Article: Ban kids from starting school until they turn five to ensure they don't fall

[Jellyfish]

To me it is much like starting solids, some might be ready earlier but it isn't necessary and the risk that they aren't ready makes it an easy choice to wait. There is no benefit to rushing into formal education (except in cases of neglect or abuse but typical situations) and there could be challenges associated with it (immediately or in the future) so why not raise the age?

The financial consideration is difficult for many I'm sure, I think we do need to be investing in more affordable options for families rather than rely on sending them to school asap as the answer. Fix the problem where it is.

If a child is 'bored' and 'needs' school, surely that's a problem with the environment rather than the child itself and something you can have influence over. If children aren't captivated by the way we help spend their time, that is something we can assist with by helping them to engage with the endless possibilities. There is so much around for kids to do, it seems madness for a child to be bored! And if they aren't bored but then become bored in the system then that is another problem with the way we teach to me.

I've long thought of trying to teach a child as a two way street and you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink if it is not thirsty... but no-one is asking that, are they thirsty and what for? We give them what we deem necessary and when we deem it necessary and they're forced to digest because the next lot is right around the corner, keep up drinking or drown. But when a child is thirsty, there is no holding them back. They will drink and drink and drink. We are constantly talking about listening to our inner thirst and hunger signals and trying not to mess that perfectly evolved system up but I think learning is the same. Humans want to learn, humans need to learn and they do, everyday from birth so why are we trying to have so much external influence and pressure on the natural process, there needs to be more freedom for children to discover their natural motivation to learn and explore without expectation or limitations.

So I don't think the starting age is the only issue with schools or even the biggest, there is a lot we need to change. If the focus was more in line with natural learning then the age they began becomes irrelevant as it is an extension of their life to that point, where they managed to learn billions of things in the course of their days already.

[myturn]

I agree with you astrid, I think having the choice complicates things for parents - and for schools - it artificially inflates the distribution of skill level and 'readiness' in the classroom... rather than a 12 month age discrepancy (and the associated normal distribution of skills that arises in that population) there is 18 months and in some cases two years! I really think that just creates an even bigger issue and an even bigger variability in skills - which makes it harder for teachers to teach, and more likely that a struggling kid will feel they are struggling. Why make a bigger distribution than we need - there's always going to be younger and older kids, and more capable and less capable kids (academically and cognitively), so making an even larger age gap I REALLY believe increases the problems that occur in the classrooms.

Take away the choice - and we have less variability - there will always be some kids who are more ready than others - lets just choose an age we want kids to start school - and teach them accordingly.

and the national curriculum is supposed to make the states more equivalent - and we SHOULD be, as we are the same country... instead we have all these differing start dates - and then we have different reporting for teachers across each state too! so frustrating! i think the problem is that the federal government is the one setting the curriculum, but the state government is the one making the decisions of how to implement it in schools in their state - so.... things are all different!!

[nickle730]

There is something in my head, not sure I will get it onto the screen very well...! The way I read this thread, everyone is advocating a national standard for school starting dates i.e. You must be 5 by January 1 of the year you start your first year of formal schooling, regardless of which state you reside in. So if you turn 5 any time in 2013, from January 1 to December 31, you start school in 2014. And you MUST start school in the year after you turn 5? Because we want to avoid the situation of having a 2 year spread in a single class? Right? (There is a 2 year spread in my DD1's class and as they all begin to hit puberty - she's in grade 5 - the spread is showing.) But what happens to the kids who are not ready, despite the fact that they turned 5 in November? And the kid who turns 5 on January 2nd, they cannot start school, whether they are ready or not?

I agree that the cutoff date should be standard across Australia, but I don't think that we can ever create a situation where we will avoid having a two year spread, because the fact is that kids don't develop at a standard rate in terms of school readiness.

I wonder though, if we did abide by the 'rules' outlined above, whether the expectations and conditions of that first year would change? You wouldn't have kids who are 4 years 9 months starting with kids who are 6 years 9 months, every child would be between the ages of 5 and 6 years. So, even allowing for the spread of maturity and development within that group, perhaps the program would be easier to tailor to address the needs of each of those children? Hmmm....

[myturn]

Nickle I don't know if the others were saying that - but I definitely was - thing is, whatever cut off you have - you will have some kids who are ready and some kids who are not.... I think that will be the same whether the cut off date is 1st jan, 30 april, 30 june... whatever... there will always be some kids who miss out because they are after the cut off date. There will always be some kids who are more ready than others - who miss out.... we can't cover it all. My point is simply that we can't address all issues, and I really believe we are creating a bigger problem by having such a large spread of ages. We should modify the curriculum to be appropriate for the students in our grades whatever the age ranges - so it seems we are making it a bigger issue if we hold some kids back and put some kids forward.

I am not saying that 5 is the right cut off, I don't really have an opinion on what is - I know that in Scandinavian countries they are having a lot of luck with starting kids at 7.

I guess I am saying exactly what your last line is stating - I really do think it would be easier to manage the ability level if we had less spread of ability - because there will ALWAYS be some sort of spread - that's how it works.... and we are making it bigger by holding some kids back.

prep (kinder/transition... whatever) used to be an introductory year - now they are expected to write a narrative...! narrative!?? why does a prep even need to know that term! I think you are right, it should go back to just being in intro to school, where they learn the alphabet and how to write a few letters and their name - but the primary goal is to introduce them to the ROUTINE of school... ...

Reading back over your post now... perhaps I went a bit of course at the start of this post.... I agree that there will always be variability - I just think that it will be reduced somewhat if we don't have SUCH a large age gap.

[Trillian]

But what happens to the kids who are not ready, despite the fact that they turned 5 in November? And the kid who turns 5 on January 2nd, they cannot start school, whether they are ready or not?

Nickle, that already happens anyway when you have kids that are 5, but are still not ready for school but because they are turning 6 the following year, by law they have to be at school. What usually happens is that they have to start school and more often than not, they repeat either kindergarten (NSW) or year 1 if they were struggling that badly. And again, that's already the case with cut off dates, in those states where the cut off is in April for example, then kids born May 1 are still going to miss out. But there has to be a date to work from as a starting point. If you can somewhat limit the spread of chronological ages in a cohort, then you have a better chance of limiting the spread of academic ability. I totally agree that there is still always going to be the chance that you are going to have a wide spread of ability at some point as they progress, but the average is still pretty tight and the ones that are still quite low level learners are *usually* the ones who do have dx learning problems and ASD's etc (and being honest, some kids just don't have any hope, I know that's cruel, but that's the reality unfortunately). But you throw a kid in there who is too young, you could have the potential for up to a 4 year gap in ability if that young child is also a low level learner.

Any teacher should strive for differentiating for the needs of their students, but there is a point where it just becomes detrimental to the child. What's the point of a child being in a particular year group when they have always needed to work at the stage below because they weren't ready to start school when they did? It's not fair on them and you run the risk of creating a situation where the child ends up with self esteem and confidence issues because everything they do is a struggle at school. Now the catch22 of all that is sometimes you just can't tell what is going to happen until they do start school and sometimes that can also happen to kids who were 'old enough' to start school but problems didn't emerge till they got to school but more often than not it's the youngest kids.