What age do you think children should start primary school?

[sarahht]

What age do you think children should start primary school?
Is four too young for children to start school?
Are children ready to start school at such a young age?

Since EYFS covers birth to 5 and a variety of settings not just schools it means they don't always have a teacher and the ratios vary according to age.
The ratio for a 3-4 year old for example is 1-13 with a qualified teacher without a qualified teacher it is 1-8

Afterschool is not free. I pay about 1 euro per hour. They did LOADS in maternelle. Say you have a theme, like Bread. They go to the farm so see how wheat is grown/milled. They go to the local supermarket to buy ingredients. They cook stuff. They bring local baked things in from home. They draw pictures of what they have done. They do different art technicques. When litttle they get a nap. They have lunch with their friends and learn how to share and be sociable.

I think they are much stricter with them than you would get in the UK though. Imho it hasn't hurt. Belgium is usually listed as no. 1 or near the top in Education on these Euro surveys.....

Tgger - when I talk of freeness - I mean in terms of it being free! Pretty much the only private schools here are the International ones. The Royal family send their dcs to state schools. There are no catchment areas either. You can apply to ANY school. If they are really popular there is an element of first come first served. I expect the King gets a heads up though.....

Say you have a theme, like Bread. They go to the farm so see how wheat is grown/milled. They go to the local supermarket to buy ingredients. They cook stuff. They bring local baked things in from home. They draw pictures of what they have done. They do different art technicques.
It still sounds like EYFS

Some of it sounds very similar and I think the best bits of our EYFS are fantastic. Our best settings are great but IMO the provision at this age (3-5) is very varied in the country. Things I would like to improve in UK are:

• better qualified (ie degree level in child development etc) nursery staff from age 3- be easier if they were better paid - or at least leaders of this stature
• going out of nursery setting more to experience big wide world
• regular and good quality provision in music and dance/movement/PE *personal and social education in line with child development (see first star) in readiness for school
• all the EYFS good stuff that goes on but themes/topics done in more depth

If the quality of the provision was much improved then there is no reason it couldn't continue into years R, 1 and 2, in an age appropriate manner.

Which I should say it sort of does, although from other posts it seems Year 1 steps up the formal learning and although Year R is play based sometimes it seems confused in its identity.

I'm not a teacher/early years practitioner and can only base my opinion on my own 3 children and neices/nephews/friends children

I think 3 is fine for part-time nursery. Most children that I know have been ready for more social interaction by this stage

None of my children were ready for school at the age of 4 (one winter, one spring and one summer baby) ...and they certainly weren't ready for full-time.
The most ready child was my second dd (spring born), she's the most easy-going of my three.

I think a better age for full-time would be 5 at the earliest, possibly 6. But I think it should remain play-based for the whole of the infants, with a more gradual approach to more serious learning. My dd's school has a lovely Foundation Unit followed by a very 'its-time-to-work-now' Y1. The poor children don't know what's hit them

But mrz - it is! It is early years education. The difference is that the UK does not offer free early years education FULL TIME 7.30am - 6pm for 2.5 year olds. Don't they get 15 hours per week in the UK?

I have to add - that is the hours offered. School hours tend to be 8.30 til 3 with Wednesday pm offf and an early finish on a Friday.

Yes Portofina they get 15hours free but they can access the 8am -6pm if parents top it up.

For a small fortune .

"The difference is that the UK does not offer free early years education FULL TIME 7.30am - 6pm for 2.5 year olds"

And thank god that they don't IMO.

And are our settings really suited to children attending those hours? Ie is it in their best interests to attend more than the 15 hours. Often not. If the provision was better and cheaper/free, then probably/ possibly more would go for longer.

SoupDragon - but they would be standard hours for a London creche for example. For which you might pay up to £900 per month (as I am led to understand) Here there is FREE provision - education plus childcare (at minimal cost) 2.5 yos aren't being sent up chimneys - they are doing what a 2.5 yo would be doing in a UK ft nursery situation. The difference is, it is free. For all children.

There is one near my school that offers 24hours 7 days a week

There is a 99% take up rate.

