Do you think the UK should change the age at which children begin school

[Anenome]

It's something I have often thought about...most other countries begin at 6 having first attended kindergarten. Reception here begins at 4 which is so young...should the UK look at things differently? I know I would have been happy for DD to wait a year or two before full time school began. Maybe it could be left to the parent to decide? So instead of the law stating that a child MUST be in education at age 5, it could be that they can be....or they can choose to wait until 6 years old.

Interested to hear what others think?

I dunno. My DS was well and truly ready at 4.6

Whats the differemce between kindergarten & recepetion anyway?

No way! Then I'd have to pay for childcare until my child was 6!

I am glad my ds started nursey at 3, although he does only do 3 hours a day. It seemed a good time for him as he is asking questions about everything, wanting to play ALL the time etc. In the past few weeks he's been at nursery he's learnt so much to me it feels the 'right' age.

It's interesting. The Scandinavian countries don't start till 7 (so far as I remember) and yet they have some of the best educational standards in the world.

I do remember my mum (a primary school teacher) having an American boy in her class and commenting that you could see the difference the extra two years make.

I think a problem these days though is that by introducing the 15-hours free nursery per week for 3 years plus (which it is expected that people will use), it kind of introduces even earlier education by stealth.

The problem is that it depends so much on the child. My dd1 could have happily waited until 6 or 7 as she really didn't need the stress. My ds was fine at 5 but I could have waited. My dd2 was an August baby so she was only just 4, but she is thriving and gaining so much.

No rule will suit all children, regardless of what age. Maybe parent choice would be valuable, but you would always get some over protective mum who lets a 6 year old bruiser in, so maybe you just go with the flow....

I think this is a difficult one because eveyr child is different. Two of my children were more than ready to go to school at 3 1/2yrs while one would have been better going at an older age than 4.

I mean every.
Thinking quicker than I can type.

Move to Scotland - we do not have reception up here.

Seriously, though, most children in Scotland are 5 when they start school. DS1 was 5.2yrs and DS2 was 5.5 yrs.

Where we live (Portugal) the starting age is 6. Most kids go to nursery until then and while at nursery start to learn how to write their names etc.

The advantage I could see was that at 6 they learn really fast how to read, and handwriting goes straight into joined up stuff. I don't feel that my kids were in anyway damaged by starting late. They are all bilingual and my eldest (18) has just started at Uni in the UK.

I can only echo what The CrackFox posted. My DS was 5 and a bit when he began school and his BF was 5 years 8 months.

They both seemed 'ready' for school.

DD2 was only a couple of weeks past her 4th birthday when she started full-time in reception. Soooo ready for it. Reception is really just a continuation of preschool; the real deal doesn't start until Yr 1 anyway.

BUT, she was youngest of three, and a fairly mature girl. I know some boys who aren't ready at 5+.

I kept ds back a year in Scotland (it isn't that unusual) and so he was 5.7. I think it has made a difference to him.

Generally I can't see the point in sending 4 year olds to school - I mean, I can't see the advantage for them. 6 would be great. There doesn't seem to be any evidence from around the world that children would be disadvantaged; quite the opposite for some of them.

It's not like there's going to be a sudden blossoming of part-time jobs for parents of school-age kids, or anything, in the near future.

@ mumonthenet : "Where we live (Portugal) the starting age is 6. Most kids go to nursery until then and while at nursery start to learn how to write their names etc.

The advantage I could see was that at 6 they learn really fast how to read, and handwriting goes straight into joined up stuff. I don't feel that my kids were in anyway damaged by starting late. They are all bilingual and my eldest (18) has just started at Uni in the UK."

That's how it seems to me. Starting to work on skills before a child is developmentally ready just means the whole process takes longer. It's demoralising for the child and very inefficient for everybody.

My daughter started academics even later than your children, and has had to spend very little time mastering the skills that British schools take years to teach.

Of course, some children are ready at an early age. But that is no reason to make it compulsory for everyone.

my dd started at 4.9years in Scotland (November birthday) and she was very ready for it. Children with Jan/Feb birthdays have the option to defer the start by a year and then they would still go into P1 rather than into the year group they should have been in. The cut off here is the end of Feb so no child is younger than 4.6years when they start. P1 is the equivalent of reception and P2 is the equivalent of Y1.

Most people seem to think that it depends on the child....I hear this "So reaady for it" a lot..but not sure what it means really....do people mean that the child is bored at home?

Anyway..if the age were flexible then children who are shyer or immature would benefit....those who want to go can do.

I am not sure what not wanting to pay for childcare has to do with wanting he best for your dc though!

We left the UK 6 months before dc2 would have gone to school (oct birthday) and now we're in germany he's still not in school although he'll be 6 in a few weeks! He could have gone this year but didnt have to so we let him enjoy another year of kindergarten and also then he will be the oldest in the year rather than always being the youngest!

but i agree with what Saracen and mumonthenet said - some children are just not developmentally ready at a young age for school. I tried to teach dc2 to read in English last year thinking thats what he'd have been doing in reception - he struggled so much! fast forward to this year and he's ready to start some easy reading!

think having some flexibility in the UK system would be better! there seems to be no leeway for and august born baby to wait to go to school until after their 5th birthday without having to then go straight into their age appropriate year group!

