Starting school at 4 or 5?

pinkyponk2

Did your children start school at 4 or 5 years old?

My daughter will be 4 in the August and I am wondering should I start her that September or wait until the following year.

She is very clever for her age so I think she would be fine starting at 4 and might in fact be a bit bored in school if she was 5 when she started.

What are the pro's & con's in your opions ... thanks

Das Kitty

She'll only be 5 by a month when she starts, she won't be the oldest in the class. These days, waiting til 5 or nearer is the preferred option in schools. My own lad won't be quite 5 but will be 3 months shy of it.

I think they're better able to progress when they're a little older, and if by chance they are too advanced for a class they can be moved up, which is less of an issue than being kept back in my opinion.

byronbay2

I'm not an expert by any means but I have 4 children and would definitely leave it until your daughter is 5. Even though girls are more advanced at 4 than boys, I think you should only consider sending a 4-year old to school if she was at least 4 1/2 i.e born in March or earlier. I have seen a lot of problems with children who went to school too soon and would always wait until a child is 5 in a situation like yours.

January

My daughters will be 4yr9 months and 4yr and 7 months respectively when they start school. So closer to the age of five when they start school which I think is perfect. I think 4yr 1 month would be a bit too early, even if they are bright...

Morag

While she may be bright and well able for it the current trend has children not starting until they are 5 to 5 1/2 which would but her at a socail and developmental disadvantage.
Esp when she is barely 10 and the rest of class are 11 going on 12.

My daugher started not long after she was 4 and honestly for her own social devleopment I wish I had of started her a year later.

Cat Melodeon

I'll be starting my lad when he is five, possibly even six depending on where we live and what the norm is. Primary schools prefer you to wait until they are approaching five rather than barely gone four. It's not so much about whether they are quick to learn or developmentally precocious, more about psychological, physical and social norms for the age group. Many studies suggest that it is better for children to be with their age peers regardless of individual abilities - other studies suggest otherwise, you'll have to make up your own mind really. Personally I'd take guidance from the individual school. It is easy to delay sending a child to school by giving them an extra year of playschool or sending them to Montessori for a year, whatever. It is much more disruptive to their self-esteem to start them in school and later have to keep them back should problems arise.

I started school at four and two months. I was always the youngest in my class. While I did absolutely fine academically and had no problems in primary school, I did have some issues in secondary school. I was physically less developed and was teased for still looking like a boy at 12 when my classmates were all buxom 13-year olds (never bullied but it did still upset me). I was into sports but had to play and compete with the girls from the year below me rather than with my friends as it was all organised on age group. I did my Leaving and went to college at 17 and felt excluded for the first year as I couldn't get into the bar/clubs. Nothing I couldn't and didn't get over, but looking back it would have been easier to have been the same age as my class group.

xxfelix

I started my first girl at 4yrs 10mts and my 2nd will be 5 in august and she's starting in sept and although and it does hold them waiting till there are nearly 5 more so as the years go on and starting secondary school etc

Although many of course have started when 4 and all goes well for them too but if you have the choice waiting would be in my opinion the best option but best of luck and hope all goes well whatever:)

pickarooney

Kids here start at 3 or even 2.5 but I'm not srue exactly how the first school years here compare to Junior/Senior Infants back home. I remember having to beg to be allowed start school myself a few weeks before my 4th birthday; I would have gone mad havin to stay at home for another year. That enthusiasm didn't last all the way through

astra2000

pickarooney wrote: »

Kids here start at 3 or even 2.5 but I'm not srue exactly how the first school years here compare to Junior/Senior Infants back home. I remember having to beg to be allowed start school myself a few weeks before my 4th birthday; I would have gone mad havin to stay at home for another year. That enthusiasm didn't last all the way through

