VIC school age being lowered to 4.5yrs

Heard this on Sunrise this morning and it was in todays Herald-Sun:


Kids to start school younger
By GLENN MILNE and CARLY CRAWFORD
04jun06

VICTORIAN children could start school younger under a new plan to standardise primary school enrolment ages across the country.

Children would be able to start school at 4 1/2, three months earlier than the current minimum starting age of four years and nine months.
At a meeting with states and territories in July, federal Education Minister Julie Bishop will argue economic and educational benefits would flow from standardising the minimum starting age.

She is expected to nominate four years and six months as the optimum age at which children should start school.

Victorian Education Minister Lynne Kosky backed the concept.

"The states agreed to standardise the school age several years ago, in-principle, before Julie Bishop was minister and we look forward to discussing it further when we next meet her," her spokesman said yesterday.

Across the country there are five minimum school starting ages; NSW 4.5 years, Queensland 4.6, Victoria 4.8, WA 4.6, SA 4.5, Tasmania 5.0, ACT 4.8 and NT 4.6.

It is understood if Ms Bishop can get agreement from the states on the primary school issue, she intends to move to standardise the age for entry to high school.



YAY I say, that means Lucy will start school in 2008 instead of 2009, saves me a hell of a lot of money in childcare fees!! I statred school just before I turned 5 and I turned out alright. :p

What do you reckon, a good or a bad thing?
xxxCaz

Well there you go, I thought that NSW still went on 4yrs 9mths. I think bringing every state into line will make a huge difference to families that move interstate and the average age of high schools students when they finish will be more even.

I think it is really dependent on the child. I know of kids turning 6 who should have been held back another year and kids turning 5 that could have gone.

Lindsay only turned 5 in Feb this year is doing exceptionally well at school, better than I expected. I am really glad I sent him and he is performing better than a lot of kids up to 10 months older than him. The girls wont have an issue with this because being in October and June, they will already be 5.

i think its great to give parents the opportunity. I was 4 when i started school however I think I will wait for my kids to be 5. :)

I thought they would lean the other way and have to be five as at the end of the calendar year. They float so many of these 'ideas' ... just so we think they are working in Canberra !

I found this really interesting, very surprising really!
I was told a while ago by my SIL who is a teacher that they were changing the rules as of 2008, and your child would have to be 5 by December 31 to start school the following year!

Personally, I think I would prefer the child to turn 5 before starting school. This new supposed rule means that Hayley could start earlier too, BUT I did that with Tayla, she made the cut off by 7 days, she was so forward that everyone suggested that I put her in early...BIG MISTAKE!! Tayla is now in Grade 5 and is having a lot of problems, I wish now that I had held her back a year.

The thing is in the average primary school there are sooo many kids that need help and arent keeping up to the standards set that they are often forgotten and dont get the help that they need. There are not enough staff to cope with kids that need help, so they miss out and the parents have to pay privately to get them the assistance that they need. Its cost us heaps so far and we are still going!

Shannen started school at 5yrs 3 months and has done brilliantly, she is in the advanced class at secondary college, is totally blitzing it, whereas her friend who started just before she turned 5 is still struggling in Year 7. Its been pretty much the same with most of the kids the whole way through school.

This will be a very interesting debate. Personally there is not enough funding for schools and I can see a lot of kids falling through the cracks of the education system especially if they lower the age. I guess it will mean more Mums can go back to work earlier, but is it in the interest of the kids or a way for the gov't to save money and spend it on more silly things???

In WA it has only recently changed.

Emma was able to start Year one in 2001 because she was going to be 6 that year (not until December mind you!) and that worked really well for her. Then before Jack could start kindy the entry requirements changed and he had to wait an extra 12 months before starting becuase he is July baby!

In WA apparently Yr 7's will be moved to high schools in 2009 (the half cohort - the first kids to enter school after the entry age changed).

We are finally heading towards a national education system and that can only be a good thing!

