Beginning School at just four?

Xidu

I do not think going to college at 16/17 is a problem. But I do think that Ireland allows 18 years old to go to pub and drink is a big headache to me. I think the age limit should be brought up to at least 20.

When most of the kids live with their parents before they start college, while they go to college most of them just turn to 18, it's the first year they are out of the parents control and kids tend to do crazy things to celebrate the freedom. Then allowing drinking, pub, smoking just give them too much stuff, especially drinking is not a good thing. Come on I mean 18 is not a mature enough age to me.

When my daughter turns to 18 someday, I don't think I will allow her to touch drink, but then I don't have that confidence that she will listen to me as if most of her friends do.

I had just turned 5 when I started school. I always thought my son would be the same age starting but I'm not as sure about that now.
He's 2.5 and extremely bright. The alphabet and counting to 60 is old news for him, he's now recognising and reading his name and that of other family members.
From a social point of view he has settled very well into a playschool and loves the 'rules' and routines.
Now I know he's only 2.5 but I genuinely fear he'll be bored silly going to school at 5 with kids who aren't as inquisitive or sociable as he is.

I would prefer to wait but might need to research things to do with him from 4-5 at home. Any ideas?

lazygal

Counting and recognising words/symbols is very common among children. Counting to 60 or saying the alphabet is like a nursery rhyme, most can count but won't be able to select the numbers when asked. When I taught Montessori most parents assured me their children knew the alphabet, how to count, how to read, but they didn't, they had learned to recite. We all think our children are clever, I've already been wowwed by my older child, but just because they can do x or y doesn't mean they're ready to start into what could be up to 20 years of primary/secondary/college.

pwurple

Deleted User wrote: »

Now I know he's only 2.5 but I genuinely fear he'll be bored silly going to school at 5 with kids who aren't as inquisitive or sociable as he is.

I would prefer to wait but might need to research things to do with him from 4-5 at home. Any ideas?

They do like mental stimulation. I know my girl gets really destructive when bored. For us the choice is between nearly 5, or nearly 6... and I think we would be crazy altogether to hold her at home until nearly 6. She'll be gone do-lally with boredom.

I'd send your boy at 4 if he's able to do all the things like put on his own coat, write his own name, open his lunchbox, fully able for toilet (able to wipe himself properly).

lazygal is right about the rote learning I think too, they can pick that up so fast, the little sponges... mine can recite the numbers too, seemingly to infinity, and seems to be counting things at lot. But simple addition or subtraction is still out of grasp at 2 1/2. She doesn't understand what the numbers are representing, it's more like a song to her. "If I had two apples, and I got two more apples, how many do I have?" Looks at me blankly, doesn't get it.

It's good for party tricks though and impressing the neighbours. Teach him to learn loads of dinosaur names, those are great craic!

lollsangel

My june twins started school last September at 4. I was nervous that they would be over their heads but they are progressing well. Think it depends on the child really

Ms. Pingui

lazygal wrote: »

Counting and recognising words/symbols is very common among children. Counting to 60 or saying the alphabet is like a nursery rhyme, most can count but won't be able to select the numbers when asked. When I taught Montessori most parents assured me their children knew the alphabet, how to count, how to read, but they didn't, they had learned to recite. We all think our children are clever, I've already been wowwed by my older child, but just because they can do x or y doesn't mean they're ready to start into what could be up to 20 years of primary/secondary/college.

That's so true!

My 3 year old can recite up to 70+ but only really knows and can pick out up to thirty or so. It is easy to say they know something but when it boils down to it they are only learning off lists and don't truly understand it.

My daughter was a June baby so she will be heading to school at 5 years and 3 months which I think is a great age to start. Not too young or too old. Some of the children the same age as her in her Montessori class will be starting in September but I don't think there is any need to rush. She will do another year in Montessori before school and I think it will benefit her no end.

coffee_cake

lazygal wrote: »

but just because they can do x or y doesn't mean they're ready to start into what could be up to 20 years of primary/secondary/college.

Well in fairness the question was what can be done with the child at home, and I would very much encourage stimulation at home ranging from more fine motor development to drawing to continuing the basics of reading if he's started already. Introducing music could be great, clapping along and bouncing along to it ^^ http://www.kindermusik.com/kids-music-classes/

Some kids may have their skills overstated, but it's just as important to stimulate the ones who are quick learners, or you'll quickly kill off any appetite they have for it

pwurple

bluewolf wrote: »

Some kids may have their skills overstated, but it's just as important to stimulate the ones who are quick learners, or you'll quickly kill off any appetite they have for it

+1

There are a few studies as well on why some children who test well in IQ tests, often perform poorly on standardised exams. The reasons range from being bored and tuning out during class, missing parts of the curriculum, to becoming disruptive (again boredom) and missing classes due to detention. Or they can become cocky/lazy and not bother to do homework because they can come up with the answer on the spot. Attention to detail drops off because the concept is so simple to them.

