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

Almost half of all children in the youngest two months are deferred in Scotland.

www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/05/7940/4

Reception (as had been said before) is mainly learning through play. They are not sat in a classroom learning (in the traditional sense) for 6 hours a day from 4. Most kids at 3/4 are on the go all day whether in scho or not.

Ds has done half days at school since he turned 3. They learn through play, he has learned but it hasn't been taxing. He can write his name and count to fifty etc.

He starts full time in September. At no point has he found learning exhausting at school. No reason to think an extra of 3 hours of this is too long either.

As a teacher I DEFINATELY think it isn't the age the begin school but the age formal acedemic learning begins. I often toy with the idea of opening a free school which offers play based learning until age 7. Does anyone think that's a good idea?

What do people mean by 'formal' academic learning? I don't have a problem with young children being taught the alphabet/recognising letters and numbers/how to count/+1/-1 etc. I think they're fairly easy concepts to grasp as part of every day life without having to sit them down and drum it into them.

What I dislike is the using the same methods across the board for all children when we all know that children are different and learn in different ways. Learning through play may work well for some children while others may actually want to sit down and read and write - they find that fun. Some children need loads of repetition while others can move on much faster. As much as schools/teachers try to allow children to move at their own pace, there's only really so much they can do to differentiate. I don't think it's ideal at all.

I am not a teacher, but I totally agree, Imsosorryalan, reception was fine, most kids loved it at our school. Year 1 was horrendous, no end to the tears and tiredness and that was most of the class. Heaps of homework and spellings and phonics drills. Year 2 was really hard the first few months, once half the class was 7 it was all fun and games again, so yes, 7 or almost 7 sounds good. So many children who loved school started hating to go, having to be peeled off a parent's leg and just coming up with all sorts of tummy aches.

Imsosorryalan, the trouble for your free school would be that many parents are really pushy at the start and want reading books and homework, until it starts in earnest in year 1 or 2, only then do you see what it does to the children.

Don't get me started on homework!

Reni that is interesting about how much children started to enjoy school again once they turned 7
Some people are mixing school and childcare into the same pot-I think that maybe good childcare provision should be made in place of some of the "school" hours.

There is a local school here- where they banned homework- they explained why, how it was of no benefit, children should be able to relax at home da dee da
Then Ofstead came along and said if you want a better level you need to bring in homework-so they did. All the talk about it being better for the kids not to have it went out the window to chase the higher Ofstead rating.

We had a short period of less homework after parents said their children don't cope. I walked past a couple of mums complaining to the headteacher immediately about the lack of spellings and written English tasks on day 1 of the new regime. Took a couple of months and the big tasks were back including half term "fun" projects (Want to write a 36 page illustrated book about a random topic at age 6 anyone? I knew it would be popular.)

Friends in germany had a little boy born a few days after dd. She loved school from the start in uk. He went from playing all day to very formal setting at 7. He cried every day because it was a huge shock to the system, whereas dd had a much more gradual exposure to formal setting.
Ds had a bit of a wobble in yr 1, but putting him in charge of pencil sharpening for a few days soon sorted that out.
Being 7 didnt make things better in Germany.

When my son started school at the start of year 3 he was almost 8. He wasn't ready before that as I said in previous post he was top table by the end of the year. he graduated last year with 1st class honours degree. What did he miss? He was happy playing and I am glad I could give him that. He, and his sister who started at almost 9, both said they thought they worked harder for longer at school as alot of their friends had had enough of school by 14 and started to play up. In our own family they did outperform the two eldest who started at traditional age, although both went to uni in their 20s and also got firsts so just as bright.

I know the AIBU was for England - any opinions on the Welsh system that appears to be trying to address the early start with a foundation phase.
Foundation Phase.
Only in Reception at the moment but I think I like the theory of it.

My daughter had three terms of school nursery in a foundation stage unit. She started at three years and four months. It was like starting reception a year early because she was given work to match her ability and development. She was absolutely fine.