But that is the norm where you live, and starting at nearer 5 has became the norm here now. My oldest daughter was 5 in june when she started as were most of her class, if I had sent her the year before the nearest child in age to her in the class would have been 8mths older. I think the problems can arise when the child is a bit older and can be immature compared to her friends. Imho it would be less upsetting for her to not start school at 4 rather than been held back a year if you think she is two young in 6th class to go on to secondary school.
I started school at 5 and didnt even want to start then bawled for weeks, wish I had been more like you pickarooney:). However I think skipped a class and started secondary school at 12 all my friends were 13 and I was a year behind them in been allowed to go to discos etc, lets just say it lead to a few arguments with my parents:D.
Just wanted to add that when my daughter started at 5 she was never bored, she is an extremely bright child and knew all the basics numbers , shapes, colours, abc before she went but they learn in such a different and interesting way now they really dont get bored.

mohawk

Hi OP since I live in Dublin I have already got my sons name down in local schools (he is 19 months). His birthday is in July so schools refuse to take him until he is 5. So just double check the enrollment policy to make sure they will take your daughter at 4.

We have a few primary teachers in the family and they all said that he would be better off a 5. They find that the older ones cope a little better (of course there are exceptions). The SIL also said that even if a 4 year old is really bright and do well in the beginning its later on they start to struggle and by then they wont stay back because of friends.

If you think she is ready then go for it but it would be worth having a chat with the school first.

maryk123

mine will be 5 1/2 when they start school - look at a 4 and then look at a 5 year old there is a huge difference emotionally. they are still babies at 4 to be honest. One teacher always said look at the school yard do you think your child will be able for it.

most of my friends are waiting for the 5 year mark
hope this helps

egan2020

My daughter was turning 4 in July 2006 and I considered sending her to school that September. I attended the school open night and I spoke to the principal. He told me that she was more than welcome to start but in his experience, children that were closer to 4 sometimes struggled a bit to keep up and that if this happened in junior infants, it generally continued all the way through primary school. Although I considered my daugther to be clever etc for her age I decided to keep her until she was five and I am glad I did so.

pinkyponk2

Thanks for all the replies, confirmed what i thought myself - i think it would be best if she started when she is 5.

She is already enrolled in the school for the September just after she turns 4 but i did this purely to keep my options open, they said i could push it back to the next year no problem.

I had thought about the fact that she would be younger than her classmates and wouldnt be able to do the things they do (dicso's etc) so it was good to hear from people who were in this position themselves. When i was in school i remember thinking that i'd hate to be one of the younger ones!!

Also if i started her at 4 she would miss out on the free preschool year. She only qualifies for this the September after she turns 4. Although that'll probably be gone in the next budget :mad:

She is starting playschool this Sept - i will pay for the first year and the government will pay for the second (hopefully!!)

smelltheglove

My eldest was 4 in May and started in September, although an extremely bright child she was lost in the waters so to speak, the way her teachers described her was as if they spoke about another child. We moved the following year and kept her back she is now a teachers pet, loads of friends and last week I got back her first ever spelling text that wasnt 10/10, bess her she was so disappointed telling me she got 9.

My second child, although a bit crazy is exceptionally smart, she will be 5 in October and is trying her best to learn how to write little notes for me. Her playschool teachers recommended sending her to school last year but I was having none of it, not after the first girls experience, and the difference in her this year. She is much more capable of standing up for herself, taking direction and has a huge interest in learning, its mad to say but I have set up a recording of the series on RTE 1 on the history of Ireland and she got so excited watching it and learning about how things used to be. The extra year really has made a difference and I would prefer for her to be able for everything than struggle with some things.

Its strange but it is a very common story, I also have a 13 yr old brother who went to school at 4, 3mths, he was kept back a year in 5th class and yet again excels at everything now. Sometimes we feel under pressure for our kids to be doing things by a certain age, to keep up with the jones' so to speak whereas we should just let our kids do things at their pace and giving them the extra year to attend will only go to their benefit, giving them a little extra maturity when the reach secondary school and make the choices that will impact them for the rest of their lives.

goosie2005

you are much more likely to regret sending her at just gone 4 than 5years. Being 'bright' has little to do with school readiness in my opinion, it's primarily about social and emotional maturity, there's lots still to learn in this regard once they start school, even if they know their abc's and numbers... the school yard is a minefield!

