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?

Bruffin, as it was a competition i would guess they would enter the best children to take part, and yes theses children must exist.
the thing is when you go into a shop, cafe ect where school levers work they cannot make eye contact, cannot think on there feet can not do much of anything really.
as for the report it does not say how European children can start school 2-3 years later learn to read and wright there own language within the year and still learn better English than many British kids.

No they don't necessarily ask the best children they open it up to whoever wants to do it at dcs school.
And you nerd to read the report again as it clearly states that English is the hardest language for a native speaker to learn to read and write and takes at least a year longer than most other languages in europe.

the children are not going to volunteer unless they are confident, it is self selecting, dont you get it?
i am not talking about native speakers, i am talking about those that learn English as a second or third language. they speak it read it and wright it better than many native English speakers. er go it is not the language it is the method of teaching and the age at which it is introduced.

bruffin All the explanations why english is more difficult can be applied for french as well.
DD1 started at 6.5 to learn to read in english and according to her teacher she caught up a year per month. She did have a bit of "alfablocks" knowledge and could probably read cat bat... before TBH.
The question is why spend 3 years doing what can be done in 3 months when the children are more mature? (and she still have a bit of trouble sitting down for the whole lesson)

Children can start school at 4 learning at lot of things, but why reading and writing so soon? For those who gets it quickly it must be incredibly boring and for those who are not ready yet incredibly frustrating and ultimately boring/disengaging.

"I think some people have a false idea of what starting school in the UK actually means. Yes they attend full time 9-3 (many will have attended day nurseries 8-6) but it is exactly the same curriculum - lots of play, lots of freedom, lots of choice "

Quoting mrz there. Here they start at 6 but realistically can be almost 7.

They are expected to do 30hrs of bums on seats reading writing 'rithmatic, (dd is 8 and at the moment doing analysis of poetry, simile, metaphor in language work and long division and multiplication of double figures in maths) In addition there is about 3 hrs homework every afternoon.

THat is why they start at 6/7, because there is no leading them up to it gently. My dd was more than ready and could read and write (that is very much seen as the job of the nursery school- teaching them the basic literacy ready for school)

Dd is an Autumn baby so can be added to the anecdotes. Except on the other side of the fence. Frankly I could have sent her a year earlier and she would have been fine.

People are horrified here when I tell them children in the UK start at 4. Then they calm down when I show them the curriculum which, guess what! is what our children also do at 4. But in nursery.

So, as mrz and others have pointed out....the whole continental thing of starting at 7 which is trotted out on all of these threads is a bit of a red herring.

I'm interested about the English thing being the hardest language for native speakers and will read some more on that, because we teflers delight in telling our non-native speakers it's one of the easiest, with only 5% of truly non-decodable irregularities in total across grammar/pronunciation/spelling etc. (though I do like to make grown men cry with my -ough lists )

mrz Tue 28-Feb-12 18:05:18
Some children are more than ready and others will never be ready

Just maybe to add to that, that some might be ready a bit later than the first lot!

I find it too young because of the length of the day and requirement to be physically capable of coping with their needs. It's too soon for a lot of them.

We delayed entry till January and though ds was a bit bored as this time approached, he would only have coped properly with half days until then.

Half days till 5 would be my best option I think. For all of them. It would avoid a lot of the exhaustion and also the ones who were not quite there yet would not be disadvantaged by a staged entry system.

At the moment you start a wee bit late and everyone is ahead of you...mind you ds has pretty much caught up I think, already. They don't learn much or settle into friendships this early. January worked well for us, part time till half term.

