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

[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.