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

[peanutter]

Meh. My sister and I are May and June babies respectively, and we both started school at 4.5. Our brothers are January and December, and started at 5.

We all did pretty well in school, and about as well as our unique aptitudes could get us.

I was a full year younger than some kids in my class - and I was older than a small number (the youngest in my class actually only turned 5 in October) and that age gap was exacerbated to a ridiculous point when I was doing two year 12 subjects in year 11, and there was a guy doing VCE over 3 years, meaning that I was 15 and he was 19. Yep. I'm pretty sure my parents loved that dynamic - me with a bunch of 18 and 19 year old guys ...

But it really wasn't a big deal.

And they really wouldn't have been any happier if I'd been sixteen, and unless you're going to stop kids from doing accelerated subjects, or stop kids from doing VCE over 3 years, then really what can be done about it?

The only time I can think of where my age became an issue is when one particular teacher was trying to block my request to accelerate Psychology, and she was saying that I would not have enough maturity for the classes, and would fall behind. She actually had put it to the school and my parents not specifically about me, but saying in general that year 10 students weren't able to handle the "distraction" of older students (boys) and blah blah.

I found out though that two other students had successfully enrolled (a girl whose father was a teacher in that faculty, and a boy who had just put it on his list, and not actually asked permission!) so after re-reviewing the situation and my grades and my school record, all that happened was the blocking teacher got a telling off for being unreasonable and double standards-y, I got let into the class, and life moved on.

It wasn't a big deal in primary school, it wasn't a big deal in high school, and ways that I thought it might have been a big deal were redundant - the legal age for drinking etc was irrelevant because most of the kids who were drinking or clubbing or pubbing hadn't waited until the age limits anyway... driving was a non-issue because my parents banned me from sitting my Ls until I finished high school anyway, and there wasn't a chance I was going to be allowed to drive to school (they both worked and caught the train in too). And my friends were kids in my year level and older and younger ones anyway.

With my boys I take the attitude that I'll see where THEY are at, and decide from there.

If they're ready, great. If not, ok. But there's no golden rule, and no guaranteed age or developmental level that says that it's the optimal time ... I won't *really* know until they're there, and doing it. And even then ...

So I'm going to relax and wait and see.

My boys are 21 months apart, and they're May and March, so chances are they'll be in consecutive years. I'd prefer there was a year between them (so they don't end up in a composite class together, even if they're at a smaller school) but I'm not going to push DS1 into school just to make sure there's that year between them. But if he's ready and rearing to go and I'm concerned that another year at kinder will be an issue and he'll be bored, then I'll definitely consider putting him in. Some schools are more flexible than others.

There's no fixed and firm date that can mean that everyone will be happy. If they change the rule, we'll all adapt and live and move along - and I would imagine we'll all keep doing what is right and best for OUR kids.

[LuluHB]

I think that whatever age is agreed as being the "right" age (and I agree standardisation across Australia is important), there will always be parents that have an issue with it. I would have had a big issue if DDs 1 and 2 were held back from starting school for effectively two years after they did start - their kindy year saw them learning the alphabet both verbally and written, counting to 50 etc and starting sight words. This was the year they turned 4 in May. They were well and truly ready and they have flourished. I have no doubt there are kids that weren't so ready and for those kids its been a struggle that hopefully they will be able to put behind them without it becoming a serious ongoing issue.

I think its perhaps more important that parents stop measuring their kids up against the next child. Really, who cares if little Jessie can already read up to the blue level but little Johnnie is only the base orange? At such an early stage of education, there should be less pressure on kids' achievements and more emphasis on it being an enjoyable experience, developing social skills etc

[Trillian]

Peanutter, accelerating younger G&T students is completely different to having younger kids that are struggling with basic curriculum outcomes which is what this article is talking about. As a teacher, I see the result of kids who have been sent to school too soon every day. But even in G&T students, some are still going to experience asynchrony - where they can work at a particularly high level academically, but socially they are still at chronological age or lower so even acceleration is a difficult and complex issue from a teaching perspective.

[peanutter]

Trillian - my point was more that it was never really an issue for us (and the 4 of us did quite differently academically, but all as well as we were able) and then when it really might have been (due to the enormous gap in ages further down the track) it still wasn't.

I completely accept that some kids are ready at 4.5 and some kids aren't ready at 6, and it is not a straightforward determination - for the students or the parents or the teachers or the policy-makers.

And some kids can absolutely do the academic bits, but can't handle the social side, or aren't able to sit quietly in a classroom for any real length of time, or a hundred other elements that teachers - and particularly early primary school teachers - have to negotiate every single day.

My "meh" was more about an arbitrary time - 5 by 1 January, or by 30 April, or 30 April +/- 14 days, or anything else.

I just don't think it's that simple.

And my grumble about the teacher was about her arbitrary "no" before checking what other accelerated classes I was doing, how I was doing in them, whether any other students had been approved and on what basis ... talking to me ... something ... Bueller ... Bueller ...

I think it's something interesting to discuss though, and hear other people's opinions.

[Trillian]

And some kids can absolutely do the academic bits, but can't handle the social side, or aren't able to sit quietly in a classroom for any real length of time, or a hundred other elements that teachers - and particularly early primary school teachers - have to negotiate every single day.

Yeah we do, and some of that can be avoided if kids weren't at school before they needed to be. I have to make sure that every single kid I teach can access the curriculum and often the biggest stumbling block for that is the parents.

ETA - and the whole point of a national curriculum was so that education in this country was the same standard no matter where you went - if you moved from WA to NSW your child would be learning the same curriculum outcomes. So it makes sense that there should be a national school starting age.

[~Raven~]

This thread is great timing for us who have had quite the decision this last week to make about Miss R and her readiness for school next year. She turns 5 late November.

After speaking to the prep and kinder teachers we have chosen to keep her in kinder for another year. A few reasons but main ones include fatigue and emotional maturity as well as being behind in fine motor skills. She could have a big leap next term and be where she needs to be, but we're happy to give her another year at home and do it in her time without pressure.

[little_O]

I do find it interesting that I never hear teachers suggesting a child start earlier, it's always no they aren't ready.

I tend to agree with peanutter. You can have a 4.5 year old child that is at a 6 year olds level. No one seems to want to acknowledge that though.

Am I missing something?

[nothing2lose]

You can have a 4.5 year old child that is at a 6 year olds level. No one seems to want to acknowledge that though.

Am I missing something?

I don't think you can. Academics are one thing, maturity another thing entirely.

[Trillian]

I do find it interesting that I never hear teachers suggesting a child start earlier, it's always no they aren't ready.

I tend to agree with peanutter. You can have a 4.5 year old child that is at a 6 year olds level. No one seems to want to acknowledge that though.

Am I missing something?

There are early entry programs into school for identified G&T kids but they would have to show giftedness across the board, not just in one area because there isn't any point to starting a kid at 4.5 because they can read Shakespeare (for example) if that's all they can do or if they are so socially inept that it would severely disadvantage them. But like I said, you would actually have to have them actually tested and identified as gifted/talented which would mean IQ tests and psych reports etc.

Any maybe teachers say no they aren't ready because they actually aren't ready? Realistically, there is nothing a school can do to restrict a child from entering school so long as they are within the age cut off and that's my point of teachers having to deal with the fallout.

And sometimes repeating a year is the only option you have and it's never, ever a suggestion that is made lightly. Teachers and schools are well aware of the implications of what it can mean for a child to repeat and there is just as much stigma around that as what there is in holding them back IMO. Teachers can differentiate all they like, but there does come a time when repeating is the best option when you look at all the available information.