Children start school at 5, oh no they don't

[Sadworld23]

We should stop taking about children starting school in the UK at 5.
Whilst that may be the legal age, even Gov.uk says most parents send their child to reception class at 4.

This makes me sad tbh, bc our child is (generally) happy at his nursery, 7m-3y, and I can't see him being ready for school at 4y.
He's barely out of nappies and bottles and I'm already choosing a school for him. And that's without the worries of sorting wrap around childcare to make my work hours work.

I had considered holding him back but nursery are already calculating giving up his place.

YABU children don't really start school til 5y.
YANBU children start school at 4y.

Reception is very free play placed. I think you’re overreacting.

We have a village primary school (maximum 60 children in the entire school), and they have an included nursery, so the youngest are 2. They integrate with the older children during play times,meal times, and also the older children read stories to them. The shift through school is so lovely and gradual, that the children are very happy and confident.

YABU as I don't think anyone does say.they start at 5. Most people are aware that school isn't compulsory until 5. As you are aware, yiu can choose to.delay the start if you wish. However, it's worth bearing in mind the proportion of his life that will be lived again on the next 12.months. a year is a lot at this age. Consider your options carefully and don't make a decision on point of principle or based on what he is like.now.

Its not really true. I'm in Finland, yes they start at 7 (actually they start the year they turn 6 for preschool but proper school starts the year they turn 7) but by age 11 I would not say they are ahead of British kids, and in areas like maths they are definitely behind (at least from my memories of what I was learning in maths age 11, and what my DD learnt age 11 here. Might even be a wider gap nowadays). They don't catch up until upper school, which starts the year they turn 13, when school gets very intense quickly and they learn a lot more. By the end of comprehensive (age 15/16) they are at least on par, if not ahead, and then there's still 3 or 4 more years of school so they finish well-educated.

On the other hand, by age 11 they will be learning two other languages besides their mother tongue and many 11 year olds I've come across are near fluent in English already, and they will be able to sew, knit, crochet, build things out of wood and metal and operate the powerful machinery needed, and navigate with a map and compass around a forest by themselves.

Both my girls were 4 when they started school (just over 4 and 4.5 respectively) and it has worked out fine for both of them. However, we do have some friends whose kids (boys) were a little less mature at the same age (they were just over 4 like my oldest) and who did struggle with toileting and other issues - one of their mums has said before that she wishes she'd held hers back a year. Now they're all a few years older it's generally settled down, however. 😊

He's barely out of nappies and bottles and I'm already choosing a school for him.

Well, that's because the process takes a long time. 1000s of parents in each LA have to review all the options, fill in the paperwork, provide evidence and the LA then have to allocate all those places based on everyone's choices and needs and if MN is anything to go by, their dodgy new addresses next to the school gate. All of this has to be done 6 months before start of term.

I'm not clear what the issue is with starting school at 4/5. Have any longitudinal studies been done on compulsory age for schooling (for what it's worth it's three in France) that control for the many other factors impacting children's outcomes? Most of us went to school age four or five, I did. Children of that age are immensely curious about the world and other people and ready to read and write.

Yes, children start school at 4, but school doesn't mean formal sit down lessons from 9-3pm every day, or even at all. The reception class should be all about play based learning and just building on their nursery experience if it is a good school, and it looks like there's going to be switch back to continuing this style of learning until the end of KS1 in the not too distant future (fingers bloody crossed!)

Mine went at 4, including the one with additional needs. I don’t think it’s good to be the eldest in a nursery or playgroup setting by a noticeable margin, or to join in a y1 class at 5 without the benefits of being in a reception class with the other kids. My ds with additional needs had speech therapy and physio support in school for his development delay. Most countries where children start older aren’t going straight from home with mummy into school- most will have been in some sort of childcare setting for years.

I think this every time there is a headline in the news re: shoddy parents mean kids can’t do x, y, z when they start school now. Many of those berating modern parents will have sent their kids to school age 5 in the 70s or been sent at that age themselves. I’m not sure when the change actually happened with all
kids starting at 4… overall it is better to start them all in the September. I can still remember the names of the kids in my
infant class who had been there for a full term before I went to school. They had their own fiefdom and went on to get all the roles in plays, top in reading etc and perceived to be more intelligent as they had a term head start in education as well as the additional life experience. Equally, I remember the summer born kids arriving; they got 1 term of education in reception before moving on! Those kids struggled and continued to struggle through primary.

Thanks that’s really interesting, particularly the focus on more practical learning like sewing and using machinery.

