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?

Does starting school later depend on a parent or carer being mostly at home? Genuinely interested

The studies or comparisons for beginning education later usually stem from 'Scandinavian' countries. Whilst the children do begin later, from there on, the schooling is extremely dry, formal and prescriptive.

As far as I'm concerned, the benefits of an earlier start to school include the ability to socialise, understand how to follow instructions, have some sort of structure to the day and to begin education.

A child who knows the first 6 phonemes correctly (SATPIN) and doesn't have other errors in their understanding of phonics is much easier to teach to read than those who can sing the 'A, B, C' song. 1-2-1 correspondence up to 10 is much more beneficial that 'counting' up to 100.

"why does a 5 year old need to know about 1/4 and 1/5, and be writing in cursive handing [sic] writing which is not legible [we call it ilegible] because they can't hold a pen properly."

Is that something you've made up or read in a poor excuse for a paper? Some children may begin to understand 1/2s or 1/4s. None I've met in nearly 4 decades have had cursive writing at 5 years old. Pre-cursive on occasion.

Some countries do do better than the UK in some areas. We have a lot to be proud of despite the attitude of most MN'ers.

I'm in one of the countries where children start school later. Before school the vast majority go to nursery which is high quality entirely play-based early years education (it's not common for a parent to stay home after the child is two or three) where they learn lots but nothing academic as such but it sets a good foundation for school as they learn the very important social and emotional skills needed to cope with school.

They start preschool the year they turn 6 (DD started this year at 6.5) and by that point they are more than ready for the stricter routine of school but preschool is still a transitional year so while they get used to sitting at desks and doing some academic work (learning the alphabet and introduction to maths while continuing with emotional and social education) very little time is spent on that and lots is free play or guided play (and DD's class visits their forest classroom once a week and also learn practical things like sewing). One child in her class (of 13 - class sizes are small when possible and over 25 is considered crowded) can read already but no one else. The school day is short, just 4 hours so children aren't exhausted by it.

By first grade they are ready to read and are fluent readers and writers by the end of the first term - bare in mind that's not really possible with English as its a more complex language do naturally requires more time to get to grips with it so I'd say ideally for English language learning you want to start by 6 years old really but that's still much later than the UK does now and would give children more time in the more relaxed atmosphere of nursery concentrating on social and emotional learning.

"Whilst the children do begin later, from there on, the schooling is extremely dry, formal and prescriptive."

Which Scandinavian country would you be talking of? "Extremely dry, formal and prescriptive" doesn't exactly match my Swedish nephews' and nieces' school experience.

I'm not even sure it matched my own school experience in the 60s and 70s. Yes, we had to rote learn English irregular verbs by age 10, but we also had plenty of time set aside for physical activities, arts, cookery and crafts. Subjects like woodwork and textiles usually involved a higher level of free choice than similar lessons in an English school.

There is learning through play in Reception, but increasingly it is becoming more formal as expectations are raised - lots of 4 year olds are just not interested in reading and writing but regardedless by the end of the year they have to read and write in sentences, count add and subtract to 20 etc.
There's a lot of pressure (performance related pay) on teachers to ensure all children reach standard targets regardless of their age or level of development and so in a lot of schools those children get less play as they are targeted for maths and literacy interventions.
By the time they are 5 and in Year 1, in a lot of schools it is all formal sit down learning and play happens at break time.

Many early years teachers despair at how formal and prescriptive reception has become, and how little management/government value play. There is downward pressure on nursery/preschool too, especially nursery classes in schools - give reception children a head start by starting formal phonics, maths and cursive writing in preschool etc.

By the time they are 5 and in Year 1, in a lot of schools it is all formal sit down learning and play happens at break time

This is sadly true for a lot of schools, mainly because lots of school leaders think this is the only way to ensure end of year results, which couldn't be further from the truth!
But this is slowly changing and continuous provision being extended into yr1/2 is becoming more common.

But you still hear of Reception children having more formal learning during the Summer term to 'get them ready' for year 1. It's awful, but the teachers need to speak up and refuse to do it.

I would never go back to teaching Yr1 children by strapping them to desks all day, it's so unnecessary.

Why is a little formal education in Reception so awful UpYouGo?

FWIW, both my children began school at 3. Informal environment beginning and leading up to including phonics and other formal lessons in preparation for Year 1.

