Children in England start school too young.

[Kendodd]

Or so I think at least.

And not just me

Why won't the government raise the school starting age? Research seems to say it would benefit children, and it certainly doesn't seem to do children in other countries any harm. Instead they want to introduce testing for five year olds 'so we can compete with Finland (where they enter school at seven, after one year of pre-school)and China' They claim to be skint, they could just rename reception and Y1 'pre-school' make it voluntary, pre-school teachers are cheap, primary school teachers are expensive, so a whole heap of money is saved as well.

"Reading instruction in Sweden has traditionally begun at the age of seven, the start of compulsory school attendance. Results of research, however, indicate that reading instruction of younger children may positively affect their future reading competence."
tntee.umu.se/lisboa/papers/full-papers/pdf/N3-ahl.pdf

www.thelocal.se/33732/20110512/

tntee.umu.se/lisboa/papers/full-papers/pdf/N3-ahl.pdf

www.thelocal.se/33732/20110512/

And before we go chucking the baby out with the bath water, the UK's education system was ranked 6th in the world, which isn't too shabby! Of the countries ahead of us only Finland start later and perhaps we could be teaching the Swedish system a thing or two as it was ranked 21st. Other countries that start later include Germany, France and the US whose systems all ranked significantly lower.
I really feel the main thing we need to do in this country is increase the perceived value of education in certain sectors of society and respect and support teachers.
This report makes it very clear that the countries ranking above us do well because they have good teachers and teaching is a respected profession and education is given a high value...there is a culture of education.

duchesse assume its not september this year as state deadline missed.

you could defer reception place until jan/april after 5th birthday jan the year after shes due to start but the latter is risky in terms school place.

I attended end of term preschool party today.

both my dds moving preschool but many were starting school abut 24 leaving for reception

it was a 1-3pm party and some showed signs of tiredness, lacking concentration, not doing the structured entertainment, not listening and easily distracted.

most of these were boys a few younger boys as in april so not always july/august.

Some of the little girls seemed s small.

yet in 6 weeks time n part time its full time 5days a week where the expectation is by end f year r they all reading and writing.
Maybe its just the linked school was quite formal when dd 1 went few years back but since last ofsted they really stepped it up this year and does not sound very play like to me its formal academic learning from the start.

It depends what we aim for?

are we trying t make it fair on younger born kids wh clearly not ready?

or are we trying close gap in attainment for kids from deprived backgrounds?

I have been on preschool commitee and agree its hard work time consuming and is vital t preschools existance. Its more like being a governer rather than pta and spoilt this year a bit as rather thn focussing on my kids im fire fighting issues and seeing different sides to the staff.

we have very few schools here with nursery classes shame which seems like good idea. but as most children has no chance getting into the linked school is a bit unsettling

I note someone has picked up an earlier report from 2010 further down the thread. The data I quoted is from Pearson in 2012 and was widely publicised at the end of last year. It included the OECD data from 2010 amongst other factors and was supported by a number of international educational organisations.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20498356

The UK's education system is ranked sixth best in the developed world, according to a global league table published by education firm Pearson.

The first and second places are taken by Finland and South Korea.

The rankings combine international test results and data such as graduation rates between 2006 and 2010.

www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6343921

www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6343921

<a class="break-all" href="http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=politiken.dk/uddannelse/ECE2006758/forsker-pisa-test-er-ubrugelig/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DSvend%2BKreiner,%2Bpisa%26client%3Dfirefox%26hs%3DGhN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=da&u=politiken.dk/uddannelse/ECE2006758/forsker-pisa-test-er-ubrugelig/&prev=/search%3Fq%3DSvend%2BKreiner,%2Bpisa%26client%3Dfirefox%26hs%3DGhN%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-GB:official

Groundhog Day!

It was only a few weeks ago that we had a thread about Finland, summer born DCs and Finland.

