To not really get the argument for starting school much later

[Spottylu]

I keep seeing articles about how we are damaging our kids by sending them to school so early.

On the face of it, I agree, except I understood early years was all about learning through play. So without insulting any early years teachers, is it that different from the style of learning done in preschool?

I struggle to see what the alternative would be if we moved the school age intake to 7 like some of the Scandinavian countries, as I am assuming the idea isn't that a parent stops work and become a sahp unless that is their choice.

So of the alternative is just more nursery/preschool, isn't the early years system we have at least as good if not better?

The curriculum, the hours, the uniform, the setting, even the presence of older children etc.are all stressful and counterproductive. The evidence is that where children start later they are more ready.

The idea is that formal learning starts later which is meant to be better for literacy. My children started school at 6.5 without knowing how to read.

However they have been in (free) preschool since 3!

That's unusual though, my children were reading to some extent at home at nursery and primary age because they could follow their curiosity.
I think the bonus's really are in the strength of allowing the child's brain to develop confidence through play and exploration in a secure small scale environment. No matter how much play is allowed at nursery children are bombarded with constant themes, schemes, objectives and questions. The regimented pressure doesn't make space for the development of a sense of self in all that. Probably a contributor to the poor mental well being in schools.

Couldn't agree more with Too Much, Too Soon!

My own dcs pretty much ignored their teacher's relentless attempts at teaching them stuff until they were ready. Such a waste of effort to try and cajole little ones into reading when they would pick it up much more readily a few years later!

It may be learning through play, but the setting is nothing like nursery. Classes are very large and kids are meant to act in a certain way (e.g. Sit quietly for extended periods) and to be very independent - e.g. There is no one to remind them to go to the loo. Some 4 year olds are just not ready for that.

My elder son taught himself before starting school but my younger ones didn't. Within a year they were at a similar level to the "early" leavers.

Totally agree with the class size issue, but I don't think that would be any different if we had free preschool instead. That is very much a finance thing and until the government is willing to pump much more into education, we're stuck with ever growing classes.

Why rush it though? The stress of it all is too much for some of them. Stress is not conducive to happiness. A bad start could put them off for life.

Even just the 6 months difference between a 4 or a 4.5 year old starting school makes a massive difference.
Being a Scot in England I am so relieved I don't have any simmer born children. Just turned 4 is far to young

I come from one of those countries where children start school at 7, and at 7 I was more than ready to start school!

My DD1 just started reception last week, and she is an August baby. We have tears every morning at drop off, she doesn't want to stay for a whole day. She wants to go back to nursery and stick to half days.

My cousin's DD is 7 and just started school. To her, you can actually explain what school entails and she is more capable sitting for extended periods of time.
I definitely think it's all too much, too soon.

Depends on the kid, I'm a Scot living in England with a summer born kid who started school at four, she was totally fine, went in already reading, now a straight a star student entering her final year of a law degree. Delaying her would have made no sense and she enjoyed learning, kept her brain active and interested and there was no need for her to play all day every day,

Some kids can't cope or don't enjoy it but you can't and shouldn't make generalisations.

My DS would have started school this week, if we hadn't chosen to send him at CSA instead.

Right now when I ask him to put on his shoes he hears 'tell me a story about shoes, possibly involving an interpretive dance and a short song'.

I think that his reaction is entirely right for his age - just gone four - and entirely unsuitable for towing the line in a classroom, no matter how play based it is.

I refuse to believe that he needs to be able to read before his fifth birthday, especially given that there is an enormous amount of research suggesting that he will find the whole thing far easier a year down the line.

I was a summer born child myself and I spent my entire education struggling to keep up. I want DS to thrive.

My elder son taught himself before starting school but my younger ones didn't. Within a year they were at a similar level to the "early" leavers.

That's interesting. Dd is a great reader and was an august baby so started school just after her 4th birthday.
I have always thought her reading early was more to do with her personality and love of books than any teaching.

Her age/ early start has been an issue in other areas but I would argue that most of her troubles have been exacerbated by class size and tests. She is a great reader but a poor speller. The phonetic test did more damage than good imo.

Which gets me thinking that perhaps the answer is to revamp early years so that classes are small, there are no tests and instead lessons like forest school are the norm.

Right now when I ask him to put on his shoes he hears 'tell me a story about shoes, possibly involving an interpretive dance and a short song
So true (and so cute!)

In the same country as Allegretto but in a different area and though did also started school at 6 they had been taught to read and write during the final year of nursery school. In dd's class there were only 1 or 2 out of 25 who weren't already reading when they started.
If you look at various countries curricula, what is taught when doesn't really vary that much. It's just done in different schools. Italian nursery for example seems to correspond to reception/yr 1 as far as learning objectives go. Not across the board obviously, but more or less.
I did a course with some Italian colleagues who were horrified initially that children in the UK begin school at 4/4.5 because they imagined that they were expected to learn what yr 1(but age 6) Italian kids are expected to do. Then we compared the curriculum and the penny dropped.

After his first two weeks at big school. Yes I do think they start too soon. I'm hoping to god it doesn't ruin the eagerness to learn that he had before he started.

DC4 started school at 4 years and 1 month, straight into full days. I was terrified for him and gave a great deal of thought to deferring. He is the youngest in the class but also near the top end academically. Many of the oldest in the class used to go into school in tears at the start/still do. We have always read together because he enjoyed it and he was way ahead in it by the end of Reception.

I really don't think you can't generalise. Some DC are ready, some are not. Some pick up reading easily, some don't. Reception and Yr 1 is play based learning anyway so similar to preschool but with more rules. My DS used to love interacting with the Yr6s who would help out in class/in the playground. My older DC are all winter babies and none of them settled as well as their brother.

My SIL is in France and there they start formal learning at 3 so I think we've got it about right.

It's too formal, too stressful and intense, why does a 5 year old need to know about 1/4 and 1/5, and be writing in cursive handing writing which is not legible because they can't hold a pen properly.
Imagine a day where you are pushed to do more every day, and each task is just out of your reach.

It's kills your confidence, and self esteem.

More as more children are seeking support for mental health then ever before, I wonder why.

Year 1 isn't play anymore since the introduction of the new curriculum

I'm in the Us and apparently children here start at grade 1. Well both of my elder two DC have been in school since they were 3!

DH is Danish and they do all the same things at the same time but call it a different type of school. Personally I think the reason the results are better in Scandinavian countries is because there is less extremes of poverty and wealth compared to other countries.

Advantages of having a 4/5yo in nursery rather than school

it is a less stressful environment

large parts of the day can be given over to outdoor play and other non-curriculum activities

it is non-compulsory so child can be withdrawn for shorter periods if parent considers it in the best interests of child and is able to make arrangements

Theres a massive difference between a just turned 4 and just turned 5yo. The difference between a just turned 6 and just turned 7 isn't quite so dramatic.

Starting later means the age gap and abilities between the oldest and youngest in a year group is similar.

The whole reason the UK starts school so young relates to the 1870s and the beginning of compulsory education. MPs wanted kids to get 5 years of education before leaving school at the age of 10. That of course is irrelevant in a century when kids are have access to 13 or more years of education.

Many kids do ok, many kids fail. On a whole other countries do better than the UK.

I sent my oldest to school age 4 because we were living in the UK. At the time I thought she was fine.

Them we moved abroad and my next two started school half days at 5 and full days at 6.

It was so much less stressful for them and me. It made me realise that actually my 4 year old had been exhausted by a full school day, uncomfortable in her uniform, and would have loved another year at home rather than being rushed out the door every morning.