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

[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?

[wysiwyg]

WYSIWYG, I think moving it to seven is a step in the wrong direction. You raise a really good point about Finland. I don't think this article is saying we should emulate those countries though, just that stating that's what they do. No doubt there are supporters of such a late starting age though.

I suppose my real bug bear - is that they state these things with no reference to what is in place before the stated 'school' starting age. There has to be a holistic view to education but most of the articles you see do not really look at what is happening before school just talk about 'age'.

[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.

[beansbeans!]

It's hard because starting school should not be based solely on age.
Dd1 is currently in kindy. She was 5yrs 4months when she started. But she was ready for kindy the year prior, that's just her.
The youngest in her class, who turned 5 this year is one of the smartest in the class, and was 'mature' enough to handle it.
In dd's class there are about 5 kids who are on the borderline of needing to repeat next year, the teacher has prepared those parents since the start of term 2, and I would say from watching those kids 3 of them will be repeating. These kids are not the youngest by any means, but they were not ready to start school this year. So really it isn't their age that has affected them it's that they are not mentally ready for it yet.
I really don't think the age gap at the tween and teen years is really that big a deal, how the children handle it, understand it, deal with it, comes down the family structure and parenting.

[myturn]

I think you can have younger kids that are more ready, but my point is that curriculum and standards etc etc etc are modified and differentiated in a single grade anyway, so it shouldn't matter whether one kid is more ready than another, the teacher can adjust the expectations accordingly.... So stick to a 12 month age gap and you don't have as much of a spread of ability or maturity... Except what you would expect in a normal distribution already.

There's always gong to be the odd exception to any rule, and that's where we can have special circumstances and special approvals in place.... But giving so much choice just stresses parents out - in the schools i work in, it seems more and more often lately, we are getting all these parents who are now asking to repeat their child because, they feel theyare not coping.... they believed their child was ready or a kinder teacher told them the child was ready. Yet all the research is definitely against repeating as an option.

Lets not make it so hard for parents, parenting is a hard enough job without the added pressure of having to predict if your child is going to cope at school. IMHO.

[myturn]

I really don't think the age gap at the tween and teen years is really that big a deal, how the children handle it, understand it, deal with it, comes down the family structure and parenting.

Isnt that the same point about starting school though?? It's about how we as parents and teachers get kids through the starting school but, and adjust our expectations and teach the the routines and skills they need to help them cope? We can't really have it both ways, either they don't cope or they can be supported to cope, whatever their developmental level or age.

[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.