I have to agree that delaying the age for mandatory school attendance will only make the attainment gap in this country larger. Razor-elbowed parents will look for any way to give their children a leg up and will seek out enrichment pre-school activities - something which is rampant in major metropolitan areas of the US.

I think that the age for starting school is perfectly fine - I only wish that the push for starting to read was delayed by one year and that instead the curriculum would be based on strengthening the pre-steps to literacy.

I agree with many of the above; four is far too early and full-time school merely tires them out and occupies the time that was previously spent playing or doing things with the family. Everyone loses, apart from parents who need free child care. Maybe this could be provided in a more child-friendly setting for those who want it and the rest of us not pressurized into participating in something in which we do not believe?

my dds were autumn birthdays. DD aged 6 was shy and although ready for school, did take a month or 2 to adapt - still wouldn't have changed a thing as she loved it 90% of the time.

dd2 is 4 and a half now and attends pre school 3 full days a week. One the other 2 days she has swimming lessons and we go the park, house days etc. She starts school in Sept and is desperate to start! She's bored not being with other kids or her sister all day. I feel sorry for her as she's at an age where she wants more stimulation - and i play LOTS with her! She also goes to dancing with her older sister as she sees herself as similar age etc.

Both attended nursery 2 days per week from 9 months old. I think 4 years is fine as long as emphasis on play - most kids don't "play out" these days in local areas and so school allows safe social interaction at a young age. In dds school reception was almost like nursery as so much play based.

My understanding of the success of the Kindergarten/late school start is that they are ALL much more prepared - readiness and maturity has "evened" out when they are that bit older. So much LESS difference between a just 6 yo and a nearly 7yo, than there is between a just 4yo and a nearly 5yo, iyswim.

I think children should go to school if and when they are ready. No fixed starting age. After all, they don't have to go to school at all in this country, thank goodness.

[smug home educating bastard disclaimer]

@IndigoBell:

You said "My 3 were all as ready as they ever were

I found that finding problems at 4 has given me plenty of time to fix them. And then only barely enough time.

I shudder to think what would have happened if I'd discovered their problems any later."

I'm afraid I don't remember the details of the problems your children had, so I may be missing the mark.

However, don't you think that having most kids start school at four - an age when a proportion of them just aren't ready to learn the things they are expected to learn (as opposed to having actual specific learning difficulties) swamps the SEN system with "false positives", and so makes it harder for kids like yours to get the help they need? I mean, if everyone started school at seven or eight or ten, then the "late bloomers" would have caught up with the others, would be ready for it, and would do as well as the others. Resources wouldn't have been wasted assessing these late bloomers for special needs when they were four, and throwing help at them, when all they really needed was just to wait a few years. Those resources would be freed up for the children who almost certainly DO need extra help.

This in turn might mean that there wouldn't have been such a delay in getting your children's difficulties addressed.

No, I don't think that :)

There wasn't any delay in getting help, particularly with DD. it has just taken 5 years of trial and error to get things sorted.

I'm firmly convinced it would have still taken 5 years if she had started later. But sorting things at 9 has been 'early enough'. Whereas learning to read and write at 12 would have been too late. Her education would have been unrecoverable then.

Again DSs handwriting is only being sorted out now, in Y6. Which is absolutely the last time you have to sort out handwriting.

Good schools are very, very careful to make sure kids don't end up on the SEN register because they're summer born. (and not so good schools need to learn from good schools)

Extra help doesn't get thrown at 4 year olds who are behaving like 4 year olds.

I have not found lack of 'resources' to ever be the problem. Lack of knowledge, yes. Lack of aspirations, yes. Lack of long term thinking, yes. Lack of communication, yes.

But mostly lack of knowledge. Teachers aren't adequately trained in SEN.

I am sure if a child started school for the first time at 7 and shows problems, they'd still be a delay in getting them at help. The same attitudes that are trotted out at 4 would be trotted out at 7. (They need time to settle, starting school is hard, all children develop at different rates, you just have to accept your children are like that)

Certainly none of the western European countries are known for being good with SEN. Some of the Eastern European countries have excellent special schools. But I haven't heard their MS provision to be better.

(Someone more knowledgable will now come along and tell me how great country X is)