Tordelback

I barrelled on in and sent my eldest to school at 4yrs 4mths, to avoid yet another year in the creche where he'd been nearly full-time since he was 5 months old, and found that he was the youngest in the class (of 31). Two of his friends are 6 already, which is a huge gap even at that age, and presumably even more so when he'll be 10 and they'll be 12.

While he's more than able for the work (as far as I can tell from doing his homework with him), he's a head shorter than most of the kids, and (from talking to his teacher) plays too wildly at break and is quite easily distracted. He's already been badly upset by being repeatedly called a baby by an older classmate - bullying in Junior Infants, terrific start, but happily rapidly and effectively handled by his teacher. 'Emotionally immature' in comparison to the average of his class would be the right phrase, although it seems terribly harsh to apply to such a bright, happy and helpful lad.

So while I don't feel like holding him back is the solution at this point, and I definitely don't feel leaving him for 50 hours a week in creche for another year would have been the solution either, I do feel that it would have been preferable to enter the Junior Infants environment with another year under his belt. If you have the option, the closer you can get to 5 the better.

perri winkles

Hi Op,

I don't have kids but I started school at 4 and it was definitely a much better decision. Like your child, I turned 4 in august and went straight in.

You are only thinking of the immediate effects of her starting so early. THink of the long term benefits.
I finished college younger, so therefore feel that I have a few more options and didn't feel too old to go on to do a post grad. I'm 21 and finished college, whereas some of my friends are pushing 23 and havn't even finished their first degree.

My boyfriend is the same, started at 4 and is now 23 with two degrees under his belt and feels that it really has helped to be that bit younger.

Your child wont struggle, don't worry on that front. I never found any difference between me and children a year older, and my mum said it had no effect on me keeping up etc

CrazyRabbit

In Finland, which has one of the best primary education systems in the world, children don't start formal schooling until aged 6-7. They've found that a child is far better prepared & learns more quickly when they start at a later age.

Personally, I would wait until 5, but closer to 6 (if possible).

Cat Melodeon

perri winkles wrote: »

Hi Op,

I don't have kids but I started school at 4 and it was definitely a much better decision. Like your child, I turned 4 in august and went straight in.
You are only thinking of the immediate effects of her starting so early. THink of the long term benefits.
I finished college younger, so therefore feel that I have a few more options and didn't feel too old to go on to do a post grad. I'm 21 and finished college, whereas some of my friends are pushing 23 and havn't even finished their first degree.

Don't be so ageist! Pushing 23? Are you writing off all the mature students who take degrees to either change career or consolidate their life learning? A person's life does not end at 25, nor do educational opportunities expire once you pass a certain point. Many postgraduate degrees (mostly the non-vocational Masters level ones) are aimed at people who are becoming experts in their field, not those fresh out of undergraduate studies. Having a wealth of work and life experience actually aids the postgraduate study experience. To gain access to some of the most prestigious MBA programs you must have at least 10 years of high level experience.

The only benefit to starting college early is that you enter the workforce earlier, pay into a pension earlier and retire earlier. Not everyone sees early entry to the workforce as something to be desired.

As an earlier poster mentioned, the best education systems in the world don't start children until they are a little older. In Germany, it is normal to start school at 6 or 7 and to begin uni at 20 or 21. It can take up to 8 years to complete a standard undergraduate program. Education is seen as a process, not a box to be ticked off in as short a time as possible.

perri winkles wrote: »

Your child wont struggle, don't worry on that front. I never found any difference between me and children a year older, and my mum said it had no effect on me keeping up etc

This is your experience, a wealth of pedagogical theory and practice begs to differ. You cannot say in such absolute terms that the OP's child won't suffer. A bad start can mark a child for the rest of their life in education.

D rog

I'm going against most when I say that I'd be happy to start them as young as 4 and 3 months. With August I'd be unsure.

What I would say though toward starting early is that the curriculum is based on starting at 4 years, even though peers may be older. The other countries being mentioned who start older, I'm sure their curriculum is tailored to that.
The other thing would be that I don't think we've seen the full implications of having 18 and 19 year olds still in school yet. We are going to have adults in fifth and sixth year and I think it may cause some issues with taking directions, studying versus going out, working part time jobs. I would prefer them to be younger finishing at 17 or 18 maximum.