I definitely think we start kids too young in school, regardless of their maturity. What's the sodding hurry? Loads of research shows that children do better longer term if they start later, and is it any coincidence that England and Wales have some of the poorest literacy rates, and some of the unhappiest children, than countries who start their children later? It's not a question of just lifting a lid and pouring in education, children need to be developmentally ready for some things: - sitting still, listening, following adult-led activities, holding pens etc. Also they learn so much through play in the first few years of life why can't this continue for longer? It's not liking their sitting on their arses much of the time not learning at home, is it?
I'd really like to start a campaign to change the school starting age, but I've got a horrible feeling I'd be on my own...
Rant over, and descend from soap box

The dutch come top in the list of happiest children and they start school younger than than the UK. Officially they start at 5 but nearly every child starts the day after their 4th birthday.
As pointed out many times on this thread reception is about play, not sitting still all day writing.
Also you cannot compare literacy rates when some languages are very simple phonetically ie Finnish and Italian compared to English which takes over a year longer to learn to read and write for a native speaker.

I find that many schools start pushing the kids too young - they are having "activities" at 2, teaching at 3, and at 4 are expected to have "academic standards"!! And yet their school leavers aren't any better academically than those from less pushy countries. I am a firm believer in lots of frivolous fun and learning by chance or incidentally till 6. Then serious learning and lots of diligent practice in the classroom from 7. (When I say frivolous, I mean picking daisies, singing, skipping about to music, seeing sheep and cows, picking conkers and watching pebbles make waves in water. I don't mean computer games or mindless repetitive activity of course). But I find my ideas aren't very popular nowadays.

I'd support vixcut's campaign. Sounds like my ideas exactly!

Even in the countries that start school later at the age of 7, the children are not home until that age. They are all in some sort of preschool or nursery from a lot younger. They ate not at home baking cakes with mummy.

Yes, what Bruffin says needs to be taken into account as well. Whilst theoretically no-one here needs to send their child to school until the academic year in which they turn 6 (which, as I said before means that most of them will be nearer 7) everyone, but everyone sends their child to nursery. (where they do all the stuff that reception/yr1 kids do at school in the UK)

Exactly bruffin.

I think starting at 4 is okay, but I would prefer it to be half days all the way until near the end of current y1. And play-based until near the end of y2.

"Why would you presume that? My dcs have been educated in the French system where children don't learn to read until they start compulsory education at the age of 7."
yet a number of regular posters with young children in the French system describe a more formal early teaching of reading and writing than you would find in the UK

My dd has coped fine as an August born, but I still can't help thinking she would be even more fine if she was a year older before she started and one of the elder in the class.

"They are expected to do 30hrs of bums on seats reading writing 'rithmatic"

No Bucharest they are NOT expected to do 30hrs bums on seats they are expected to do about 2X 10 mins bums on carpet per day and the rest is play based learning ...

Mrz
I think Bucharest is talking about 6/7 year olds in her country not reception class children in UK:)

sorry I should read first

Children in France start primary school in the September of the calendar year they turn 6 - so at any age between 5.8 and 6.8. But they will all have been at école maternelle for three years before that, and the final year of école maternelle is very full of pre-reading and pre-writing skills as well as the foundations of arithmetic. To give you an idea of the ground covered in maternelle - my DD could write joined up cursive handwriting with ease by November of her first year of primary and was regularly using an ink pen from the January onwards for dictation etc.

Formal sitting down to read and write - age 6-7.

Good nursery education from 3.

Reception in the UK would be great if they didn't try to teach all 4 year olds to read and write.

Starting school at 4 is fine, but the emphasis should be on social skills, learning through play, identifying and supporting children with problems. A bit of time spent on these things at an early stage would pay dividends later.

Some reception children can't cope with full days, and should be able to go for half days.

The reception classes should be smaller too. It is a big shock for a child who is only just 4 to suddenly find themselves in a class with twice as many children and half the space.

Many children at 4 simply don't have the hand/eye coordination to learn to write and can end up feeling very frustrated and with low self esteem.

I think sessions should be planned to allow for various abilities and interests, so that those who will benefit from more play at that age can do so, whereas those who are ready to get stuck into more formalised learning can do so.

That's exactly what should be happening Filter Coffee

I think the whole UK system does things 2 years too early. We started school at 6, high school at 13 and compulsory education to 18 in a school, not a 'college'. Children here grow up too early.

But, good, educational, state-funded, full-time nursery should be available from ages 3-6.