Cheers

I'm a high school teacher and I can really see this compounding problems at our end.

We see so many kids who really can't cope and aren't ready for high school yet are forced to move on to year 7 regardless. A lot of my students in year 7 could really have done with an extra year before coming to high school - whether that means being held back or whether they should have waited a year before starting primary school I just don't know.

I started when I was 4 (I turned 5 in February) and I did brilliantly academically, but socially I didn't do so well. I was dux of my school, but had very few friends. My sister on the other hand, started when she was 4 (turned 5 in May) and was held back a year in primary school. She did much better than me socially, but her academic performance was very sub-standard. She's just not an academic person where I was.

What works for one child does not necessarily work for all, while the advantages of having uniformity across the nation are immense, I really think they should head towards a higher minimum age. Or perhaps assess each studen'ts readyness for school on an individual basis.

I think I'm going to be a little controversial here - but I believe that something like the American system where a student is held back if they don't meet outcomes would certainly be a good idea. It minimises the frustration of pushing kids through the system where at the end of year 10 they can still barely read.

BW

I don't see that its a problem having 4.5 as an option if a child is ready for it but if it means that other children who mightn't be ready have to start earlier then I would think it a bad idea. In Raising Boys Steve Budulph says that he thinks that the starting age for boys should be a year older than girls because thier communications skills develop more slowly so maybe the starting age should be set at between 4.5 and 6 years and rather than looking at ages we should be looking at skills.

Lindsay was 3 weeks off turning 5 when he started, but had he been born from April onwards, I don't think I would have sent him. He is doing well both academically and socially, but i do think it should be judged on an individual basis.

BW - I agree with you on us adopting a US type system - it would save everyone a lot of heartache and kids who really should be held back won't slip through the cracks.

We made the decision to hold Mason back for various reasons, the main one being his social skills. In his case he is absolutely nowhere near ready for school at 4 1/2, besides being able to count, recite the alphabet, write his name and ATM he is actually teaching himself to tell the time. Mason will be beginning school when he is 6. I am worried about what this will mean for those who are also not ready for school but are sent anyway because they are the age where they are able to go. What's wrong with letting them be little kids for a bit longer.

I think, as Fletch says, it's all a matter of convenience to the parents... so often we get told as teachers that it is our job to "fix my child" - there are a lot of parents who abdicate all responsibility for discipline and education to teachers. It's just a sad reflection on society today.

BW

I am a primary school teacher in WA and I can say that I have seen my fair share of kids who are ready for school and those who are not. I am teaching a Kindy/Pre-Primary class so I had some kids starting Kindy at 3 (they are all 4 now) and some starting kindy at 4 (they will turn 5 after June 30) I also had some kids start Pre-Primary at 4 (they have turned 5) and I have a class with some kids who will be 6 (after 30 June). Quite a gap as you can see.

I do not know about the other states but the classroom of a 5 year old (Pre-Primary) in WA is very different to the classroom of a 5 year old (Reception) in SA (that is based on my experiences ... Uni prac student in SA, teacher in WA).

Sadly even for those kids who start school early, it is almost too late to help them learn the basics ... most of the brain develops int eh first 3 years of life. The neurons and synapses are how the brain works and most of the pathways are developed by the age of 3. That is not to say that it is not possible for a child to learn new things after this age but they have to work harder to learn the skills.

So much to think about ... especially in terms of a national curriculum. The states continue to fight over who's system is the best ... why can they not take the best bits from all the curriculums and blend them together and make one. No hassles for families moving across the country, no hassles for Yr 12's who want to go to Uni in other states ... the list goes on ... a national teacher accreditation where teacher's experience in all states counts and they can move from state to state and understand the curriculum and be able to quickly take up jobs at the same level, instead of having to start again! Ok you get my drift ... it is something that I am keen on seeing (as both a parent and teacher) and while there will be a lot of work involved, especially for teachers and education department employees, surely it is in the best interests of the children.