Under-stimulating a child by holding them back unnecessarily can also do them a bit of harm, and they can feel just as excluded.


Plus we can't have all those little geniuses turning to evil! The world doesn't have enough minions.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Counting and recognising words/symbols is very common among children. Counting to 60 or saying the alphabet is like a nursery rhyme, most can count but won't be able to select the numbers when asked. When I taught Montessori most parents assured me their children knew the alphabet, how to count, how to read, but they didn't, they had learned to recite. We all think our children are clever, I've already been wowwed by my older child, but just because they can do x or y doesn't mean they're ready to start into what could be up to 20 years of primary/secondary/college.

Oh I know that, but he will recognise and tell me random numbers I write on his blackboard.
If I ask him how many strawberries are in the bowl, he'll point and count them out.
Last week he pointed out a "rhombus" to me. It was indeed a rhombus.

Of course we all think our children are bright but it's been commented on by Montessori staff in his playschool too.

Thanks for the tips bluewolf and pwurple. My nephew was similar as a young child and was quite disruptive in junior infants, he was bored! After a meeting with the teacher he ended up being given extra books to keep him occupied.

I am thinking of Montessori from age 3-4 and Naoinra from age 4-5. He may not go to a Gaelscoil but a new language will at least stimulate him?

jigglypuffstuff

To give the short explanation..yes it is too young

To dive a little deeper

Define 4? some can be 4 turning 5 in october..others can have just turned 4 in the july or august.

I would say minimum age 4 years and 6 months

There have been many studies done in this area and the general view is that too formal too soon can have consequences. Studies have been done across many disciplines..education, social science, neuroscience,psychology etc and they all suggest the same thing. Not to ay there arent exceptions to the rule..but in general that what science has found.

clairefontaine

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I know that, but he will recognise and tell me random numbers I write on his blackboard.
If I ask him how many strawberries are in the bowl, he'll point and count them out.
Last week he pointed out a "rhombus" to me. It was indeed a rhombus.

Of course we all think our children are bright but it's been commented on by Montessori staff in his playschool too.

Thanks for the tips bluewolf and pwurple. My nephew was similar as a young child and was quite disruptive in junior infants, he was bored! After a meeting with the teacher he ended up being given extra books to keep him occupied.

I am thinking of Montessori from age 3-4 and Naoinra from age 4-5. He may not go to a Gaelscoil but a new language will at least stimulate him?

Starting school early is not going to solve this, it just means the boredom and the repetition will start earlier.

Not only that, he will unlearn everything he learned before starting school. And if he is bright then the over explaining will confuse him. I had this experience when I dropped out of honors math. I found regular math utterly confounding so I went back into honours math. Hard but it made more sense.

Also, bi lingualism is great and all, but one of its downsides is it can cover up problems and gifts.

thesimpsons

rsl1976 wrote: »

My son just turned 18 and is in 6th year and i'm really struggling with getting him to stay in school as he thinks he is too old. I would have prefered him to start school at 4 instead of nearer. I myself would have just turned 4 in the july and never felt it was an issue.

I've got older kids (21 and 18). eldest started at 4+2 months and despite herself and her friend being the youngest in their class all the way up to leaving cert, they both had more maturity and common sense than alot of the older kids. some of the oldest in their LC class were already almost 20 leaving school and were so bored with the structure and routines of school life they rebelled. having a hulking 19yr old in uniform being restricted by the tortures of school life can be very frustrating to them. Add in that they want to, and are old enough, to go out socialising at night, drive, etc and it can be very hard to argue with them about study.