My dd was August born and started school at 4.1 when she was more than ready academically [already reading fluently and dealing with 1-20 number bonds] but physically and socially she was a bit young.The Reception teacher had some gym mats behind her desk and if the dc got really tired they could take a nap!

No, I mean this year. Because one of the schools she has a place at is a new free school, which was not certain to get off the ground until a few days ago, and still doesn't have any buildings, we have been allowed to keep two places.

My dd was massively ready to start school at 4 - as a November birthday she was almost ready to start the year before. She hadn't had a daytime nap since the age of 18 months so that wasn't an issue.

In contrast my American friend couldn't bear to let her youngest son start at 6 because he was 'still a baby', which I have to admit I found completely ludicrous and molly-coddling. But, I'm not a mollycoddler .

However of course it does depend on the individual child to some extent, but I would have thought most kids are ready at the age of 5?
Also - working parents, what are they to do? Our nursery fees would have topped £1k a month full-time.

IF there was a Scandinavian/German model where they took children at kindergarten or whatever and looked after them for most of the day, as well as teaching them useful skills/socialisation, and all for free, then that would be a different matter. but we don't have that so it's immaterial.

Plus some - many - children love the 'academic' side of school, learning to read and write.
Personally I am shuddering at the thought of looking after a small child for the best part of 6 years, but that's probably just me. I think it ain't broke...

AbbyR1973 Tue 23-Jul-13 18:49:42
"Cory the thing is we don't live in Sweden and most people don't live an aspirational outdoor lifestyle with access to boats to varnish etc on tap. Children that outgrow nurseries do get a bit bored- its not just the reading and writing but they aren't doing a lot of the other things you mention and are, it seems to me, aimed at the average 3 year old. If a child comes along that's a bit different problems can occur. I would like to see the comparative statistics on SAH parenting on Scandinavia"

It doesn't have to be boats; I could have said paint the skirting boards instead. Even an ordinary flat or house needs DIY from time to time. And none of the other things I listed had anything to do with an aspirational outdoors lifestyle: they are just ordinary things that families do: preparing food, mending everyday things, looking at the place where you live. It doesn't require any "wherewithal". You don't have to have an aspirational outdoor lifestyle to teach your child to mend the hoover or bake a cake or cook a stir fry. Even wandering round the park on a Sunday morning showing your children the plants doesn't require a terribly aspirational lifestyle. My SIL seemed to manage these things whilst living in a tiny flat in an urban area on very little money.

The difference I have observed between the UK and the Continent is that children seem far less involved in what the adults do here, just the ordinary jobs about the house and in the kitchen. Adults seem to park them in front of the television so they can get on unimpeded. I have even seen people suggest that children should not be allowed in the kitchen because it is too dangerous.

SAP's are very, very rare in Sweden these days, far rarer than in the UK. But people still do things at weekends, just ordinary family things- and children take part. Nurseries, too, encourage children to muck in. Incidentally, nurseries are not free there, though they are subsidised.

"I DO think the activities you suggest are very broadening and wonderful things for children to be engaged with but it doesn't mean that they can't/ shouldn't be allowed to move on if they are ready to. "

Cultural difference summed up in a sentence. You see reading and writing as "moving on" in relation to practical skill, as somehow practical skills were something inferior or on a lower plane, something that you leave behind as you grow more mature. I was taught to see them as something equally valuable that you go on developing throughout life.

The Swedish system was ranked among the top in the days before the restructures involving free schools etc. Finland still has an oldfashioned structure which is very similar to the Swedish system I knew.

My DS is about to start a high-quality state nursery school, with a qualified teacher, aged 3.1 years - and he is very ready for it!

Personally I would like to see state nursery schooling available for all children from the September following their 3rd birthday. High quality pre-school does benefit children. I would like to see the EYFS/"nursery school" to expand to cover the pre-school year, Reception and Year 1 though, with "primary school" beginning in Year 2.

