I think that allowing kids to start school at 4.5 years is only going to widen the gap between the rich and poor. How? well here is my reasoning.

We live in a less affluent suburb and I intend sending Flynn to the same primary school as I went to. I am a lawyer, DH is an engineer, we (almost) own our house, have been married 12 years, will probably take Flynn and this brothers and sisters on overseas trips or cool holidays (once we can afford it - LOL!!!), are lucky enough that one of us (probably DH) will be home with the kids while they are little, etc. So essentially Flynn and his siblings will theoretically have an "enriched" childhood. Now I plan on Flynn being 5yrs 8months when he starts school - that will mean he has had over 5 years of an "enriched" life and lifestyle, and most likely will be able to read by then (DH and I both could, I figure Flynn will pick it up as we did).

So when Flynn trundles off to school, he will be in the same grade as 4 and a half yo (hence generally less mature/advanced/whatever purely due to their young years in comparison) and many of them will be from poorer families who might not have been able to afford to give their kids the "enriched" life we gave Flynn. And I am not talking about Gymboree, or Kindermusik (nothing against them, BTW) but just about having the leisure time and money to go to the zoo, have a driving holiday to Ballarat and visit sovereign hill, have books in the house, etc.

I am not being "classist" here - remember I lived in this area as a kid and my and DH's parents "wuss paw-wah" when we were kids. But I am just making the point that our little middle-class boy with all the trappings that goes with that life is going to be a whole year older than the poorer kids in his grade. And I really think that the advantages that $$ brings plus the age difference is going to put him at such an advantage as compared with his peers that it will not be funny. Now if you extrapolate that out till highschool the difference will, I think, be even more marked. I think that long term this will widen the educational outcomes for kids in poorer suburbs. I already read in yesterday's paper than a kid from a STATE (ie: non-private) school in Melbourne's "rich" burbs is already 8 times more likely to get into medicine at melb uni than a kid from the poorer western suburbs. Not that i think medicine at melb uni is the pinacle of success BTW, it is just an example of the differences in outcomes that already exisit.

Personally I think the govt reducing the school entrance age is just a way for them to get out of putting more money into kinders and preschools.