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

Thought this was quite timely. Has a list near the end of school starting ages and naming of the first year by State:

:

---

Ban kids from starting school until they turn five to ensure they don't fall behind, experts say

Ban kids from starting school until they turn five to ensure they don't fall behind, experts say | News.com.au

CHILDREN should be banned from starting formal education before they turn five, with experts warning students who begin too young are falling behind and calling for a standard national school age.
Amid a new international push towards later school entry, early childhood teaching experts and peak bodies warned many Australian children were too little to learn in classrooms.
"There is considerable international research showing that children who start school when they are older tend to do better," said Associate Professor Kay Margetts, from Melbourne University's Graduate School of Education.
"But there is no evidence that suggests that starting school before the age of five is of any benefit to children."
States and territories control what age children must be before starting school and that age varies widely across Australia. In some states there can be a gap of 17 months, or a third of a kindergartener's life, between the youngest and oldest in a class.
In NSW children can start as young as four years and six months, but they must be in school by the age of six, while in Tasmania they need to have turned five before they enter their first year of primary, which is known across the country by various names including prep, kindergarten and reception. Prof Margetts said children should not be able to start school before turning five.
"It is well documented even with only a 12 month gap, those older children were doing better than the younger children," Prof Margetts said.
More than 120 leading educators in Britain this month launched a new "too much, too soon" campaign calling for formal schooling to be delayed until children turn six or seven because most four year olds are not ready to study in a structured environment.
The Australian Primary Principals Association said there should be a national uniform age for the foundation year of school.
"We believe all states should have some consistency in the starting age of students, and also the naming of that starting year, given that it's known by so many names like reception and kindy," said APPA deputy president Steve Portlock.
"It would certainly help for families who travel between states, but it would also mean that when test like NAPLAN are sat then students who were older and possibly more ready wouldn't have an advantage over younger students."
The Australian Parent's Council also argues for a standardised age and title for the foundation year, but executive director Ian Dalton said an enforced cut-off for those under five would not be appropriate.
"There is no doubt one of the main mistakes parents will make is to start their children at school too young, but that age varies from child to child," Mr Dalton said.
"You are probably better off to start them a little bit older because it can be difficult for a child when all through their schooling they are younger than their peers. But I don't know that there is any hard and fast rule that will suit all children - I think that parents are in the best position to know when to start their at school."
Prof Margetts said what age to start was one of the most vexing issues for parents of younger children, and a uniform age would make the decision easier.
"What we typically find is that the children starting younger in Australia are the children of parents who don't necessarily have a choice about it," she said.
"It's often people with financial difficulties because it's much cheaper to send a child to school than to keep them in preschool or early childhood services. It's also often children from immigrant families who don't realise the flexibility of the rules.
"We know that younger children in the class are at risk of falling behind and if they come from families who are having financial difficulties, then those children are doubly disadvantaged."
Some states have previously implemented a staggered start to the school year for later birthdays, but this practice is currently being wound-back in South Australia amid concern children with less formal schooling were being disadvantaged in standardised testing.
A spokesman for Education Minister Christopher Pyne said the Federal Government supported a move to a standard age for starting school but it was up to the states and territories to administer it.
Mr Pyne would not comment on whether children should be banned from starting formal schooling before they turn five.
"The Federal Coalition supports national uniformity of school starting ages where possible," he said through his spokesperson.

What age kids can be to start school and the different names of the foundation year:
New South Wales (5 by 31 July) Kindergarten
Victoria (5 by 30 April) Preparatory
Queensland (5 by 30 June) Preparatory
South Australia (5 by 30 April) Reception
Western Australia (5 by 30 June) Pre-Primary
Tasmania (5 by 1 January) Preparatory
Northern Territory (5 by 30 June) Transition
ACT (5 by 30 April) Kindergarten
(Source: Australian Primary Principals Association)

Starting age of compulsory education around the world:
* Proponents of a later start to school often cite the Scandinavian experience as proof waiting until six or seven is better for learning. Students in Finland, which regularly makes the top five in rankings such as the OECD's international Program for International Student Assessment (PISA), begin nine years of compulsory study at the age of seven.
* Fellow education "superpower'' South Korea's schooling system is far more structured than most western countries, but formal classes also don't begin until age seven.
* South American powerhouse Brazil does not have compulsory education until the age of seven, while Argentina starts at six.
* Many European countries, such as Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, France and Spain, also start at six, as does the United States and Canada.
* In England, which performs at or near the OECD average in reading (26th ranked) and maths (28th), children must be in formal schooling from the age of five.
* The PISA performance of Australia, where children can start school as young as four and half but must be enrolled by six, comes ninth in reading and 15th in maths. However, Australia's foundation (or kindy) curriculum doesn't have the same academic focus as the UK's first year.
* In Northern Ireland, children are obliged, according to the law, to start school at four.