Cory- I didn't mean moving on and when I read back the post I realised that. What I meant was as well. The view is often that children shouldn't be allowed to learn these things before they are 6/7 because somehow it's damaging. I disagree with this view.
FWIW I do spend time doing exactly the things you mention BUT I am increasingly recognising as you do that many parents don't do this stuff with their offspring and do park them in front if the TV. Various schemes have been introduced to try and change this. You and I can say it doesn't take any special skills etc but clearly there is some factor preventing a sub group of parents from engaging with their children with the result that they arrive in school without these skills. I don't understand why we have more of a problem with this than some other countries like Scandinavia and suspect there is a cultural/ learned element.
Of course children should be doing these things AND reading/writing/maths if they want to as well but my guess is that if we started school later there would be a group of children in society who would be further disadvantaged than they already are because when they go to school at least someone starts paying attention to them.
My point is that starting later is not the answer to educational system woes.

I think that DD can easily afford to do other things at school as she's busy teaching herself how to read and write and would rather like to do more bread-baking and practical things.

DS has a 31st Aug birthday and started school at 4 years and 10 days and was by far too young to go really

He struggled for the whole of reception (bar the last 4 weeks) and could have done with another year in nursery.

DD (in reception now) is a Jan birthday and was sooo ready (and was ready the year before really) taught herself to read, played nicely with other kids etc etc..

I do think that if you have a summer baby you should have the option to defer without going into yr1 the following year (disclaimer: DS is now in yr3 so don't know if things have changed since then).

Sorry, pressed post too soon. I meant that she can afford not to start all the reading and writing they'd do at school in Years R and 1 as she's learning how to read and write at her own pace at home.

Duchesse- which is fabulous but what about the children whose parents don't provide them with books and crayons so they can teach themselves to read and write at their own pace?

I still think that actually learning to read and write at 4 is too soon for children who do not have pre-reading and pre-writing skills in place. So as someone said downthread, teaching formal reading and writing to children who might never have handled a book will not go as well if there is not enough time spent learning to love stories, to turn pages, to understand that the written word has messages, to know that particular symbols stand for sounds or numbers etc... These are all things that DD has picked up at home but children who don't have that at home surely need the extra time as well? Which is even more grist to the "wait till 6" mill, so that everyone starts from the same point at 6.

Some great posts by AbbyR

I think I would support more flexibility - all children develop differently.

But duchesse you can't stop children from learning. It's what they are designed to do. You can't say all children should learn at 6 otherwise what do you do with the children that pick up a book at 3 and start learning to read, demanding at 2 to know what letters/ words are on signs. You can't say "I'm sorry darling but its top secret until you're 6 so that you don't have an advantage over all the children whose parents couldn't be bothered to read to them and provide crayons." I agree that it is essential to have pre-reading and pre-writing skills before going on. Children have to be ready to do it themselves BUT for some children this happens really quite early on and needs to be supported, just as you would support a child that was older that had not acquired the skills.

No, I'm not saying you should stop children but there's no need to plunge already disadvantaged children even further into arrears right from the start of school either. If a child chooses to learn to read and write at home that's fine as long as they are also picking up the social skills and pre-academic skills that I think should form the basis of education before age 6. Cory vision of practical skills, far from being an aspirational dream, ought to be the birthright of every child. Maybe then we would see common sense returning to life in the UK.

And actually as a child who learned to read at 2 I profoundly disagree that it is always the best thing for a child if they are interested. Of course you can't stop a child, but making learning to read the pinnacle of the early childhood is doing even those children a grave disservice imo. There were so many wasted hours for me when I eventually went to school, so many dissonances between what I could and what was expected of me, so many strange gaps that right from the start I felt like an outsider. I mean, what do you do with a 5 yo that has a reading age of 13 but can't add two numbers together or write? All those hours wasted at school while everyone learned to read would have been better employed for me in learning some basic social skills and how to communicate with children my own age. I was out of step with everyone right from the start. It was not good.