Someone earlier mentioned that you rarely hear a parent of older kids regretting sending a child to school at the older age - you do, and very often too, but as parents of a cute little 3 yr old, you just don't relate to it. Having 13 and almost 14yr olds in 6th class is way too old. my eldest had girls in her class a full 13 months older than her (and at least 6 months older than the general class age) , they were always too old for their classmates.

end of the day - make the decision based on how the child is NOW. no point in unduly worrying about what might happen when they are 12/16/18 yrs of age. Thats a lifetime away.

carr62

My daughter started school at 4 and 2 months. I felt she was ready, and she has had no problems acedemically or socially since, always coming in the top 2 or 3 in her class and has plenty of friends. She has only 2 more years left to do in National School and i must admit I do worry a little that she will be ready for the big jump to secondary. Not sure if thats about her age though, as her older sister starts secondary next year and I'm equally worried about how she will cope with seconday and she was almost 5 starting school! On balance, I'd say its a personal decision - what suits one child may not suit another. Perhaps if I could do things over again I might have kept the younger one at home an extra year - but if I'm honest that would have been so I could enjoy her company for longer!

miss no stars

I can't stand all the generalizations of "Oh never start a child younger than 4 years 6 months" or "birthdays after 1 June should have to be 5 starting". Rubbish - you don't know the child in question. The schools have policies that they obviously feel work. Plenty of people have started school at 3 going on 4 in the September and plenty have started at 5 going on 6 in the September and the vast majority turn out fine, just like the vast majority of kids who start aged 4.5-5.5 turn out fine. I was 4 in August before starting school. I was fine. My playschool (despite having a class for 4 year olds) told my parents that I really needed to go to school as I just wouldn't benefit from spending another in playschool. At no point was I behind. In fact, skipping transition year probably would have worked out better for me but it was compulsory in my school. You have to base it on the child you have, not on an arbitrary line in the sand.

I would echo what people are saying about basing it on how the individual child is now (not in the future) and whether they'd be ready at just 4, 5 or 6. You can't plan the future so you might as well do what's right for now.

If they get to 6th class and seem a bit young for secondary school, well that can be dealt with then. There was a girl whose birthday was at the end of September in my class and rather than hold her back (because she wasn't behind academically or socially), she went to Ring for a year between primary and secondary and started first year with excellent Irish and far more mature for having been away from her parents.

If they get to the end of the junior cert and transition year's been scrapped but they seem too young for 5th year, they can always go abroad for an exchange and come back fluent in their foreign language.

If they do the leaving cert and they're too immature at just 17/18 for college, they can take a gap year here or spend a year in a language school or whatever.

The point I'm making is that you can only base your decision on when to start them on how they are at this point in time. You can't predict that they won't be ready for secondary school by the end of 6th class, or conversely, that they'll have outgrown school by 6th year and be rebelling against being 19 and still in school having to cow tow to rules aimed at keeping 12 year olds in check. If they are too young then there are always things that can be done to keep them back a year without actually holding them back. Let the future sort itself out, just make the best decision you can for the child you have now.

jigglypuffstuff

miss no stars wrote: »

I can't stand all the generalizations of "Oh never start a child younger than 4 years 6 months" or "birthdays after 1 June should have to be 5 starting". Rubbish - you don't know the child in question. The schools have policies that they obviously feel work. Plenty of people have started school at 3 going on 4 in the September and plenty have started at 5 going on 6 in the September and the vast majority turn out fine, just like the vast majority of kids who start aged 4.5-5.5 turn out fine. I was 4 in August before starting school. I was fine. My playschool (despite having a class for 4 year olds) told my parents that I really needed to go to school as I just wouldn't benefit from spending another in playschool. At no point was I behind. In fact, skipping transition year probably would have worked out better for me but it was compulsory in my school. You have to base it on the child you have, not on an arbitrary line in the sand.

I would echo what people are saying about basing it on how the individual child is now (not in the future) and whether they'd be ready at just 4, 5 or 6. You can't plan the future so you might as well do what's right for now.

If they get to 6th class and seem a bit young for secondary school, well that can be dealt with then. There was a girl whose birthday was at the end of September in my class and rather than hold her back (because she wasn't behind academically or socially), she went to Ring for a year between primary and secondary and started first year with excellent Irish and far more mature for having been away from her parents.

If they get to the end of the junior cert and transition year's been scrapped but they seem too young for 5th year, they can always go abroad for an exchange and come back fluent in their foreign language.

If they do the leaving cert and they're too immature at just 17/18 for college, they can take a gap year here or spend a year in a language school or whatever.

The point I'm making is that you can only base your decision on when to start them on how they are at this point in time. You can't predict that they won't be ready for secondary school by the end of 6th class, or conversely, that they'll have outgrown school by 6th year and be rebelling against being 19 and still in school having to cow tow to rules aimed at keeping 12 year olds in check. If they are too young then there are always things that can be done to keep them back a year without actually holding them back. Let the future sort itself out, just make the best decision you can for the child you have now.

Look to the rest of the worlds school starting age and corresponding PISA scores in comparison to Ireland

Enough said!