My summer born DS (just turned 5) just didn't have the patience or concentration for reception. He didn't want to do writing homework even though he was perfectly capable of forming letters.

Reading took a long time to come, he'd skip over numbers in the line as his attention would just wander off elsewhere.

He has caught up and 'meets expectations' by the end of the year, but it has been a wildly different experience to his September born older brother.

bumbleymummy - Formal learning vs play based, is all about the difference in choice. In high quality play based settings, there will be literacy areas and writing tools throughout the place, so children can sit and write if they want, throughout the day, in a variety of ways. Adults will help extend their interests as far as they want to take them, then when the child looses interest, they can just choose to go do something else. Because it is child led.

In a formal setting, it's more structured. The teacher decides what you learn about & when. So if you are not interested in it at that moment, it is tough luck.

When you think about the skills required to sit still, listen, concentrate, follow instructions, then put them into practice, all within a group for extended periods of time, many young children (under 5) just aren't ready yet.

For some it can lead to a negative association with the teacher/school/subject, because they just weren't developmentally ready to be doing that yet. Given a bit of time, and the opportunity to develop their language/physical capability/social skill/ understanding a little more in a low pressure (play based) environment they may have had a different experience, and therefore develop the required skills, just maybe at a slightly later time.

Does it really matter if you mastered reading by age 8 or age 9, as long as you have learnt? Surely it should also be important that you develop a love of reading, so that you want to do more of it, so you are constantly learning throughout your life.

If you are put off because it was forced on you before you are ready, or you were made to feel stupid, because you couldn't understand like the other children, the system is failing you.

I don't think 4 is to young to spend 6 hours a day in a play based reception class, some of which will include out door learning.

I do think 5 is too young to spend the majority of the school day sitting at a desk in Y1

Teacher, ok, thanks for that. No, I don't particularly like the formal setting then. I prefer child-led learning, not being told what to do and when to do it.

From what I have seen in primary schools- the phrase might be play based learning, but the reality isn't that at all for some schools- they have formal group lesson activities and some play areas for down time.

One thing that seems to strike me is that we don't end up topping the league tables of the world- but neither do children seem very balanced, report after report suggests children in England are very unhappy. Self esteem is a big part of that, and schooling and their determination as a success or failure must have a key role to play in that.
I thought this report was interesting written when Australia was considering lowering the school age to 4 for Summer born babies
www.theguardian.com/education/2009/feb/14/starting-age-four-school

In Ireland average age is 5. It used to be 4 but with the free childcare places it has gone up to 5 which I think is a good thing. All my kids were 5 plus starting, a few in the class were 4 and honestly the difference in them. Couple of them stayed back a year. You could see straight off the younger ones, they were crying on their first day and some didn't settle for months. I think if they start at 4 they leave school too early and aren't mature enough to make good choices. Im glad its gone up. Wouldn't want to send my child at 4. They have plenty of years in school!!

Tangerine I think you have made some good points and I agree with what you are saying, I hear all about play based learning in reception but it really didn't seem like that with my grandsons, no point talking about my kids as reception was a long time ago for the two who did it.

I think sometimes people think it is fine but the effects can show years later. A friends son hated school, he wasn't ready and really struggled. By the time he was 8 he was turned off and his self esteem was rock bottom. It is only now in his mid 20s that he has realised he can do it and starts uni next month doing something he loves. I honestly think things might have been very different if he had started school at 7 or 8. He is an extreme example but how many decide they aren't academic while still in primary?

I do know that my son, who started school at almost 8, is a very keen reader and compared to his older brothers who started at 4.5 and 4.7 his love of reading and his work rate as a teenager are/were much higher. I know that is just one example but I think it is worth thinking about. If I could turn the clock back I would start the older two later but at the time they seemed happy and were doing well, I never had tears or upsets but I think by the time they were doing GCSEs and A levels the differences did show.

