Why do we send children to school so young

[sandcastles1]

Just that really - I'm feeling really disgruntled with our school system and why we make children go into full time education from the age of 4. My dc just started and is enjoying some of it and hating lots of it. She loved the first week when it was half days. For the past four years she has been either with me or her dad - we would take her out into the woods every day. Now she's cooped up in a small room/playground for the whole time. I could have home schooled her I know but didn't think that was the best thing socially. I can see the benefits of them going but 5 days a week 9-330 just seems harsh. Why couldn't it be three days. I know up until 5 we can take them out but just wondering how others feel as I'm missing my daughter a lot, she doesn't want to be there most of the time and I really now see the virtues of other countries that don't start full time until 7. Yes it means we can work, but why is that the norm? People that don't want to spend more time with their kids could find other care the rest of the time.

I am not against school - just 5 days of 30 hours in the one setting. I don't think it's necessary at that age and nothing anyone has said has demonstrated exactly what the child is gaining in 30 hours of a formal setting that they couldn't get in 20 in a formal setting and 10 in something else - whether that's parents or if people don't want that because they want/need to work then something else. It's about what you make the norm/mainstream and who then has to opt in or out. I think it would be interesting if the opportunity to have more time at home was set up as the norm/mainstream and others had to find alternatives if that wasn't for them rather than the other way round which is what we have now.

If the last eighteen months have shown us anything about education, it’s that we need more levelling, not less.

School for quite a few hours a day provides a reasonably level playing field for all children.

Coming up with a system where there is more open to difference, by children continuing to spend further years in a mix of settings, just reduces that level playing field enormously.

All you’d see at the end of a few years of this new world you’re suggesting is a huge variety of knowledge and skills amongst children depending on how much input their parents can, or want to, put in at home.

It’s naive to suggest that so many jobs can be done part time or reduced hours (“I’m sorry, your surgical staff are only working a half day today so we’re just going to pray your surgery is done in that time”).

And it’s talking from a place of real privilege that you have been able to flex your hours so much up till now.

What will you be doing with your child during the school holidays @sandcastles1?

Also how do you know she isn't struggling as much as some other children and how she is more advanced than many of them?

Also if you see so many sad parents and sad children maybe you have chosen the wrong school. Certainly didn't see that at DS's Primary School and not at the schools I work with. Speaking to teachers they have found children settle in much quicker without having parents hanging around, maybe it is the parents projecting their feelings onto their children.

If your child only went to school 3 days a week what would you be doing in the other 2 days?

I don't think it's necessary at that age and nothing anyone has said has demonstrated exactly what the child is gaining in 30 hours of a formal setting that they couldn't get in 20 in a formal setting and 10 in something else - whether that's parents or if people don't want that because they want/need to work then something else.

Why have you picked 20 hours (or 3 days, as you've said elsewhere)? If we're going to entirely redesign society around it then I'm hoping that there's some basis to it and it's not just an arbitrary number! Which other countries only offer education three days a week and get better outcomes as a result?

I thought the decision to start children at school earlier was to specifically target disadvantaged children. The ones who don’t get read books/learn to hold a pen at home. So they don’t drop too far behind. Imagine if they weren't in formal education until they were 7?

If DD wasn’t in school she would have been in nursery for longer. Probably bored out of her mind

Lots of these views are intriguing. If sending children to school at 4 is so right then how do virtually all other European countries succeed in starting schooling when older? The UK starts school earlier than other European country, parents just work and juggle child care for longer.
The difference is not what would you do with your kids if they were not at school but that young kids in Europe are not expected to have a reasonable attention span and sit for longer periods in a classroom. Most countries don't start formal teaching until 7 which is the age when kids really can listen to a teacher talking at the front of a class to many children, not directly at them.

I don't consider reception to be formal teaching, but mostly play based, it's yr 1 that is too young for formal teaching. I feel starting just 1 yr later would be a huge benefit to most kids so that by the time they are in yr 1 they are 6/7. But it's a pipe dream as not going to happen.

I'm abroad. My dd started Kindergarten aged 3 and Primary aged 6.5. They did lots of learning, but mainly informally and through projects and play til the last year where they did numbers, letters and learnt how to write their name, as I recall. Mine had been watching lots of Cbeebies and Jolly Phonics and could read a bit in English, though I never pushed it as I didn't want to cause confusion at school. I was slightly bemused when the Primary teacher said in September that the whole class would learn to read by Christmas. But they did.