You would be more suited to base your opinion on facts..not you own personal experience!

miss no stars

pone2012 wrote: »

Look to the rest of the worlds school starting age and corresponding PISA scores in comparison to Ireland

Enough said!

You would be more suited to base your opinion on facts..not you own personal experience!

Ireland performs quite well both in ability and happiness.

Also, comparing with school starting age between countries in an attempt to decide when to send a child to school here is futile for two main reasons.

-The first reason is because there are so many other differences between education systems - a child might not start formal school until 7 or 8 in a higher performing country, however, there might be a very comprehensive pre-school education system in place in that country. There are differences in focus on subjects between countries - some concentrate on reading, maths and science to the detriment of a rounded education.

- The second reason is the child isn't going to be going to school in other systems where they start later, they're going to school in the Irish system. Waiting until a child is 6 turning 7 in September might seem like a great idea because that's what they do in country X and their pupils score higher and seem happier. Great, but they've to do a further 14 years in education in Ireland, in the Irish system. They'll be almost 3 years older than their classmates. They'll be 20 sitting the leaving cert. Absurd. That is NOT going to benefit the child in most cases. It'd be fine in country X, though, because the system is tailored for children to start at that age. For example, in Malaysia the age at which kids start their primary schooling is seven. But that's misleading because it's not when they start their formal education - they start around 3-4 in preschools where they're formally taught to read, write, do maths and learn other languages.

So no, enough is not said. You're trying to compare apples with oranges. The best that can be done is to work off the child's own attitude to playschool and wanting to go to primary school, the maturity of the child, other peoples' experiences, parental opinion on when the child will be ready, the opinion of their creche/playschool/montesorri staff, how the school divides classes up (by age/randomly), whether all their friends will be moving on or waiting another year; to weigh all that up and decide what's best for that particular child, going to that particular school. It's not an exact science. It's life. You do the best you can with the tools you have in the system where you find yourself.

pwurple

pone2012 wrote: »

Look to the rest of the worlds school starting age and corresponding PISA scores in comparison to Ireland

Enough said!

You would be more suited to base your opinion on facts..not you own personal experience!

PISA scores are most strongly correlated to spending on education in the country, not starting age.

Hannibal Smith

lazygal wrote: »

Counting and recognising words/symbols is very common among children. Counting to 60 or saying the alphabet is like a nursery rhyme, most can count but won't be able to select the numbers when asked. When I taught Montessori most parents assured me their children knew the alphabet, how to count, how to read, but they didn't, they had learned to recite. We all think our children are clever, I've already been wowwed by my older child, but just because they can do x or y doesn't mean they're ready to start into what could be up to 20 years of primary/secondary/college.

Montessori is when they are introduced to numbers and letters. Not only reciting but visualising them and appreciating the concept of numbers and how the higher the number the greater value it has. I would be very surprised any parent would think knowing how to sing the alphabet song would equate to this.

Either way I think the Ecce year is invaluable for assessing whether your child is ready for school. To be fair if you just rock up to the school without doing the Ecce year I don't know how you would have any concept of whether your child is ready or not.

Polly701

The Department of Education recommends a child turn 4 by March 1st of the year they will start school.

My child was born at the start of April - I have her name down in over ten schools as we rent but intend staying in the general area.
I spoke to the Principal in each school where I put her name down and every one, without exception, recommended she start when she is 5 and not 4.
Over half the schools said they would not even accept a child under 4 and 6 months.
So the choice isn't always with the parent a such.

They are young for such a short time; it's beyond me why parents want to rush their child into education. I think one of the chief reasons is saving on childcare costs which is understandable but can be a bit unfair on child.

thesimpsons

in general I believe that parents, rather than pushing their children are encouraging their children to move on to the next stages in their life. from the day they are born, parents help and motivate and encourage their children to learn and move on whether it is to wean them, toilet train them, teach them how to feed themselves, talk, make a jigsaw, button coats, hold a pencil, shake hands, high 5, or whatever goes towards helping a tiny baby make progress through life. Just cos you want or feel that a child is ready to go to a formal school setting does not mean that a parent is trying to save childcare costs - it often means the parent believes their child is ready for that step. Parents will parent in different ways in different countries - its life.

jigglypuffstuff

pwurple wrote: »

PISA scores are most strongly correlated to spending on education in the country, not starting age.