Well like others said, this is a bit of a red herring. I can only speak for Italy, but I know similar experiences apply to other countries in the EU.

In Italy it is true that kids can start age 5 or 6, it is the parent who decides. However the overwhelming majority of children are encouraged and do go to kindergarten (scuola materna) - and this covers pretty much the Reception/Y1 curriculum. It is very rare and exceptional that a child starts at 6 with no experience of schooling and not knowing how to read and write - even just the basics of it.

And knowing several primary school teachers in Italy they say that in the few instances where this happens, it does cause a lot of problems for them, as the children are effectively way behind the others in the class in terms of socialisation AND literacy/numeracy. They DO catch up but it is not smooth initially.

So the starting later is a bit of a red herring. Bearing in mind that a lot of parents are ready or simply need to go back to work by the time the child is 4 or 5 and cannot afford to look after them full time, so they would probably end up going to some sort of establishment anyway.

The flip side of this of course, is that it just becomes even more expensive for the parents to find childcare, as the government does not provide free funded places for all until that age and so effectively working parents are having to find childcare fees for 6 years in some cases, that's 12 years for 2 children. This is a very distressing reality for a lot of parents.

As I say every time this crops up.....

Yes, in many countries they start later. We are in Italy and they start at 6. Prior to which, they have 3 yrs of semi-compulsory "scuola materna" where, by the time they leave, most of them can read a bit and write a bit and do rudimentary maths.

Once they start elementary school, they have 30 hrs a week. Which is not, in any way, play based learning.They sometimes do creative work, but not very often. They are sitting, at desks, reading, writing and arithmetic-ing. They have anything from 2- 4 hours homework every afternoon which must be done. They are graded, seriously, twice a year. If they fall below a certain standard, you, as the parent, are expected to do something about it, in the form of paying for private lessons.

Last week dd's h/w one day involved writing a composition with a clear introduction, main body and conclusion about her summer holiday, and learning, drawing and labelling the scientific parts of the body of various marine creatures. She is doing addition, subtraction and simple multiplication and division. They have done stuff with the Italian language that I only did with the English language once I became a TEFL teacher. She was 7 on Saturday.

I'm happy with her school, because she is. But I don't think for a second this system is any better than the British one.

So, in effect, what I'm saying is this: I imagine that 4 and 5 yr olds in Britain are doing more or less what 4 and 5 yr olds in Italy are doing. It's just that in Britain they are doing it in school, in Italy they are doing it at nursery. And so on. What dd did in Yr 1 of school, a child in Britain would be doing in Yr 2 or 3.

Xposted with Emy!

Here in switzerland the children may start school at 4yo. Most children do, but for the first year can just go half days. It is a gentle introduction to school, a little bit of learning the alphabet and some numbers but still lots of play. They do have some thngs that they must do so they learn how to concentrate on doing work.

School is compulsory from 6yo.

My dc are both coping very well with this system. Dd was 6yo so went straight into year 1. Ds was 4yo.

I am a strong believer in children starting school at a later age.

You could always home ed until you feel that the child is ready, then go into school at the age that you feel best.

Agree with Bucharest and Emy . You will find that those countries eprceived as starting later actually have a sound preschool programme in place, a year or more of which is compulsory, thus actually bringing them in line with UK schools age-wise. What they do offer but is less available in UK is a degree fo flexibiltiy about starting for those with brithdays clsoe to the "cut-off date" but that can lead to year groups having a 2-year+ age range which lonbger term may not be so good. I think the arguemtn here is should 4/5 year olds be taught on the same premises as older children. Recently there has been a decrease in community based playgroups and nurseries as a result of more stringent funding and Ofsted requirements, Surestart and a tendency towards school based "free" preschool/nursery places. The other issue is how to structure the EYFS such that it meets the needs of all children - some of whom are ready to learn fairly formally at 4 and others not until much later.

I don't know...I only know what would have been better for my own DD and some of my friends DC's.

My DD is just turned 6 and is in year 2...she is almost a whole year youger than most of her class and it shows....why should she be feeling "less clever" whe at this age a year really does make a difference. Maybe it should be changed for Summer borns....so they would be more in sync when they begin.

She really was immature when she began...in many ways...socially and emtionally most of all.

She is happy now though...but I cannot help wondering how it might have been.

I have september babies who have always been mature for their age, they could have both have happily started school 9 months earlier at christmas. DD was actually standing at the top of the stairs shouting "I WANT TO START SCHOOL NOWWWW" at 4.4. Although with DS primary wasn't a problem, he probably would have been better off starting secondary earlier as he was 12 within days of starting.

MY DH's boss was german with a child in germany who was born within days of DD. He didn't start school until much later than DD did (I think he was &). He found it a very nasty shock to the system because he went from playing all day to a very formal setting. I much prefer our gentler break in we have in the UK with play based reception etc.

Anenome- here it happened to us but kind of the opposite, dd is October born, and whilst in Britain that would usually make her the oldest, here it made her the youngest, all the other children were approaching 7 when they started elementary while dd was 1 month off being 6.

I think you need to look at it further down the line- I think of the fact that the parents of the children in her class who didn't start school till they were almost 7 will be over 20 when they start university, and god knows how old when they finish (there are no real set time limits here)

I'm sure it all evens out in the end. (dd was upset at the beginning when other children in her class would tell her she was too young to be there and she should still be in nursery)