Cheers

:

---

So much to think about ... especially in terms of a national curriculum. The states continue to fight over who's system is the best ... why can they not take the best bits from all the curriculums and blend them together and make one. No hassles for families moving across the country, no hassles for Yr 12's who want to go to Uni in other states ... the list goes on ... a national teacher accreditation where teacher's experience in all states counts and they can move from state to state and understand the curriculum and be able to quickly take up jobs at the same level, instead of having to start again! Ok you get my drift ... it is something that I am keen on seeing (as both a parent and teacher) and while there will be a lot of work involved, especially for teachers and education department employees, surely it is in the best interests of the children.

---

I think we are moving towards a national curriculum more, but the enormity of the task to first of all decide on it amongst all states, and then implement it boggles the mind. For instance, I am in my final/4th year of my Secondary Education degree now (finish in October YAY!) and so am well versed in VELS (Victorian Essential Learning Standards) which is the new standards that started this year in Vic schools, but we are seeing heaps of problems with teachers reluctant to swap over from the CFS II model. I cant imagine how hard it would be to change again...

oh well we'll wait and see I guess!They did say on teh news this evening that even if this change to 4.5yrs starting age does go ahead, it wont be til 2010, so it wont affect my almost 3yr old but it will affect Coleman, meaning instead of 2 school years between them there will be only 1....mmmmmmm

Its so hard as it really depends on the individual child.

When I started school you had to be 5 by June 30, (is that 4.5 years?) and my birthday was on July 8, so I missed out by 8 days.

I think, and my parents always thought that academically I should have been in the higher grade.

Emotionally and socially though, it would have been a complete disaster, and so in a way I am glad that mum didn't let them induce her and I was born a full month late!

***Edited to add: Milo will be starting at 5y 3 months then I guess? Am I doing the maths right??***

I'm a strong believer of when they are good and ready. It depends on each child and their muturity and how they cope. I've heard that Australia has the youngest age bracket in the western world on sending kids to school. Not sure if it's true, maybe someone can clarify that statment?

:

---

What's wrong with kids spending a bit more time to be little rather than throwing them in the deep end in life.

---

Gotta agree with you there, Shannon.
School days are such long days for the little tackers. Even my grade 1/2's had days where they didn't cope if they had had a late night or woke up early (I had one little boy that went to before school care and after school care every day.... the poor thing was knackered!)

Fletch - too right... there's no way a 15 year old can know exactly which path they want to take in their career (ok... some do but I found that most only have an idealistic view with no real knowledge of what's involved).
I advise a lot of high school kids to pick a Uni course or whatever then defer for a year. Go out and get a part-time job somewhere and just have fun for a year. You can always change your course or change your mind about going to Uni altogether. There's a whole world out there that many high school kids have yet to experience so how can they know which direction to turn. Best to experience the big, wide world a little then make up your mind. So long as they have a job and aren't just bumming around, I don't see the harm. On the flip-side, if they are really focussed and have the determination, good on 'em! But I'd say that would be a minority.

Caz -

:

---

am well versed in VELS (Victorian Essential Learning Standards) which is the new standards that started this year in Vic schools, but we are seeing heaps of problems with teachers reluctant to swap over from the CFS II model. I cant imagine how hard it would be to change again...

---

As someone who only just learnt how to use the old system (curriculum and reporting), I can understand why there's such a reluctance to swap from the CSF to VELS. I was kind of disappointed that the system was changing because I thought I had finally had enough experience to hold me in good stead, LOL. I guess, though, I will be doing CRT for a while so, by the time I go back to FT teaching, the system will have changed yet again!! LOL
It's funny, I was trying to explain to a friend (a non-teacher) how the new report-writing system has freaked a few teachers out. She couldn't understand the problem. She was under the impression that we just tick a few boxes and write "Little Johnny was a pleasure to teach this year" and that's that. OMG! If ONLY it was that easy, hey?
I'm all for a National Curriculum too.... so long as there's a little bit of flexibility. I've only ever been a teacher in the Victorian school system. I did attend school in the ACT from Kinder-grade 4 but I really don't remember any great differences from a student perspective (except that it was weird that Prep is called Kinder up there... here, kinder is pre-school, LOL). But, then, I was all of 5 years old so who would notice curriculum differences?? hehehe