That is exactly where you fail. take a look at the starting ages in the countries which do best..then look at irelands :rolleyes:

The most highly developed education systems tend to do better

Highly developed systems stress a later starting age..mostly because of research based on the fact that too early too soon can have consequences

Also as most know Piaget stated that at 7 the child akes a major developmental leap and moves from the preoperational stage based around egocentrism to the Concrete operational stage where logical thoughts/operations are the main focus

The closer a child is to the concrete operational stage the better for them in a formal education system...thats pretty simple to understand I imagine?

jigglypuffstuff

miss no stars wrote: »

Ireland performs quite well both in ability and happiness.

Also, comparing with school starting age between countries in an attempt to decide when to send a child to school here is futile for two main reasons.

-The first reason is because there are so many other differences between education systems - a child might not start formal school until 7 or 8 in a higher performing country, however, there might be a very comprehensive pre-school education system in place in that country. There are differences in focus on subjects between countries - some concentrate on reading, maths and science to the detriment of a rounded education.

- The second reason is the child isn't going to be going to school in other systems where they start later, they're going to school in the Irish system. Waiting until a child is 6 turning 7 in September might seem like a great idea because that's what they do in country X and their pupils score higher and seem happier. Great, but they've to do a further 14 years in education in Ireland, in the Irish system. They'll be almost 3 years older than their classmates. They'll be 20 sitting the leaving cert. Absurd. That is NOT going to benefit the child in most cases. It'd be fine in country X, though, because the system is tailored for children to start at that age. For example, in Malaysia the age at which kids start their primary schooling is seven. But that's misleading because it's not when they start their formal education - they start around 3-4 in preschools where they're formally taught to read, write, do maths and learn other languages.

So no, enough is not said. You're trying to compare apples with oranges. The best that can be done is to work off the child's own attitude to playschool and wanting to go to primary school, the maturity of the child, other peoples' experiences, parental opinion on when the child will be ready, the opinion of their creche/playschool/montesorri staff, how the school divides classes up (by age/randomly), whether all their friends will be moving on or waiting another year; to weigh all that up and decide what's best for that particular child, going to that particular school. It's not an exact science. It's life. You do the best you can with the tools you have in the system where you find yourself.

Nobody said anything about 6 or 7..granted the systems are different but common sense would tell you start them later as opposed to earlier...no child who's just turned 4 should be sent into formal education, they are simply develpomentally incapable, all you need to do is spend time in a classroom to see the difference between 4 and 5 year olds..its uncanny

And granted the way children of 4 learn, All children should recieve a high quality pre school education..not just those who are in countries where unlike this they actually understand and value its importance

and after stating to go on the opinion of the creche/playschool/montessori staff....do you realise how many people work in these institutions without even a basic FETAC level 5?? Great way to evalute you childs school readiness :rolleyes:

The quality of pre-school education in ireland is a joke in comparison to most...the statement you made just now alone verifes that you must not fully understand that..because if half the people out there took the advice off of the same people who were exposed on a certain program not too long ago..Im sure we would have many children in schools which were nowhere near ready for it!

pwurple

Pone2012, what you are saying really does not make sense. If pre-school education is so bad, then why encourage people to send their children there for even longer?

You are oversimplifying comparing age 4 and age 5. There could be a single day difference in age between a 4 year old and a 5 year old, or there could be 2 years, and a range of everything in between.

Plenty of things affect children and how they behave in school. Any special needs, primary language, attendance, sickness, family environment, whether they are from under priviliged area, pre-school, how they sleep, what they eat, whether they have siblings, their own level of interest, their parent's level of interest..... How you can determine from that mismash of multiple variables that it is in fact the single variable age of a child that makes this massive difference in the world, is beyond me. Children are individuals, with varying levels of maturity and abilty.

One size does not fit all.

jigglypuffstuff

pwurple wrote: »

Pone2012, what you are saying really does not make sense. If pre-school education is so bad, then why encourage people to send their children there for even longer?

You are oversimplifying comparing age 4 and age 5. There could be a single day difference in age between a 4 year old and a 5 year old, or there could be 2 years, and a range of everything in between.

Plenty of things affect children and how they behave in school. Any special needs, primary language, attendance, sickness, family environment, whether they are from under priviliged area, pre-school, how they sleep, what they eat, whether they have siblings, their own level of interest, their parent's level of interest..... How you can determine from that mismash of multiple variables that it is in fact the single variable age of a child that makes this massive difference in the world, is beyond me. Children are individuals, with varying levels of maturity and abilty.

One size does not fit all.