Just my tuppence...

Galwaymother

I would agree with the last poster, both as a parent and a teacher. If the school is small and friendly, 4 year olds can do very well all through.
My two girls were getting slightly bored in Montessori, and were so ready for primary school, at 4 and 3 months, and 4 and 1 month. Also, the oldest hit puberty fairly early, so it would have been strange to happen in 4th class!
It depends on the child of course, and they were both very sociable and used to being in a group.
The advantage for them is that they will be able to do Transition Year and even go away that year for language trips, or even repeat if necessary, without becoming 18 or 19 before the Leaving Cert.
From personal and professional experience, I feel that by the time you're 17, you just about accept teachers' authority and the Secondary School experience. Imagine being nineteen!

perri winkles

Cat Melodeon wrote: »

Don't be so ageist! Pushing 23? Are you writing off all the mature students who take degrees to either change career or consolidate their life learning? A person's life does not end at 25, nor do educational opportunities expire once you pass a certain point. Many postgraduate degrees (mostly the non-vocational Masters level ones) are aimed at people who are becoming experts in their field, not those fresh out of undergraduate studies. Having a wealth of work and life experience actually aids the postgraduate study experience. To gain access to some of the most prestigious MBA programs you must have at least 10 years of high level experience.

The only benefit to starting college early is that you enter the workforce earlier, pay into a pension earlier and retire earlier. Not everyone sees early entry to the workforce as something to be desired.

As an earlier poster mentioned, the best education systems in the world don't start children until they are a little older. In Germany, it is normal to start school at 6 or 7 and to begin uni at 20 or 21. It can take up to 8 years to complete a standard undergraduate program. Education is seen as a process, not a box to be ticked off in as short a time as possible.


This is your experience, a wealth of pedagogical theory and practice begs to differ. You cannot say in such absolute terms that the OP's child won't suffer. A bad start can mark a child for the rest of their life in education.

Wow, no need to jump down my throat there! Someone is obviously a mature student?

I have nothing against mature students and to suggest that is clutching at straws. I as speaking from my experience. I feel I do have an advantage over people slightly older then me who are at the same stage in college. I will have more time to gain experience, maybe do a post graduate course or master, and still be entering the workforce before I turn 25.

Entering the workforce at a young age is important. I don't like the idea of only getting a job that uses my degree at the age of 30 etc. It may not be a priority for you, but I definitely feel that I have a bit more time to play around with my options then some others would. I personally do not want to spend the whole of my 20's in college. My circumstances may be different to others, but the sooner I can put my degree to use the better.

Like I said, thats simply my experience with it. None of my friends who started early have come away scarred or 'marked for life'. We have coped exactly like the children who started at 5. I'm not claiming to be an expert on the subject but I certainly do take some child research studies with a pinch of salt. There is a study for almost everything related to children now, I dread the day when I become a parent and have to wade through the masses of information regarding every detail of a child's development. Sometimes I think a parent should trust their instinct, it is very easy to get wrapped up in facts and statistics.

All children are different and will react differently to school life. If the OP feels her child will be more suited to going at 5, then by all means she should do that. Only a parent will know when their child is ready for school.

Morag

I started at age 4 and was just 17 doing my LC but that was then and the demographic of kids starting in Junoir infants is currently kids who are 5 already which makes a difference to the class dynamics.

wolfpawnat

My son will be 4 and a half, I know they say to keep boys from starting until they are 5, but 5 and a half seems to old to me.

pickarooney

Do you really not think kids would be bored at home until they're 6? As regards learning, a 2-3 year old can learn things quicker than a human at any age and generally speaking everyone knows how to count, say their colours, speak at least one language fluently by 3.

Unless you're available full-time to stimulate them and help them learn, won't they go mad?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding and your 3-4 year old are in pre-shools where they learn the same things as 3-4 year olds in primary schools here. If so, ignore the above.

astra2000

pickarooney wrote: »

Do you really not think kids would be bored at home until they're 6? As regards learning, a 2-3 year old can learn things quicker than a human at any age and generally speaking everyone knows how to count, say their colours, speak at least one language fluently by 3.