Gabby's birthday is in March. I'm not sure if I want her starting when she is still 4..... hmmm... seems too early. But, then, I'll have to see what her academic and social skills are like. Some kids are just ready by then... but I'd rather keep her back if she needs it rather than just send her because she's within the legal age to send her, iykwim?

I would not send my child to school at 4.5yrs if I had the option. My ds is an April baby so could've been doing 4 year old pre-school this year, I chose to hold him back and he is doing 3 year old instead. Academically he may be fine now, but it is the later years that I would be afraid he may fall behind.
This was the case for my brother and a decision mum regrets. He is a June baby (back when cut off was June 30) so she sent him before he was 5. Sailed through primary school, but immaturity started to shine through in high school. Unfortunately he dropped out. Now I know that wont be the case for everyone, but I know I would rather wait!

I agree Fletch - as a primary teacher of Kinder and Year One in NSW (we should chat!) i personally that lowering the age is a bad idea. Who is it suppose to be good for the child or you? Sorry if this offends anyone but they are only young for a little while.

Renee, no it isn't offensive. I think a lot of people agree with you (including me). I just don't understand the rush, quite frankly.

If anything, I would be inclined to hold William back a year before even putting him in school to make sure he is ready for it. I don't know too much at this point about his abilities (obviously) but I have heard that boys sometimes need a bit more time to mature. Better to be held back in starting than to be held back later as others have said.

We held Kayla back last year as Dh and I didn't think she was ready for School and she turns 6 on the 2 of Jan next year!!! I really don't want Kayal to go through what I went through when I was kept down in year one. I also left school at the end of year 10 because I could not cope with another 2 years of schooling, something I'm kicking myself for. It's only now at 25 years old that I want to go back to school and also go to uni. I really do feel sorry for the "babies" that could start school at 4 1/2 years old when at the age there really not ready to start. :( :(

Raven

I agree that its not a good idea. I think in most cases there should be psychological reviews (as there are at our kinder) as to whether or not children are *school ready*

I'd be more worried about the emotional abilities of those 4.5 yr olds as late teenagers doing HSC, TEE, VCE etc and how they would cope with the stress.

I'm sure there would be the occasional child that is emotionally, socially and academically ready for school, but unless all 3 are certain there is no way I'd send my child off to school.

*hugs*
Cailin

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.

I'm still holding Ris back, not all kids fit into the rediness slot when they are that age - Ris is not going to be ready for another year...

As it stands it doesn't really have a huge affect on us. Em will start in term 2 (about 2 weeks off 5) and consequently do 3 full terms which means he will go into the grade 1 the following year (at least I think this is how it works here). With the beginning age being 4.5 it means I have the choice to enrol him for the extra term should I think that he is ready. That is something I think anyone is unable to judge until their child is of that age and I am firm believer in that it depends on the child. Yes it would be lovely to keep them home the extra time but at the same time I think it can be just as cruel to not send them if they are ready IYKWIM. I think its important to remember that just because its the minimum age doesn't mean that everyone will be rushing their kids into school at 4.5 years - no one here seems that keen on it.

I think (and its just my humble opinion LOL) that the age of 4.5 is good as it gives those that are ready the opportunity to start early. I do however think it would be a shame to see a mass amount of children starting early if they are not ready. I agree that at 15 you definitely can't decide what you want to do with your life but at the same time I don't think the extra year would make a difference with those decisions (at least it didn't to me). I agree with some form of standard testing to pass from one grade to the next - it shouldn't just be a given that you just get to go into the next grade. I think that's where more focus should lie and many students would struggle less if they ended up in the year suited to the level rather then the year that their age bracket puts them.