Where in my post did it say that they werent factors? I stated that a child just gone 4 is too young to enter a formal education system..guaranteed there an exceptional few but in general for the majority that holds true and is well supported by research

Actually what I said was all children should get a comprehensive pre school education...not that it was poor..you've attempted to twist my words there im afriad..

My post was regarding the quality of Irish pre - school education..Which in general is a joke with all focus geared towards static variables as opposed to dynamic..the exposure of this last May made it very evident despite the fact that many were already aware of it....That being said in any decent pre-school it will do the majority of children far better to remain there if they are closer to 4 than 5

Again ill state research has proven time after time..too formal too soon can be a pretty big mistake...you can ignore that point all you wish but it still remains as true as ever....The problem is the system....

As stated by previous posters schools often refuse children younger than 4 years 6 months because in all honesty...for the majority it is simply too young for formal education

With regards to one size does not fit all...granted there are exceptions..... but you should look more into how children learn and the stages of cognitive development. There is a reason others dont start until 6 or 7 and its because a developmental leap takes place at that stage

Your ability to ignore factual science in favour of your opinion baffles me

pwurple

pone2012 wrote: »

the exposure of this last May made it very evident despite the fact that many were already aware of it....

What are you even talking about?

Your ability to ignore factual science in favour of your opinion baffles me

Ahem. You actually need to provide the sources first, for someone to consider them. Otherwise it just sounds like a load of hot air.

You seem to agree with me, that there are, of course, cases where children do very well starting young. That is my only point, that it depends on the individual child. Glad we concur.

jigglypuffstuff

pwurple wrote: »

What are you even talking about?


Ahem. You actually need to provide the sources first, for someone to consider them. Otherwise it just sounds like a load of hot air.

You seem to agree with me, that there are, of course, cases where children do very well starting young. That is my only point, that it depends on the individual child. Glad we concur.

In reference to what I am talking about?

http://www.thejournal.ie/a-breach-of-trust-prime-time-creches-929270-May2013/

Now in relation to providing sources..ive got an early start in the morning for college so i wont post now..if you google school starting age im sure you will get a very good indicator based on research quoted in various newspaper articles...i

Heres some newspaper articles to start you off

http://www.theguardian.com/teacher-network/teacher-blog/2013/dec/10/school-starting-age-five-six-uk-eu

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2418281/Children-start-school-age-seven-say-education-experts.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-24058227

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/children-should-not-start-school-until-age-six-or-seven-experts-warn-8811004.html

If you are hellbent on getting the actual sources please state and ill track them down, Im sure my lecturer will pass them on given that they've been ramming this info into us since first year

sawdoubters

I would send them at 4, later on you can hold them back a year,its hard to catch up with reading and writing,and maths,as teachers will ignore the kids that cant read or write,if you cant read at 5 or 6 people will start calling you stupid,going early helps kids interact whith each other,its harder to make friends if your a newcomer to school,have they gone to nursery school yet,is your child outgoing or quite,outgoing would be good at 4,quite maybe 5,

don't forget to pick your school early

pwurple

Ok pone2012, creche is not preschool.

None of your links are relevant to the irish school system, they are all UK based. Even if they were Irish... The daily mail really isn't in my list of credible sources... Either is the independent or the guardian. I may have given SOME credence to the BBC one, but all it was saying was that a letter was sent to the daily telegraph about school age by some people with an opinion. No actual "scientific source" there either. So it's still all hot air I'm afraid. I'd love to see some real sources about any kind of harm done to children by starting between the age of 4 and 5.

I linked earlier to economic studies on performance linked to birth month and age of starting school which indicated that children perform better at sports if they start later, but better academically if they start younger.... Did you read those?

You're a student and you have taken the word of your lecturer without the source. I think i'll take my grandfather's 40 years of experience in the irish school system over that level of experience.

From my own experience, the three top results in my undergrad university class went to the three youngest in the class. My own sibling set was the same, the youngest one to start school, got the highest CAO points. My husbands uni class and sibling set is the same. All anecdotal I know, but there is more to consider than how children perform at the specific age 5. As children age the ability gap of a year gets smaller and smaller.

Take career start dates, especially for women. If you keep up the mantra of leaving it later doing no harm, you eventually encounter women who start their career several years later, and end up stuck with age related fertility problems, struggling to get a career started and established enough to be able to take leave when there are people their age several years more experienced already, with families and children. As time has progressed, more and more postgraduate work seems to be required to excel in any field. I don't see this reversing any time soon.

