have done it all wrong haven't I? I wasn't on MN then, I had to make all my own decisions until he was 12.

Looks like it all turned out ok though.

I deferred my son's school entry,. He was 5 years and 9 months when he started school.

Bringontheholidays I very much agree we should separate out the issues of academic education, stimulating physical environment and childcare. This applies way beyond early years imo.

I could send my DC1 to school in September at 4 yrs 3 months. Financially it would be great for us but I think socially and emotionally it would not be fair. So it will be at 5 yrs 3 months when DC1 starts. This is becoming more the norm from parents i have spoken to (in Ireland). Luckily I can choose this. And anyway one school I looked stated the child had to be 4 by May 31st so mine wouldn't have been able to attend til 5 yrs due to schools policy.

my own ds started school when he was 4yrs and 2 days old. Even though he was bright and lively I did worry about him being so young, his brother was a couple of weeks off being 5 when he started.

But reception is very much play based and he settled in well and had no trouble with either the emotional or the academic side of school.

However, as he has progressed through secondary school the emotional maturity between him and the oldest children in his year is much more evident. Now about to start yr10 (he will be 14 a couple days before the beginning of term) he appears less confident and much younger than the friends that will turn 15 in the first few weeks of term. It's only since he started secondary education that I have felt maybe he would have benefitted from starting primary a year later.

Do I don't think they start to young, although it will vary by child. My 3 1/2 year old won't start until next S.eptember, but I'm certain she'd be fine now, by next year she will be chomping at the bit and will have more than outgrown Nursery. I also don't really get the too long a day argument as when she does go it will be a much shorter day than she does in Nursery now.

I don't get how school days are too long either. Longer than what? Lots of kids go to nurseries or some sort of choldcare for longer than that before they start reception.

Ds spends more time than 9.00 to 3.15pm playing at home. We play, read, make an attempt at writing, paint etc.

Reception isn't full on school.

I do wonder if there is a difference between kids who have spent some time in childcare and those who haven't when it comes to this.

I am not saying you should put your kids in choldcare....just wondering if there is a difference.

I don't think it is some children not being ready for school so much as school not offering what they need. I think one teacher and possibly a ta in a class of 30 does not offer the level of support that some children (through age or having mild sen) need.

As many others have said, the reality is that reception and even Y1 in the UK are similar to kindergarten/preschool etc. in other countries. Not that much difference.

I think the difference bx the UK and countries where the mandatory age starts a bit later (which is most countries, to be honest) is that the inclusion of the 4-5yo in the schooling system results in a more gradual/incremental process.

UK kids officially "start school" at 4 and do a bit of academics from the start, but it is mostly play at that age, and then the academics/play ratio decreases veeeerrry gradually through the primary years. I am generalizing a bit, of course.

Even in the later years of primary school, British primary classrooms are still quite "kindergarten" looking to my eyes--students sitting round grouped tables or on the carpet, teachers walking around from group to group, lots of chatter, not many textbooks etc.

In Japan, where I live, by contrast, school doesn't start till 6 but when they start, they really do START SCHOOL and it is a very clear break from the early-years stuff. They have rows of two-seater desks facing the front, textbooks for every subject, whole-class instruction most of the time and so on (they do put tables in group for things like actual group work in Science class etc. etc., but it is not the default arrangement). To a lesser extent that tends to be true of most countries where kids "start later," I think. In France and Germany and even Finland, once kids start actually start "proper school" at 6 or even 7, they usually sit in rows and make extensive use of textbooks and whole-class teaching.

I suppose which way one prefers will depend on what one likes to see in the classroom.

Having gone to nursery and started school in Finland I can categorically tell you that there was no instruction in reading, writing or maths before the start of school at 6-7 (Cut off in beg. of January, so I was 6.11). I doubt that has changed. First year at school introduces you the alphabet. I learned to read fluently around the age of 8.

DS has started Y1 in Scotland at 4.10. He taught himself to read at 3, and is capable in maths, but still really struggles with the emotional/social side of school. I think he is both ready and not ready. I dread this year as Y2 is meant to be more firmal than Y1..

The argument that the long school day is shorter than nursery childcare doesn't hold weight with me, because they still have to then go into some form of childcare environment-so it isn't shorter.

I also think it's interesting that the experience of parents where deferment is much more main stream, seem to contrast what was said earlier in the thread, that often it is the parents who aren't ready for their children to start at just turning 4.

I do think there is some weight to the arguments that schools and nursery/preschool have become child care, but maybe the childcare element should be tackled separately and education be looked at differently. Then you could have half days without the working parents suffering, and the children who could do longer hours could have enrichment experiences.

The argument that the long school day is shorter than nursery childcare doesn't hold weight with me, because they still have to then go into some form of childcare environment-so it isn't shorter.

Ok, but the day is the same then. So not a long day, it's the same.

Parents in the UK can defer if their children don't seem ready. They can also choose to home school, if they feel they aren't ready by 5.

Most countries that have later starting age, start straight into actual classroom learning. Which UK schools dont.

I can see any conclusive evidence that children in other countries do better based only on starting age. There are so many variables to take into account, that's starting age may neither here nor there.

But what is different in the day is the academic expectation at age 4 in England than in other countries.

Parents in England have a lot more hoops to jump through if they want to defer, and it is not an encouraged practice

I'm a little bemused by the statement by a pp that competitive parents in Scotland start their kids a year later. IME almost all DCs born Jan/Feb are deferred, the parents considering their own child not emotionally ready, not trying to get some sort of comparative advantage. It may well be self filling as by not deferring, your Feb-born child could be 14 months younger than the eldest child in the class.

Dd1 was only a handful of days over 4 when she started school,and she was over -ready.
My dc's were in childcare from 4 months,and have thrived on being away from me some of the time,and interrracting with other people,learning stuff and having different experiences.
Half days/half weeks just play havoc with parents trying to hold down jobs.