Just a question because I'm not 100% sure.... someone commented on parents rushing their children into school to save on childcare etc etc. What is the difference between full time CC and school? I am gathering that routines and structures would be different. But most CC I have looked into focus a lot on educational/learning aspect as part of their structure anyway. I'm just thinking that children in CC may be ready for school earlier??? Just thinking out loud!

Aurora, it's funny ... I was thinking about the cost saving aspect but I didn't say it out loud. I was thinking maybe it was just me being too cynical again.

Lea, I also agree that so much depends on the child. It's great to have the option of early starting if the child seems ready but it's very much horses for courses.

Cai I just noticed what you said here:

:

---

I think in most cases there should be psychological reviews (as there are at our kinder) as to whether or not children are *school ready*

---

I agree. I'm sure they won't implement something like this due to cost etc though. But it honestly seems the best option to me. Sometimes parents can be blind sighted as to whether their kids are ready or not IYKWIM.

Sooooo confused here...

When they are talking about children starting as young as 4.5, do they mean grade 1, or prep?

Aidyn starts prep the year he turns 5 (2009). He turns 5 in May that year. But from what I can gather, anyone born after July 1st that year doesnt start prep until a year later. So Aidyn is going to be doing prep with kids that were effectively born from July in 2003 - which is nearly a whole year older than him!

Also, what is the deal with putting kids in school when they are ready, as I know of people here in Qld who are not allowed to let their children start when they feel they are ready - they are forced to make them start in a certain year - no matter if there are many concerns about whether the child is ready or not.

I dont think I will ever get my head around this education stuff... :help:

Lea I can't speak for the whole of victoria, but I'm pretty sure the psych thing isn't just at my kinder. So I don't know how the govt affords it but they do. There's been a few kids at our kinder that were held back. And they also talk to the school the children are going to (and in our case there's 3 schools, 2 public, 1 catholic) as to what would be best for the children, and what classes they go into. For instance at Paris' school there will be 2 full prep classes and 1 prep/1 class. The brighter kids will go into the prep 1 class (there's one little girl going into that class who can already read), as they will be able to keep up easily and the other two classes have been divided evenly. Cliques have been broken up, even a set of twins have been separated (on parents request) to enable the best working environment for the children.

I think this sort of involvement should be compulsory across australia. I have to say when I was a kid Vic education system was pretty screwed. I was held back unnecessarily because of my age even though I was advanced and was coping well and had already done the year in another state. But these days I think its very good. I love the school we have chosen for Paris and I love the community spirit and parent involvement at our school.

I think its really important to evaluate the school situation very carefully, because if whilst it might be easier to put them into school at 4.5 it could be the difference between coping well with the stresses of senior exams and not. Which could affect the rest of their lives, and their careers. I agree though Aurora it does affect things based on the area. My gf lives in Camberwell and most of the kids at the kinder are a year older than her daughter (all turning 6 in the second half of this year or the very start of next year for 4 y.o. kinder) whereas here where I am we even have a few kids who are definitely not school ready but are repeating 4 y.o. Kinder as it is cheaper than child care. And there are only a handful of older kids.

*hugs*
Cailin

I think its good, depending on the child. I know Xander will be ready to go to school next year (prep) but he cant because he was born 1 day after the cutoff date. So he has to wait until 2008 and i think thats not a good thing for him. Whereas my nephew was born a week before the cutoff and will be starting prep next year, and is nowhere near ready. But his mum is pushing him. So it just depends on the child... they are all different :)

:

---

I think its a bad move! Im a primary school teacher of Kindy and yr ones (NSW) and all i can say is its a baaaaaad move!

---

I totally agree with you there, Fletchy. There are so many kids already starting school when they're not ready. It puts them behind the 8-ball for the rest of their schooling career. It's so sad. There's not enough resources in schools to justify such a move. It's also sad how many parents are keen to send their kids to school early because it's cheaper than childcare. Trust me... it happens!