I hate the UK system! It is cruel and harsh - I see 5 year olds in tears starting year 1 - the teachers themselves tell me that they have a massive cirriculum to get through in year one - that is 5/ 6 year olds.

We have children learning spelling and writing - when at the same age in scandanavia they would be in forest school, building fires, playing with logs or bricks, learning about science simply through play - and enjoying running and being creative with other children.

My son is already whimpering as I drop him off to year 1 - and he is usually outgoing and social - and I know his teachers are kind people. It is simply too much - I wish it was all far more relaxed and he could run about with his mates as he did when we went camping over the summer.

It made my heart break to see how happy he was when we were camping and he ran free with other gangs of kids - now he is in his little uniform sitting at a table most of the day - totally unnecessary as it is shown that children learn best through play in the years before 7/8.

Because they should be learning through play for most of the day, not sitting at desks having a teacher talk at them. It's not a natural way for young children to learn.

What advantages are there to teaching to a Victorian model?

I am in Scandinavia and much prefer the education system here. Children attend nursery from age 3 which is heavily subsidised. They learn through play and also develop fantastic social skills. None of mine could read before starting school in the year that they turned 6 (but they could ride a bike without stabilisers, climb trees, use a knife, build a den, use a sledge, skip, draw, paint, light a fire, prepare simple meals, bake bread, sit around a table and eat a meal quietly, take part in a group conversation, make many craft items requiring fine motor skills, take turns etc...). When they did start school they already recognised many letters and knew their numbers and, well, reading just sort of 'fell' into place. So now I have children with good social skills, fantastic fine and gross motor skills who are lively and active with inquiring minds. Very satisfied with how it's working out for them.

UpYouGo

No child should ever have a teacher talk at them at any age. Any teacher of mine from EYFS to second year of IB would have a lot of explaining to do if that's what was happening in their lessons. When you say you left teaching Year 1s, were you asked to leave?

Children can learn through play although it has its limits.

You do understand the difference between formal education and the "Victorian Model" and learning through play?

Radical ideas such as unschooling, learning through play, Montesori, home schooling and no education until 7 do have ideas worthy of discussion but they aren't proven to be better.

I know that my ideas do work. Last Year's GCSE results highlights were;

52% of grades were A*
99% of students got an A* - C in English Lang. English Lit. and Maths
92% of all grades were A* - B

Retention rates were brilliant too.

I wouldn't say we're about to rest on our laurels but at the same time, we're tweaking what we do as opposed thinking, 'fuck those first few years, they can catch up'.

waterrat

Don't blame the curriculum or the government or May or Brexit or the Daily Mail. The teachers might be kind but they sound shit. "Sat at the table most of the day"? Either they should be sacked or you misunderstand.

Shirtyquerty I would not describe my children's Scandinavian schooling as "dry, formal and prescriptive".

shirtyQwerty rather

I've absolutely no issue whatsoever with the school starting age in the U.K. My experience has been overwhelmingly positive and I've found it a gentle start for all 3 of mine. 2 started in state and one went private from reception and all had a wonderful easy start. I would have hated them to start later

shirty - your school may be truly amazing but not all schools are like that. If what SLT want to see is children in reception and year 1 (and even nursery) sitting at desks producing work in books then it is incredibly difficult for individual teachers to resist that - especially as such a large proportion of teachers are young and new to teaching these days.

For an example, I know a lot of Reception teachers and a couple of issues that come up a lot currently is the need to produce written maths work in books - photos and observations of children engaging with maths through play is often not seen as sufficient "evidence", children need to compete sums and worksheets sitting at tables. Ditto literacy work.
Even the word "play" is no longer approved of in many nursery and reception classrooms. Play happens at break time. During class time it must be referred to as "learning" or "investigation" or some other euphemism. I think this in itself indicates the attitude to the value of play in many schools now.