G'luck with your studies.

sawdoubters

sawdoubters wrote: »

I would send them at 4, later on you can hold them back a year,its hard to catch up with reading and writing,and maths,as teachers will ignore the kids that cant read or write,if you cant read at 5 or 6 people will start calling you stupid,going early helps kids interact whith each other,its harder to make friends if your a newcomer to school,have they gone to nursery school yet,is your child outgoing or quite,outgoing would be good at 4,quite maybe 5,

don't forget to pick your school early

Whatever the OP does, please don't listen to advice like this.

No, you can't just 'hold them back a year'. It can be complex to arrange and have a major impact on a child's self esteem.

It isn't hard to catch up with reading and writing. What evidence do you have for this? Children learn to read when they are ready, attempting to push them before that time is more likely to make them hate books.

"Teachers will ignore kids who can't read and write" - really? In Junior Infants? Aside from being a slur on the teaching profession (I am not a teacher) this is just inaccurate.

"It's harder to make friends if you are a newcomer to the school" - what difference does that make? At whatever age you go, you go into Junior Infants.

Lastly as a general comment on this thread there seem to be some posters who have a general misconception around child development that the sooner you start teaching something, the more the child will get 'ahead' and the better the end result - as if you have a certain number of years to fill them up with learning and the earlier you start the more you will fit in. This is of course total nonsense and I don't think any serious authority on child development would agree with it.

jigglypuffstuff

pwurple wrote: »

Ok pone2012, creche is not preschool.

None of your links are relevant to the irish school system, they are all UK based. Even if they were Irish... The daily mail really isn't in my list of credible sources... Either is the independent or the guardian. I may have given SOME credence to the BBC one, but all it was saying was that a letter was sent to the daily telegraph about school age by some people with an opinion. No actual "scientific source" there either. So it's still all hot air I'm afraid. I'd love to see some real sources about any kind of harm done to children by starting between the age of 4 and 5.

I linked earlier to economic studies on performance linked to birth month and age of starting school which indicated that children perform better at sports if they start later, but better academically if they start younger.... Did you read those?

You're a student and you have taken the word of your lecturer without the source. I think i'll take my grandfather's 40 years of experience in the irish school system over that level of experience.

From my own experience, the three top results in my undergrad university class went to the three youngest in the class. My own sibling set was the same, the youngest one to start school, got the highest CAO points. My husbands uni class and sibling set is the same. All anecdotal I know, but there is more to consider than how children perform at the specific age 5. As children age the ability gap of a year gets smaller and smaller.

Take career start dates, especially for women. If you keep up the mantra of leaving it later doing no harm, you eventually encounter women who start their career several years later, and end up stuck with age related fertility problems, struggling to get a career started and established enough to be able to take leave when there are people their age several years more experienced already, with families and children. As time has progressed, more and more postgraduate work seems to be required to excel in any field. I don't see this reversing any time soon.

G'luck with your studies.

This paper set out to examine the research
evidence concerning age of starting school.
It is clear that the UK is out of step w
ith other countries in introducing children to
school and thereby to more ‘formal’ learning
early in life. There are several elements
of a child’s experience in school that dis
tinguishes it from a child’s experiences in
most pre-school environments, even educa
tionally-oriented pre-school provision (see,
for example, Bertram and Pascal, 2002;
Sutherland, 2000). First, reception class
teachers tend to take a more didactic role, and children spend proportionately less
time on tasks of their own choosing. S
econd, children are less physically active,
spend less time exploring their environmen
t and more time sitting still. This may
result from both the teacher’s pedagogical approach and a lack of free access to
outdoor play facilities in schools. A recent
study of schools’ ability to provide for the
Foundation Stage found that almost half of
the headteachers interviewed described
their outdoor learning facilities for recep
tion children as ‘inadequate’ (Quick
et al
.,
2002). Third, the curriculum is more subject-related and places an emphasis on the
acquisition of abstract and symbolic aspects of number, reading and writing (as
opposed to an emphasis on play and the de
velopment of conceptual, memory, oral
and social skills). Fourth, adult-child ratios are generally higher in pre-school
settings, and teaching staff in pre-school
usually have qualifications that are
specifically focused on the needs of young children.
The arguments in favour of children be
ing taught academic skills earlier do not
appear to be borne out by the evidence.
Because some children demonstrate reading
and number awareness at an early age, and
this is correlated with later achievement,
some commentators have taken this as an argument in favour of teaching all children
literacy and numeracy skills at an early age. There are however, at least two
16
explanations for the correlation noted above.
First, it could be that the children who
displayed these skills early in life were pr
ecocious/gifted (in other words, the early
ability was a reflection, rather than a cause
of their interests and natural abilities).
Second, it is likely that these children gr
ew up in homes with access to books and
with adults who encouraged their childre
n to develop their literacy and numeracy
skills.
While it does appear to be possible for
schools to teach young children basic reading,
writing and numeracy skills, there appears to be
no lasting benefit to such learning. If
assessed at an early age, children who ha
ve been taught these skills are likely to
perform better than children of the same ag
e who have not. However, the evidence
consistently shows that this early advant
age is not sustained in the longer term.
Children who are taught these skills up to th
ree years later seem to acquire them
rapidly, and thereafter perform as well as or
better than children with an early start.
There is also little evidence that an early start in school compensates children for
lower achievement that may be associated
with deficiencies in their home learning
environment.
Would a more flexible approach to school starting age help? This question appears to
have arisen in response to the concern that
some children may not be ready for formal
learning at four. There is also the sugge
stion that reducing the ability range in the
class will help the teacher to use whole
class teaching approaches. The evidence
from the USA suggests that there is no
lasting advantage (or disadvantage) to
children who enter school a year later than their peer group. And although holding
back may reduce the ability range in the cl
ass, it simultaneously increases the age-
range, which poses other challenges to the social
fabric of the class. Two other issues
are raised here: first, there may be an i
ssue of equality of opportunity if children who
start school later are over-representative of
certain groups (such as children younger
in the age-group, boys, children from ethnic
minority backgrounds). Second there is
a possibility that a child’s lack of school
‘readiness’ may be caused by special needs
that are better addressed in other ways. Nevertheless, there is certainly a challenge in
schools’ ability to meet the diverse learning needs of individual young children, who
may be at very different stages of development.