Ambah - I'm pretty sure you can start Aidyn and just see how he goes? If he's not coping, he can go back to kinder and start school again the year after. At least that's what a few children did at my old school in Victoria. Definitely speak to the school about it and liase closely with his teacher. He/she will be able to tell you whether he's coping or not. It's best to get this stuff sorted in Prep (whatever the first year of school is called up there) than have to try and get him to repeat an older year level.

Cailin - I reckon you'd make a fantastic Primary Teacher... :)

Lea -

:

---

I agree with some form of standard testing to pass from one grade to the next - it shouldn't just be a given that you just get to go into the next grade.

---

There is here in Victoria. It's all part of the reporting system. Problem is, it's verrrrry hard to hold kids back. Often parents are against it for social reasons etc. Sometimes the school heirarchy makes it hard too. Also, testing sometimes falls back on itself. A child might struggle in one area but do ok in another so, overall, they're seen as doing well enough to go up a year level. I'm not overly familiar with the new reporting system that has been brought into the Vic ed system but it's pretty thorough.

The Kinders in my council area have school readiness assessments too, but they can't force you to keep you child back. I'd be interested to know whether if this is recommended, does the child then qualify for an extra year of govt funded Kinder?

I know one person who has been advised that her child would do well to wait an extra year before starting school, but has chosen to ignore that and send the child anyway.

I am glad that Milo is a November baby and will probably be 5+ when he starts school.

re Child care v school - 3 days of childcare a week over 12 months cost me the same as 12 months prep at private school (albeit at the less expensive end of the scale) but I wouldn't use that as a motivation to send my son to school early.

Bridie will be starting school the week after her 5th birthday IF and only IF she is ready... that said I think she will be ready by then judging on her development to date. But things can change so until the time is closer I will wait. My sister (april bub) started school at 4, never having gone to kinda... academically this was not a problem but socially it was a disaster. Her whole first year of school she never raised her hand once or did show and tell or spoke unless asked a direct question AND her teacher was her aunty and the class was really small... During high school and even now (19) all her friends baby her and she has very little sense of responsibility or sometimes even reality. I think what made her situation worse was that she had not had kinda.

Rayray - Even if the kindergarten recommends the child not progress to school and do another year at kinda you do not get a second year of gov funding unless the child has been assessed with a learning/behavioural disablity and is recieving a child disability payment / carer payment for said child, even then there is an everest of paperwork to complete, unless of course there have been changes since 2004. Milo and B will probably be in the same year at school, maybe even the same school & was wondering how you and Rexie found that, besides teachers thinking it was fake parents at ptn? Oh and B calls RS, way-sool-no-mi-mo... so hopefully you just get way-sool.

Everyone else - Rayray and I are cousins, I'm not some wierd stalker.

Another cousin had her son the same day I had Bridie, she has already decided she will not be sending him to school until he is 6, she has based this on observations of kids in her DD's class. DD is a dec bub, started school this year aged 5, according to our cousin the just 5 and almost 5 kids (especially the boys) are clearly behind the kids who were 5.5 or over when school started, both socially and acedemically.

I was born on 26 May and was "old" for my year. My Mum is a gifted and talented teacher, and has always said that it's better, both academically and socially, for children to start school at five-and-a-half rather than four-and-a-half. My elder brother (who is a doctor) turned six on 30 April in his year of Prep. My younger brother turned 6 on 1 March in his year of prep. We were all "old" for our year, being over a year older than some of the other kids. As we went through school, the age difference became more and more obvious.

Alex was born on 20 May, and he will be going to school at 5.5. Ned will be 5 years and 4 months when he starts school (he's born in late September). Alex is fairly bright and very musical, Ned is a very big boy size-wise.

In Victoria, at the moment, children must be in formal schooling by the time they turn six. So if your child turns six in December, you can actually send them to prep the FOLLOWING year, ie they will be six years and two months in Prep. The actual legal cut-off is 30 April, so your child must be five years old by 30 April in the year that they start school. So technically, children in prep can be between six years and two months old, and four years and nine months old.