---

its interesting - but the question then is raised do they have to have turned 5 before the first day of school OR is there a few days lee-way?
Dj turns five a week into feb; he starts school on Jan 29th would under this idea he then have to wait until the following year before starting school?
Or like Vic who will be five and a half before starting school (he's a june baby)

my sister and I where always one of the youngest kids in a class; she excelled at school and learned very well. I on the other hand struggled. but we learn differantly and i excelled when i took to hands on learning at tafe. sometimes the aptitude of the child and the way they learn best plays a very big part. each child is different and learn at varying rates.

I think the cutoff really needs to be standard across Australia - especially now that we have a national curriculum. IMO it should be April 1 because even in those younger kids born Jan/Feb/Mar there is still a big difference between them and kids born in April/May/June. And it's definitely evident once they get older, even more so if you already have kids in a cohort that have already been kept back a year. In reality you could possibly have up to 2 years age difference from the oldest to the youngest person in a year group and that's huge once you get to the end of primary school. I see it in my class - I have a year 5/6 class and I see kids who are starting to act on those raging hormones because they have hit puberty and the younger kids are engaging in the same behaviours purely to 'keep up' with the other kids in their class who are older. I've had a 10yr6mth old girl in year 5 send bedroom selfies to her 12.5yr old year six boyfriend :/ What parent would be happy with that? But had that girl been kept back a year, she wouldn't be doing that because other girls in year 4 aren't doing it. And then there is the academics. It's not a big deal usually - I know a few very very bright kids who started early (my son being one of them - he was late feb born) and that's fine if they are smart, but there is a big difference to your child seeming bright thinking they can handle the academics because they know their numbers, letters and colours etc, and what happens in reality. Once you put them in a class with older peers, remembering that some have possibly already been kept back a year, there is a HUGE difference. Most younger kids just do not have the cognitive ability to actually make connections between what they are learning and that's when they start to struggle. I would much rather keep them home for another year rather than risk them having to repeat a year of school or struggle all the way through if I wasn't 100% convinced that they were able to handle it.

I think a lot of the problem is like they say in the article - parents have no choice because they can't afford to have another year of childcare or they need both parents back working full time. And I also think part of the problem is that parents don't believe early childhood educators when they say a child isn't ready to start school and think that it's some sort of judgement against them as parents or that they think their kids are 'dumb', so they send them to school to prove a point. But they know these kids better than they are given credit for. They have done extensive study as part of their degrees in child psychology so they KNOW how these kids develop. They know which kids are ready for school and which ones aren't. I even see on here time and time again 'what would they know, you know your child best' and that's partly true, but these early childhood educators know a hell of a lot more about how a child's brain actually 'ticks' than a parent does. I think if anyone has any worries about their child's readiness, speak to them because they will give you an honest, professional opinion.

Certainly agree about standardising the cutoff date across the States.

I do get concerned about the judgments made based on choice, either sending early, or holding back. So a part of me really wishes there was no choice, to take the judgement away. I had no choice with DD1 and found the whole process much smoother and felt more confident. I have had choice with DD2, I chose the later year, as she was 3 days from cutoff, so if she was born 3 days later I would not have needed to make that choice. I am confident with that choice, but I am ready to tear a new a-hole in the next person who refers to me "holding her back" as there is no way in the world she is being held back. A child and a parent does need others looking down on them at such an important time with others "tutting" about "oh he/she is a bit old/young" to be starting school.

Trillian - like you have mentioned the huge age difference can be a concern. I had not really thought about puberty, but more about the end of high school. Would I really want a 14yo DD in classes with 16yo boys? No not really (yes I know mingling happens across the grades, but they tend to hang the most with those they go to class with)

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.

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!!

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....

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.

:

---

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

:

---

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.

I would have a standard age and no choice, you have to be five by the 1st Jan and then you can start that year. That is the way it works in UK (although is a year younger) and there really isn't the whole hoo haa there is here. Yes some kids are ready earlier than 5 but you have to have cut off somewhere and based on current system five would make most sense. Having a narrower age band for year group is better IMO. In UK there is always a year and until driving age you never would know whether older or younger in year age was just not a big deal at all. If then school is not the appropriate environment for the majority of five year olds - it should be school that is changed.

Comparing internationally especially with Finland, puts me off any article on subject - as they have free childcare from 8 months and extensive before school options which majority use, plus their success is based on universal access - so without having those systems here you can't emulate them just by changing school age.

It has to be a concern when chatting to other parents locally, they express the wish that they had not had any of their children in the months Jan - Apr (we are in Vic) due to how difficult the decision is to make.

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.

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.