My elder daughter is a primary school teacher in Scotland. Both her children started school aged 5.

Practical subjects are considered very important, they have to take at least two as electives in their last two years of comprehensive (they get 3 electives, so only one can be a more academic subject). But it does mean that a lot less time is spent on academic subjects, and they do less hours in school overall than British kids, so catching up by 15 with much less time to do it means they're doing something better.

I was simply using the OP's terminology. She said she wants to 'hold him back'.

My son was 4 late July so he’ll be 4 for the entirety of reception. It does seem quite young but they do start to bore of preschool and reception is still mostly play based. It’s not a million miles off nursery tbh.

Agree I can underhand wanting to keep them home with a primary care giver but the difference between reception and nursery is negligible.

My dd went through the Belgian system where they start kindergarten at 2.5 and Primary the (calendar) year that they turn 6. Up til that point, they might learn letters, their name etc, but no formal reading and writing. I remember a friend visiting for the weekend and her dd was 1 year younger than mine and was reading, if a bit hesitantly and I was worried about dd being behind. We'd done some phonics but as I wasn't sure what method would be used in school, I mostly left alone. But dd's teacher said - the whole class will be able to read well in 6 months - something that sounded a bit incredible to me - but she was correct. I think maybe the maturity levels evened out and they were the "right" age to start.

YANBU to say school starts at 4.

I think YABU to handwring and say he's not ready or that you have to arrange his place while he's still 3. Reception in the UK isn't as academically focused as the first year of school is in a lot of countries. It's sort of different terminology for the same thing other places call pre-school or Kindergarten (I don't mean the US usage of Kindergarten, which is the first year of school, but mor the Northern European meaning).

Obviously you make the choice which is right for your child with holding back or not, but if he's 3y7m right now, then he'll be 4.5 by the time he starts school.

weve always just said kids start at 4 here, not 5. Both my boys are summer born - DS1 only turned 4 a week and a half prior to starting reception! DS2 is July.

both went to reception at 4. I was very worried for DS1 but honestly it was no real difference from his EYFS setting he was attending at nursery (he was in nursery preschool room from 3YO) as it’s all play based and actually shares the same EYFS curriculum as preschool/nursery follow. He just had to wear a uniform!

The maturity and difference between a 3YO and 4yo is very large. It’s scary when they’re 3 as you still see a lot of toddler/baby traits but in our case they have grown so much in that year that by the time they were 4 they were ready for school. With DS2 I have been worried about his toiletting - he has been fully trained since just before 3 but likes an adult to help wipe him, which they don’t like to do at school obviously. We spent time supporting his learning with this skill this summer, so he was ready for school starting in sept. He does it totally solo and fine at school it turns out! Just likes our help at home! so, my advice is not to underestimate how much they can do and how much they grow!

It's not school at 3 in France, it's Kindergarten. I think 3 is too young for compulsory education, though I understand the French government does it to give everyone an even footing. But many children benefit from spending more time at home if they can. 4 is more reasonable but I personally think 5 is better. There is evidence to suggest boys especially do better if they are held back a year before starting, it's certainly something I'm considering for my June baby.

It is school at 3 y old in France : Ecole maternelle and it's compulsory. Children are supposed to be toilet trained before; no nappies allowed. So nothing like the German kindergarten which is more like nursery/preschool.

I'm glad it's not just me. There weren't any children my daughter was friends with that weren't potty trained at 2.5ish and off bottles at lot earlier than that.

As others have said, 4 is a good time to start Reception, but 5 is probably too young for Y1. In OP's case, I agree that her child doesn't sound ready, SEN or not.

And what happens if children aren’t toilet trained.
I always love these rules where it says you are supposed/must do something especially when dealing with tiny children.

This and the UK model all sound like someone’s vanity project. The idea being that the more they shove education down a tiny child’s throat the better the outcome when all evidence points to the contrary.

My friend and her dh are both under 5ft 1”. Their dd who was 4 in late August was so tiny they had to have her school uniform made for her.

I started school in a tiny pinafore sized for a three-year-old, that my DM had scoured the shops for. I'm just under five feet tall now.

My DD loved Reception and was disappointed when half term came. She seemed to spend most of her time learning through play, but still made very good progress in English and Maths. If her experience is typical, then I think the EYFS is great and gets the balance right.

DD was much less keen on the formal learning of Year 1, and we were occasionally very late because she'd had a tantrum about going to school. So, I wish we could have carried on the EYFS/ kindergarten style of learning for another year or two - isn't this the norm in some European countries?