False start
Anastasia De Waal, 23 March 2009
This spring Sir Jim Rose’s final report on the primary curriculum will be published, recommending that all children enter formal education by the September after their fourth birthday. This is in spite of the fact that a significant number of experts have already voiced concern that formal education for five year olds is inappropriate; a delay until children reach six is seen to be preferable. Nevertheless, there is a high probability that Rose’s recommendations will become law by 2011.
As many parents know, a high proportion of four year olds are currently being forced to embark on formal education before the law says so in order to simply ‘secure’ a place. This can be agonising for parents who, driven by fear of losing out in the long run, decide to enrol their children in school despite feeling that their children aren’t ready. At least if such a law were passed it might mitigate some parental guilt on that front.
Nonetheless, to implement Rose’s proposal, persuasive evidence that entering formal schooling at four is in line with child developmental needs is fundamental. Yet there currently is none. With regard to either academic results or more holistic child development, there is no evidence to suggest that children who start in the formal system earlier do better in the long term.
The ‘tidiness’ aspired to with this proposed new law will be counterbalanced by chaos in the classrooms. Potentially, there could be as much as 12 months difference in age between pupils at a period when two or three months can make an enormous difference. This will make ‘teaching’ extremely difficult and may mean many children failing to benefit. Generally in fact, it is far from clear exactly what entering formal education at four has to offer children. Rather than taking children out of their more informal Early Years settings at a younger age, it would be more helpful to ensure that this experience enabled children to sufficiently prepare themselves for the next stage of their education.
In reality, if formal schools were able to offer four year olds an environment suited to their needs, it would matter less whether it was called Early Years or Reception. The problem lies more in the conception of what young children need – cognitively, linguistically, socially and emotionally. To date, reasons behind pedagogical decisions appear to have been more in the interests of the adult than the child. Until this critical error is put right, no amount of reshuffling, renaming or funding is going to improve children’s educational experiences.
By Emily Dew
Peter I also (thanks to my mother) could read before I went to school.I certainly felt no pain sitting through lessons aimed at non readers .On the contrary,I felt smug,conceited and superior ! Nothing admirable I agree but “pain” and “difficulty in fitting in “,not a bit of it I assure you !
Forced schooling at 4 when most of Europe starts at 6 with better results shows once again the eagerness of the State to intrude early in controlling the lives of its citizens.Foced early schooling is yet another attack on the family to compliment the childsnatching followed by adoption for “risk of emotional abuse” and similar trivialities;
Taxing couples who stay together,splitting up married couples if a father is suspected of merely smacking a child also demonstrate that the family is under attack and that the State’ s influence over what wesay what we think,how we bring up our children is an ever present encroachment of our civil liberties;
I taught myself to read before starting school, which I did at the “normal” age of five. I can still remember the pain caused by sitting through lessons aimed at pupils with lower abilities than mine.
In a system where pupils do not start formal education until six, where exactly do those children of the same type as myself – there are quite a few – fit in?
“Where ignorance is bliss ’tis folly to be wise”?
My children started primary school in Russia when they were 6 years old. By then their fine motor skills were well enough developed to be able to learn how to write elegantly instead of in a scrawl which they would have to improve later. They learnt how to read Russian in a year from a standing start as they are English. Again they were mature enough to learn quickly and able to concentrate more than if they had started earlier. Starting school too early leads to frustration in those not developed enough to keep up and a decline in self-esteem and early rejection of school and thus education. It is all so obvious really that one wonders why reports need to be commissioned.