My personal preference (and I know I am a little soap-boxy here) is for children to start school later rather than earlier. Especially boys, as their social and academic development is later than girls, both as children and as teenagers.

Academically, a youth in Year Twelve who is eighteen at the start of the year, is generally more self-aware, world-aware and better equipped to deal with the stresses of Year Twelve than a sixteen year old.

However, all my comments are based upon "generalities". Each parent must decide when each of their children is ready for school. Children with "issues" (I'm trying to be politically correct here, please don't jump on me!) can require more input from teachers, social workers, speech/behavioural therapists, and psychologists.

You can apply for an extra year of government-funded kindergarten if your child MUST attend school the following year, provided that the child meets certain guidelines set down by the Department of Education. The kinders generally approach the parents to talk to them about it (at least in my area).

So, basically I'm agreeing with Debbie and the other primary teachers. It's a bad idea to start children at 4.5 years. Certainly, my kids won't be starting until they're at least 5, and preferably later. If Ned was born in November, I'd probably consider starting him a year later (ie he'd turn 6 in November and start school at 6 years and 3 months old). Yes, it may be difficult with him being a little older, but generally boys are socially backward, so academically and socially he'd probably be better off starting later.

Just my two cents!

What a great explanation, Divvy.... and it's all food for thought, I think.

I was born in February so I was always a young one in my year levels. I can safely say that I always felt a little overwhelmed. I was shy and behind the 8-ball in a lot of subjects (particularly maths - esp. when speed was involved). I'm not saying that starting a year later would have turned me into a maths whizz but perhaps I would have had more confidence to approach it differently?

I'm going to come at this at a different angle entirely. I have an older & a younger sister, my older sister was born in January, so went to school just after she turned five. She was never very academic. My younger sister was born in June and went to school at four and a half (hers was the last year where the cutoff age was turning 5 by the end of June). She was (and still is) a social butterfly & very gifted academically. I think from that point of view it is purely a personality thing.......

The biggest issue was that my younger sister was in an "older" grade so to speak, a lot of her friends turned 18 in Year 12, where she was 16 until the middle of the year. She had problems from a social point of view that she couldn't go out with her friends because she wasn't 18 yet. From an academic point of view, she finished uni & was a fully qualified teacher at 21.

Again, Sarah, this is exactly what I mean, each child is different and has different needs. A gifted child has different needs and may need to start school earlier, but may also need help socially as they get older. Some may just be "ready" and leap into it.

Also, second and third children are often better socialised before they start school anyway, because they have older siblings to chase around.

How well do they check, do you you provide birth certificates etc?

Just wondering, cos I have just found out that a colleague had his birthdate altered by his parents (by 6 months) so that they could send him to school early (this was not here is Australia).

I back Julie Bishop on this initiative! Thank goodness someone is actually considering our children's development rather than the individuals states own agendas. (My fear is that each state has its own 'educational agenda' based on finance, classroom capacity etc -rather than our childrens educational / developmental needs).

We live in Qld and I don't like the new prep system which will not allow my child to attend school until 2009 - when she will be 5 and a half years old!

If only they could make it happen sooner! Think of the children that will fall into the gap because the individual state education departments are too proud of 'their system' to initiate change. (Unfortunately, my daughter may be one of them).

Victorian Education Minister Lynne Kosky, is honorable for being open minded. Tsk, Tsk and disgrace on any others Education Ministers who put their own agenda before our childrens!

I am rapt that Milo will be just over 5 when he starts school. Infact we planned it so that he born would be in the second half of the year partly for that reason.

I missed out on starting at 4.5 as I was 8 days after the cut off, and while I could have easily done th work in the year above, I think socially it was a potential disaster.

when is the NSW cut off? 31/7?

I think ours is 30/4. when I was at school it was 30/6 but they changed it.