The lesson I took from this is that in Uk they force this too early. Leave it a year or so and it matters not if you are born in August or December - they are all ready for it.

In reality, it would just widen the gap between the haves and have nots (as is already the case by the age kids start school) because some kids get absolutely nothing from being at home developmentally!

@purpleneon

In reality, it would just widen the gap between the haves and have nots (as is already the case by the age kids start school) because some kids get absolutely nothing from being at home developmentally!

Absolutely! And it would just screw women's careers even more.

Wow Miss Ambrosa that's really interesting- and more in tune with actually starting later rather than "they do the same things as we do but in kinder."

What country is it? Thats such a huge difference. At 6.5 to be writing name and knowing numbers and letters is what we are teaching at 4.5. I think less pressure would work well but so much is expected of English children by yr 2 (age 6-7). They're looking at 2/5/10 tables and punctuation/grammar/sentences. I can completely believe both countries look the same within a year or two though so need to pile on early pressure!

I’m sure a lot of children in countries who don’t learn to read or write formally before they are 6 are exposed to at least reading before then at home. Isn’t there some thought that Finnish children partly learn to read as many of their tv programmes are subtitled?

DS started asking me what letters were before he started school and picked up reading quite quickly. I’m sure he would have been very frustrated if I told him he couldn’t learn to read before he was 6

@toomuchlaundry

I’m sure a lot of children in countries who don’t learn to read or write formally before they are 6 are exposed to at least reading before then at home. Isn’t there some thought that Finnish children partly learn to read as many of their tv programmes are subtitled?

DS started asking me what letters were before he started school and picked up reading quite quickly. I’m sure he would have been very frustrated if I told him he couldn’t learn to read before he was 6

I don't know about that but it's true that Scandinavian countries in general place a lot of emphasis in general on reading so I can't see many Finnish mothers going "no! You're only 5! Of course you can't start to learn to read those words!"

I don't think you need to go to school at this age to learn. Kids learn through play beautifully and both my kids were starting to learn to read age 3, had my daughter not gone to school at 4, she would have continued to learn with me and at nursery. My son would be for my son who will start reception next year.

Tbh I just think what would be ideal is a play based informal type of learning until they are in yr 2, so age 6/7. Many people have this mind set that children need to be formally taught to learn. Under the age of 7 they really do not need structured formal learning. They do learn through play and informal teaching. Maths and science is all around us, language and words too. You just simply do not need to put kids in a class room sitting at a table at such a young age.

Even if kids start school at 4 I would love to see a change within education taking a more informal, play based approach that gives more flexibility to children's needs and abilities until yr 2. Then at 6/7 start more structured learning when children are more able to sit, play attention and concentrate.

@Hardbackwriter because the OP works 3 days

How about maybe we move away from this one fits all system, school should still start at 4 but be more play based for majority and just those that want or are ready to learn do that little bit more
Many parents are quite pushy and love to tell everyone how there child can already read, write etc so those types would not want there child playing with sand all day.
So if no level to be at by yr 2 and this was pushed back to y3 , kids could learn in there own time and maybe of parents were told we would rather have your child dressing themselves etc rather than reading and writing unless they can dress etc and are ready and thats ok
Both mine were summer babies an ld although ready for school and hours at 4 , reading was non exsistent and they always sat behind peers , when they hit yr 2 6/7 they suddenly started reading better and caught up with all their peers , it was like something just clicked
And even for able children learning through play can still challenge them , lots of exploring outside etc

I’d be looking at the school if so many children are unhappy. Mine adored reception and generally skips in with a friend. She’d be quite upset if she couldn’t spend as much time with her friends so for her mom-Friday works absolutely fine. She’s also in wrap-around and enjoys that. You seem angry at the system because it isn’t working for your daughter. That is fine but there are also plenty of people who it does work for.