Teaching can be a bit old fashioned here in Finland once in 1st grade in the sense that they start with timetabled lessons from the get-go but lessons are short (45 minutes) and there's playtime after every lesson and the days are short (starting at 4 hours and increasing to 6 hours usually by 6th grade) and in recent years there's been a big move towards non-traditional methods and of course the new requirement for at least one cross-curricula topic per year. The old methods certainly work (as evidenced by how well educated the population is in general) and we'll have to wait and see if the new methods work as well but I am confident that the good foundation from the early years play education will help immensely (plus the impressive special education provision which touches almost every pupil at some point)

In Australia here and they start at 5-6 it's your choice
I think 7 is a little late but an extra year in oz made a difference to mine
She repeated the reception again here when we moved over to be the same age as the others and got on loads better than starting at 4

Elizabeth

My school is truly amazing and I recognise that it certainly isn't achievable for many schools. Those figures were to show that fashionable adherence by the uneducated* to something they read about in the Guardian which they like the sound of isn't necessarily correct. I have actual experience and results.

Your raised issue (how many reception teachers do you actually know though?) is about SLT. We use an application called Seesaw to communicate to parents what children are achieving.

Other than that, we monitor children purely on formative assessments and observations. The only summative assessment we use is PM Reading Levels which are done every 5 weeks per child from Nursery throughout KS1 (and for some children, SK2).

The semantics argument between 'play' and 'investigation' is unnecessary although, in argument with your statement that it "indicates the attitude to the value of play", I couldn't agree more. By Reception, entirely unstructured play has little to no benefit (besides letting off steam) whereas encouraging children to develop what they're doing and pushing them to think a little more deeply and perhaps take whatever they're doing in a slightly different direction does.

If children are playing with buggies and dolls in the sand then using them to draw rectangles or circles or triangles or if they're making painted handprints then introducing number bonds to ten has enormous benefit and doesn't detract from the love of 'play'.

*by 'educated', I mean spent their life studying and working in the field as opposed to formed ideas through a little reading or seeing their children flourish (or not).

By Reception, entirely unstructured play has little to no benefit

They're just four years old in Reception, unstructured play absolutely has a benefit at that age still. Even just 'blowing off steam' has a tremendous benefit to learning because it increases concentration.

Dd is 4.5 and has just started reception after attending a pre-school. She was more than ready and is coping well so far.

Ds is summer born and will not long have turned 4 when he starts school. I'm thinking of delaying his start until the summer term because he's much less mature than dd. However, we'll see how it goes.

I think the trouble is each child is so different it's impossible to satisfy everyone. I think school start dates should be more flexible.

Natsku

Concentration on what?

No one is arguing against brain breaks (which we allow all the way up to (and including) Year 6 or break times or play during lunch time.

Blowing off steam between learning is extremely important.

My DS' school has a separate EY area with playground/buildings set apart from the rest of the school. For them, Reception is a continuation of nursery, with added phonics. The school tried recently to implement a play based curriculum in Y1 but have had to move over to a more formal curriculum due to NC issues (which we're very sad about) but they take seriously the issues of transitioning children properly, keeping them young, giving them their own space (Y1 has its own playground, and shares a building only with Y2, for example).

Many of the comparisons (with Germany, Scandinavia, etc etc) are a bit false because the languages are so much easier to learn to read.

The US and Australia speak English and start a year later but I'd rather have my children in Reception and Y1 in the UK than pre-K followed by Kindergarten in the US as my impression is Kindergarten in the US is more formal than Y1 in the UK. Plus, they don't really teach phonics in the same way.

Having said that, the US does slightly better on PIRLS than England, but N. Ireland does better than either; Australia and New Zealand are down (and New Zealand starts them at 5 on the dot, so more like England or Scotland). So it's not all down to age at starting.

My SIL is Swedish and she and my DB and their kids live there. She never had a good word to say about the education system in the UK (more specifically England where they stayed but we are in Scotland where things are different) as it was too much too soon etc. I couldn't quite square their position on supposed early education when they returned to Sweden as their kids were in kindergarten from 0700 - 1800 every day doing what my DS was doing in primary school but with added naps and more meals. Qualitatively it seemed very similar but was just called something different. My DB is a maths teacher there and he was initially appalled at the lack of basic numeracy knowledge in older children (he teaches 13 - 16 year olds). They seem to work harder later to make it up though. His argument is that the fairer society they have there negates this apparent gap in knowledge so it all evens out.

Shirty

You describing 4/5/6 year olds playing as 'radical' says it all really.

I'm not sure why you are quoting us with your (if they are true) GCSE results, to prove what? We already know you can pass exams by teaching children formally, the magic (and skill) is in doing the exact same thing while allowing children to play and behave like children.

That's what I do at my school