Learning to read at 4/5 or later?

[Pico2]

This is just out of curiosity. Looking at children in reception, some learn to read really quickly and others after 2 terms are still struggling with the one letter sounds. I know that many countries start formal learning later. Is there any evidence (for reading English) that those children who will spend the next couple of years struggling would do better or worse if they started at 7?

Hopefully they learn something between 4 and 7. I've not seen a struggling group being taught, but I'd find it stressful learning something I found that hard and I wonder if the gain from starting early is worth that.

Also, is there some sort of 'readiness' that comes at different ages for different children, or would those not ready at 4 still not be ready at 7 without some sort of intervention?

Isn't the point a little that some people are opposed to phonics/writing/literacy having been moved down the chain to feature so strongly in reception? As I said, at some level early reading has been totally fine for both my children, but they would also have had a wonderful time in reception if it had been full of painting and junk modelling anongst other things. I do think that part of the problem with education is exactly that learning is being pushed further and further down the chain in an attempt to match levels with other countries, but as a result our children have no time or space to think and explore themselves, and as a result we produce very poor thinkers.

But reception is full of painting, junk modelling, role play, play dough etc with a small percentage of the week also devoted to phonics

Phase 1 missed a trick when it focused on phonological and phonemic awareness. It should have had a much wider focus I think.

I think in a lot of schools the pressure with the ever increasing levels of expectation in KS1 have pushed more academic expectation into reception. Although perhaps that is more the case in London. The fact that so many reception children do read to such a high level by the end of the year and are doing maths and writing to the level they do suggests to me the reception of painting and junk modelling has gone for most.

I'd have no issue at all with the reading and writing requirements being moved out of reception. But on it's own that won't solve the issue with literacy. There are also a lot of parents who would have an issue with it.

In an ideal world I'd remove it from EYFS with the literacy curriculum focusing on talk, language, phonological/phonemic awareness and motor control. Alongside early years classrooms working closely with local SALT/OT teams in terms of curriculum and intervention development. Which could have the knock on effect of reducing waitlist times for SALT/OT in the NHS for those children most in need. Many of the rest could be helped using the schools' own provision mapping.

personally I hate all those stupid phases. so many schools see phase 1 as nursery rather than valuing high quality language experiences in every year.

It's more than possible to teach young children to read and write in less than 10% of the school day leaving all that time to explore and play.

It is the reading, writing and maths in reception that should go, in the current formal way. But as long as Y1 and y2 have to 'learn' so much, it won't. It just becomes more and more likely that literacy will be moved down to pre-school. I think it was said further up - just because children that young can be taught, it doesn't mean they should. It would be nice if phonics (as songs and fun stuff) was part of reception, in that 10% of the day, and reading was optional, but creating and thinking and problem solving (in a free play-based way) was central. Kind of how it was in the dim and distant past (although then, most weren't using phonics).

You could probably get all your maths and literacy done in about 20-25%% leaving 75-80% for exploring and playing and painting.

I'm in my 30s and I was definitely taught phonics/reading, writing and maths in reception. There was plenty of play too. I don't think the two are necessarily mutually exclusive, even with the increased demands in yr 1/2.

Even if that were true, you add in the time to get into groups, lunch, playtime, circle time etc. I would argue that there is a lot less than 75-80% of the day for art/creativity. If all that was being taught was phonics and number thinking, yes. But not the level of reading and writing that is expected.

In the dim and distant past reception was much more formal than now which is why teachers welcomed the introduction of the Foundation Stage, (1999) , at last reception had a place and appropriate child centred curriculum and wasn't seen as an extension of Y1

I'm much older and there was no play or painting in my reception class

But Rafa the level of expectation is MUCH higher than 30 odd years ago. I am in my 40's, didn't do phonics and can remember reading the level of books my reception child reads in y2.

I should add that I was in inner London and the ILEA, so my school was ALL about creativity and child-based learning.

Good practice in reception is free flow which means there is no "playtimes", as children have continual access to outdoor play or set groups to get into.

Mrz that works if the classrooms have direct access to outdoor space. Our old Victorian building doesn't. But I do agree that is ideal. I think the theory of reception is really good, I just think there is a conflict between the continually increasing pressure to 'learn' and Goves genius idea of having everyone 'above average' in reading, writing and maths, and what reception is officially defined as. But I also think there should be more scope for thought and exploration (not based in Internet research, for example) through the rest of primary school. But I am biased by my own primary school experience. And as I have already said, no one system fits all and whilst my school was fantastic for me, I would assume it didn't work for everyone there.

The biggest problem I see as a outsider is that English school have to many holidays(half terms) and too much winding down period towards holiday.
In my country, we only have 3 holiday a year, winter(Christms), spring and summer holiday. And they do normal learning everyday except on test day.
In here, my ds had 2 weeks of doing nothing academical leading up to Christmas, and whole week of doing things like colouring and watching film leading to Easter holiday. I don't know how it works in other European countries,
but I was partly educated in US, and they didn't have that either. I don't think England have enough learning days compared to other countries a year, yet try to pack too much things to learn from early age.

I think there was probably a difference in expectations between our schools, What.

Afternoons all through KS1 were for play and painting and music. Perhaps less so in yr 2.

It's funny about the phonics. I don't remember it. I remember the KS2 spelling tests were always organised by sound/spelling pattern but it wasn't until I found my reception workbooks that I found what is undoubtedly a systematic phonics approach taught from the start of Reception.

For me learning should be secondary to thinking. Our children need to learn less and think more. Thinking takes time and effort. if there is no space to think because you are too busy learning, then ultimately you learn what you are told but you can't discover or explore. That is my experience of our 18 year olds. No independent thinking skills at all.

France, Spain, Sweden, Portugal, USA, Canada, South Africa, Hungry, Finland, Belgium, New Zealand, Ireland are among the countries that have shorter school years than the UK irvine

I think the old National Curriculum was very much about spoon feeding pupils rather than teaching them to research and work out for themselves and the new curriculum ...

When did they change Mrz? Although I was talking to a secondary school teacher at an outstanding school which said the level of spoon feeding there was disgraceful. Also, from a teacher's point of view, do you think the NC is a good thing? Just curious

...could possibly be used in that way, but probably isn't because of the ridiculous assessment demands.

Nice document in theory, terrible one in practice.

I only know USA, but even though they may have shorter school year, they won't get interrupted by half terms like England? I loved longer summer holiday.
My native country is trying to make national curriculum a lot easier than used to be. More holidays, thinner text books and all that. It seems totally opposite move from England.

I haven't got a problem with the current curriculum but think the tests are a joke.
My experience as a parent is that spoon feeding was much more obvious in my children's secondary than in their primary school but that's just my experience.