In England (can't speak for the other 3 countries) children attending school from the age of 4 (or younger) has always existed.
The Education Act of 1870 started the Elementary Schools. Years were called Standards. Standard One was from age 7. Not 5 like the current Year One.
The 5 -7 year olds were in the Infants Class. Many schools would also have a 'Babies' Class - 3 and 4 year olds. Sometimes the odd 2 year old if they were big enough to follow their older siblings to school and the teacher didn't realise how old they were.
The 'Babies' Classes were mostly phased out but were replaced (in the second world war) by Nursery Schools (mostly so their mothers could do war work).
The 1944 Education Act moved the Senior children out of Elementary Schools (re named Primary) but the 5-7 year olds stayed in what was still called Infants. Standard One was renamed '1st year' but again didn't start until Juniors - age 7.
Many schools would take 4 year olds in the Infants - sometimes in what was called 'Rising 5s' classes.
'Reception' became the norm in the 90s.
Whatever your opinions on education the concept of starting school at age 4 - basically it's not new.
Infact it's much better now because those 'Babies' Classes were mostly run by an elderly-should-be-retired-teacher with the assistance of a 12 year old Pupil Teacher.

My 4 year old son is struggling with reception. I think I'm going to ask for a 4 day week with home schooling on a Friday. Guaranteed it won't be popular, but genuinely DH and I fee it would be best for him.

@Bunnycat101 - I'm not angry at the system because it doesn't work for my daughter - I'm querying whether it really is the best system for the kids and if a 9-3.20 5 day a week format was arrived at because that is what children need or if the starting point was to fit in with people's working life. The 1870 Education Act Legoisthebest refers to was driven by industrialists who essentially wanted workers to be available here's a quote from the government website:

The views expressed by industrialists that mass education was vital to the nation's ability to maintain its lead in manufacture carried considerable weight in Parliament.

Available here: www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/overview/1870educationact/

That was the starting point for the timetables we have and many of the school buildings children are in stem from that period. It was about ensuring children got an education/ weren't sucked into child labour but during the industrial revolution when the focus on work and the ways people work was different to how it is today.
I just wonder if stirring things up and looking at what is really best from the point of view of the children, not work, wouldn't be interesting.

I think the levelling debate and ensuring disadvantaged children aren't left behind adds a very complicated dynamic. I don't have the answers, my DC isn't struggling whole sale - but I think slightly less time at school and more input from parents can only be a good thing where it works - I get that for many it doesn't - but is that the majority? And if it is the majority - does it have to be this way? Utopian maybe - but how does change happen if you don't try? And if you want a different type of society - it's got to start with the kids.

sandcastles1 yes you are right about the Education Act being from industrialists. Back then the school leaving age was generally around 10 - 12 too. The kiddies might have started at 4 but they weren't at school for many years. I would be interested to know that in countries that start 'proper' school at age 6/7 (but have several years of kindergarten before) what their Victorian era school leaving ages were.
To be honest the only reason we probably don't call Nursery/Reception 'Kindergarten' is because it's a German word.
In the private school system (back in those Victorian days) the rich kids went to Kindergartens before starting Prep School. I expect the 1st world war put an end to the early school years being called that.
It's all quite interesting really.

Op maybe start a new political party then as none of them wish to reform schools in such a way and yes I would say that most of the people I know have 2 working parents so school hours are needed and many kids stay longer at younger age in childcare settings and also many kids go to breakfast club and afterschool on top of a school day , many kids cope a few don't and there are other choices , although homeschooling isn't a choice a lot can make as work gets in the way .

@Legoisthebest I know provate schools that still call it kindergarten now , not sure it went away and america use kindergarden, first time i had probably heard the word through Judy blume books

@sandcastles1 also what many need and are asking for is longer school days , until 5 or so to fit in with work, it was all over the news not so long ago .
Private schools often have a much longer day and sometimes even a sat morning , although they do get longer holidays

I think the 9-3.30 five days a week works. Children are excited to go to school, see their teachers and friends. They like being the big children who have outgrown nursery. It’s amazing how much they learn - they soak up knowledge at that age and are proud of how much they have learnt. Reception has lots of time to play - DC’s don’t realise they are learning through play and extra time to play at breakfast and after school club.

My child is 3.5 and starts school next year. I think she will be just fine. We both work and she goes to nursery 3.5 days. She learns a lot there. Letters, numbers etc. Also social skills which are hugely important: by the time next September comes she will be ready.

If you feel so strongly and clearly haven’t got money pressures on you to work (seeing as how dismissive you are of those that do) just bloody homeschool for a year or 2. There is that option so use it or stop moaning