*"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'? *

As someone else has stated from experience, my friend's kids in Finland had no instruction in reading, writing and maths until they started school at age 7. Early years teachers are educated to masters level in the importance of play and promoting social skills, preparing young children for formal education later on. I don't think France is a great example as IIRC they're only one step above us in PISA rankings. I take your point about PISA rankings being flawed, but they're the best guide we have.

I agree that if the EYFS were enforced there would be no cause for concern. It's an excellent document. It's not enforced, though. It's undermined by policies desperate for earlier and earlier formal teaching. The Ofsted inspection framework for Early years provision in schools - ie reception classrooms - doesn't even mention play in its grading criteria, that I could find. Ofsted has best practise guidance promoting formal phonics sessions as early as nursery. Bonkers.

PISA ranking are absolute bollux as they test a narrow range of skills and in many countries in the PISA tables SEN kids are not included, or there is a significant proportion of childen socially excluded. For example in Shaghai the children of migrants are excluded from the schools.

Rather than worrying about which countries are "top of the class" we should look at which countries have economically sucessful citizens. Which countries have the best quality of life. Hoardes of immigrants are prepared to risk life and limb to come to the UK. We must have done something right.

" agree that if the EYFS were enforced there would be no cause for concern. It's an excellent document. It's not enforced, though. It's undermined by policies desperate for earlier and earlier formal teaching. The Ofsted inspection framework for Early years provision in schools - ie reception classrooms - doesn't even mention play in its grading criteria, that I could find. Ofsted has best practise guidance promoting formal phonics sessions as early as nursery. Bonkers."

What is bonkers is the low expectations of some people. Well taught phonics is a joy to nursery children who are ready. Children don't melt if they are asked to hold a pencil. Often such activites are integrated into play.

England needs to stop doing itself down.

I understand your point, ReallyTired, my gut instinct is also get them early. My experience doesn't really back this up though. Mine did well in school, starting age 4 was no problem, bit of a wobble in Y1, fine since, all just clicked into place at age 7. I would love to know if it makes sense to start this early though.

As a (simplistic) example, take sports people tend to start early: ballet and football. Many kids go to soccertots or do ballet from age 3. They go week in, week out, take ages to learn stuff. At age 7, some other kids start, wary of the head start some have had. Four weeks of intensive practice at age 7 can mean fully catching up, so the 4 years' previous practise can mean nothing for some. I sometimes wonder if school is the same, maybe they would learn the stuff that takes all of YR and Y1 in a couple of months at age 7.

reni1, that is exactly what happened with my youngest son who started school late. He went from bottom table in literacy when he started, middle in maths and by the end of the year he was top table for everything. Even his teacher said it made her question what she had been doing, some years she was key stage 1 some years start of key stage 2. She said he made her realise that the stuff that takes ages in R and Y1 was done by him in a few weeks so what was the point?

My daughter was different, she was very interested in learning but she did it herself, asked us questions and got on with what she wanted to do. She started in year 4 and went straight to the top of the class never having had a formal lesson in her life. The only downside was jealousy from alot of parents who weren't happy and convinced themselves we had been working her like mad for 4 years to get her ahead of the rest. We really hadn't but you can't argue with people when they have made their minds up.

Haven't read the replies, but yes and no.

Mine were both well and truly ready to start reception - however my son turned 5 in his first week at school and my daughter turned 5 within her first month there.

That said I saw a programme last night "The three day Nanny" and they were trying to get a 3 year old used to his school uniform (he was at that stage where they don't want to wear clothes or keep them on!) as he was starting school in a few months! Presumably a few weeks after turning 4. He totally didn't seem ready AT ALL however, sometimes going makes them ready, or they adapt to going, if that makes sense.

That said reception can seem a bit of a bludge - wrong word for it really as they learn through play, but there is a lot of playing. Which is great. If it wasn't for that I'd say its too early but they do seem to ease them in gently.