Unless you're available full-time to stimulate them and help them learn, won't they go mad?

Maybe I'm misunderstanding and your 3-4 year old are in pre-shools where they learn the same things as 3-4 year olds in primary schools here. If so, ignore the above.

I would have taught my children their abcs colours etc befor they attended school playschool didnt do much of this it was more about colouring crafts and play. Recently my youngest was assesed by an educational psycologist turns out she has mild dyslexia. Anyhow when discussing her I mentioned that no matter how I tried I was unable to teach her the alphabet and other things befor she started school. He was of the opinion that we parents should not be trying to teach them this stuff befor starting school, he mentioned Finland and their later start in formal education and according to him their childrens reading skills are second to none. He would be of the opinion that there is no need to teach your kids before school, school will do the teaching. That they should be doing thingd they enjoy a nature walk playing cooking whatever.
I dont think a child will be bored at home or in a crech/playschool if they are getting enough stimulation.

Tordelback

Sharrow wrote: »

I started at age 4 and was just 17 doing my LC but that was then and the demographic of kids starting in Junoir infants is currently kids who are 5 already which makes a difference to the class dynamics.

^^^This is the point - I see no problem with kids starting to do schoolwork at 4, I did it and was always the youngest in my class, and my younger brother was actually only 3 and 8 months when he started, and my own boy is learning to read at a great lick at 4, however at the moment the median age of any JI class will probably be 5-and-a-bit: half older, half younger. So the closer to 4 any kid is, the more physically and emotionally immature they are going to be in comparison to their classmates. It's an added challenge, that's all.

I certainly wouldn't worry about it, there are worse things than being younger and smaller, but it is worth bearing in mind in making a decision. My decision was based on the fact that my boy had already done most of a year of montessori and had been in the same creche full time for nearly 4 years, and I didn't feel that he was going to get enough new stimulus to carry him through another year. If I'd had the option of keeping him at home or having him looked after by family, I'd have taken it, but as it is I'm happy with the choice we made.

pickarooney

astra2000 wrote: »

He would be of the opinion that there is no need to teach your kids before school, school will do the teaching. That they should be doing thingd they enjoy a nature walk playing cooking whatever.

This tells me all I need to know about this guy! Children, for the most part love reading. I wouldn't teach a child to read unless he/she made it clear that he/she wanted to read. It's not a chore, it's a gift!

astra2000

pickarooney wrote: »

This tells me all I need to know about this guy! Children, for the most part love reading. I wouldn't teach a child to read unless he/she made it clear that he/she wanted to read. It's not a chore, it's a gift!

Obviously it is a chore to her shes dyslexic. There are thousands of children for who reading is a chore unfortunatly, just because it was never a chore to youor I doesnt mean it isnt to others Lots of children dont love reading some do some dont but it is something that needs to be learned. And apparently Finlands later formal learning technique produces results. From the majority of posts here it would appear that parents general consensus is that it is best for children to start school with other children in their own age group.
Btw I never mentioned teaching her to read I mentioned teaching her abcs.

pickarooney

astra2000 wrote: »

Obviously it is a chore to her shes dyslexic. There are thousands of children for who reading is a chore unfortunatly, just because it was never a chore to youor I doesnt mean it isnt to others Lots of children dont love reading some do some dont but it is something that needs to be learned.

In fairness neither I nor the guy in question was talking about your child specifically or children with reading difficulties in general and I did clearly say I personally wouldn't try to teach a child to read if he/she didn't want to so I'm not sure what you're getting at.

Otherwise I'm at a loss as to how delaying learning something can be an advantage. As long as a child wants to learn something I feel it's important to accommodate him/her.

ktod

My first son started school at 4, his birthday is in June.
He was ready for it - and I think you can tell! He had no problems. Having said that, he is now in secondary school and wants to skip transition year so he'll only be 16-going-on-17 when he finishes.
I'll be starting son #2 in school at 4 too, his birthday is in July, with no qualms at all.