Are we starting formal education too young- especially for Summer babies?

[sylvielt]

I have recently returned from a country where children did not start formal eduction (the 3 R's) until the year they turned six. (Although prior to that there was Nursery provision which concentrated on such things as pencil control, listening, language, motor and social skills and therefore smoothed the path to formal schooling)
Comparing them with my UK educated children, a year later they were at the same standard, having learned with much less effort and angst because many more of them were more mature and ready. There was less of a gap between the genders, too and where their birthday fell within the academic year also seemed less relevant.
Perhaps ours are starting formal school too young?

Do they start formal education (the 3 Rs as you put it) earlier then in the UK?

Because from what I've seen, reception and Y1in the UK have lessons very much based on play, rather than the 5 hours or so of cursive handwritten language, maths and science my Y1 Italian child has to sit and do every afternoon.

I think,personally, the whole they-start-school-later thing is a huge misnomer and brings massive confusion. Here in Italy, they start nursery (and everyone goes) at 3, for 3 years, the last year or so of which (well d'oh, just when reception is starting in the UK!) becomes more "schooly" bit of reading and writing etc.

So, yes, compulsory school education starts later. What they do there, doesn't.

I think it's pretty clear that you already have a view on this. I think some children are well served to start school at 3 or 4. I also think it depends very much on what they do at school. Our school starts with a nursery at 3 and then has reception at 4, and so on. In the nursery, they go play, and do a bit of phonics. But, DS was reciting letter sound from his LEapfrog Fridge magnet at 2 so this was not at all challenging for him. In reception he also does phonics and a bit more pencil control, but spend the bulk of his time outside plaing with the dinosaurs and being violent with the other boys (which I don't really like, but they all seem to do it).

SO, I don't really think his first two years of formal education have really been much work for him. If they sere sitting him down for times tables and asking him to write the first names of Henry's wives I would say it was too much.

I would agree with the pp as my experience of italy is exactly as she describes - they don't start compulsory education until 6 but frankly what they do in nursery is almost a match to reception. They are also expected to sit still at a much younger age! I would say though that I wish there was more flexibility with regards to when your children are ready to start reception. For example I would have started my december born dd1 1 year sooner and my august born son a year later!!!

By the 3 R's I mean reading, writing and maths, all of which my children started to do in Reception, pretty formally.
The Nursery provision I was talking about addressed all these but not formally - they could make letter shapes etc without knowing what they were, for example
Some children are well served to start school younger but from my experience abroad, the majority benefitted from starting that little bit later as, being more ready, they picked things up more easily which gave them confidence - which I feel is the key to educational success. It also seemed to iron out some of the differences we seem to see here (girls v boys, Autumn v Summer).
Those children who were ready at an earlier age seem to benefit from the wait as they hit the ground running which helped them soar.

When I studied my MA in Education we looked at the idea of starting school later, and the only conclusion we reached was that it is far too simplistic to say that starting school later = better literacy results, or that there are no benefits to starting earlier.

There are too many factors that affect the issue including...

• In some cultures, they do as PPs suggest start school later but do more formal learning at nurseries.

• In other cultures, they start school later but many children start school already being able to read because it is done at home.

• In some cultures, they actually start school earlier than in the Uk.

• In some school cultures, they start school later but place much more emphasis on learning the 3Rs (both inside and outside of school) once they learn.

• In some languages, the language is more regular and easier to learn than the English language which contains lots of irregular words and verbs which can make English harder to learn.

• In some cultures, there is a lot more emphasis placed on learning and education than in this culture - think the emphasis in China on learning, whereas in the UK there can be a distinct anti-education subculture.

There are lots of other factors too, which I cannot remember off hand, but suffice to stay when you start thinking about the variances in culture attitudes towards education / ease of learning the language / emphasis placed on learning the language whilst at school and so on... It surely must be a complex mix of all these factors, and not just down to one single factor. I think to say it is as simple as starting age of school is a post hoc fallacy.

Great post ello- and very true I think.

Here in Italy points 1, 4, 5 and 6 are the case.

1. Start at 6, but much more formal at nursery in last year/2 years

4.As I said in my first post, dd sits all afternoon doing pages of cursive handwriting, syllable-division, maths (I'm so right-brained her maths, at 6, is already whooshing over my wordy little head!)

1. Italian much more phonetically regular (totally so I believe) so writing and reading clicked really quickly. Nothing to do with her being 6 when she started school.
2. Almost all children I know go to extra "repetition" classes etc in the afternoon. I wouldn't say the Italians were on a par with the Chinese or Japanese, but there is certainly a cultural idea of going to university to better yourself.

I'm happy with my summer-birthday child starting school when he did (in England), BUT I wish the curriculum was much more informal and play-based than it is for under 8s. DS2 struggles with the structure of it all, mentally he's ready to read and do sums, but he needs more flexibility in how he learns, iyswim.

totally depends on the child. I wish more people would just vote with their feet. If a child isn't ready, just don't send them until they are.

It's supposed to be a tax-funded service - note the word SERVICE - for us parents to use in fulfilling our legal obligation to provide our children with an education. Too often, the service runs in a manner that is convenient for the managers and bean counters, but not in a way that actually suits the individual children (e.g. with more flexible "be in reception when it suits you, not at the moment that some person in Whitehall or county hall decided was the arbitrary age cut off")

Disclaimer: My first child was not ready for reception at age 4.5. We home ed instead, and have never looked back.