17
As far as the types of experiences offe
red in early childhood settings are concerned,
there does appear to be some consensus
from the research evidence, although the
effects of early childhood education are gr
eatly influenced by the consistency of
children’s subsequent learning opportunitie
s at home and at school. Young children
(aged five and under) seem to do best when they have opportunities to socialise, make
their own choices and take responsibility
for their own learning. This can be
combined on a 50:50 basis with a more
adult-led approach (Siraj-Blatchford
et al
.,
2002). Qualified staff are best placed to
extend children’s learning appropriately.
It appears possible for pre-schools to ins
til resilience and a ‘can do’ attitude, which
serves children (especially those from
disadvantaged backgrounds) well all their
lives. Emphasis on spoken language and unde
rstanding of basic concepts, such as
time and number, are recommended, as are acce
ss to books and to people who read to
them, but not ‘formal’, academic teaching.


Source : http://www.emie.co.uk/nfer/publications/44414/44414.pdf

Early learning and school readiness
In most of Europe, the average school entry age is six years of age. It is only in
Britain and Ireland that it is four years of age. This anomaly triggers a lot of debate
on the impact school readiness can have on a child’s later educational and holistic
development. The Steiner Waldorf educational philosophy emphatically promotes
age 6 as the ideal school readiness age. The reasons for this relates to the child’s
learning methodologies prior to this age, contrasted with the structure of the school
system and curriculum, which are deemed inappropriate to meet the needs of young
children (Jaffke 1996).
The seven years from birth to the end of age 6 are an integrated learning phase
where children learn primarily through play (Britz-Creclius 1996). With formal
schooling starting in Ireland at age 4, the holistic and sacred first phase of life is
compromised by a substantive educational division. Transitioning during this phase
to a classroom environment, with high child/adult ratios and an academic approach,
is an unnecessary and unhelpful disruption in a child’s natural learning process
(Bowlby 2009). Play-based early childhood care and education, where children learn
in a free-flowing process from birth to 6 years, rather than being rushed into the
scholastic approach that underpins formal learning within the primary school
system, has been shown to be a more effective start of the educational cycle
(Lundgren 2009).
The origins of the intellectual justification for an early start to academic training
can be found in the work of educational theorists such as Carl Bereiter, Siegfried
Engelmann and E.D. Hirsch, who introduced early academic programmes based on
behaviourist learning theories (Elkind 1987). By starting with the assumption that
learning follows the same principles at all age levels, and that the sooner a child
masters critical thinking skills the better, a theory of early learning has evolved which
ignores children’s developing abilities while denying any special quality to childhood,
a time where trustworthy impulses should rightly be allowed to develop and run their
course (Hirsch 1996). These theories led to the development of an entire industry of
books and other media to teach academic subjects at home, supposedly addressing
educational requirements even within the first three years of life, which has had an
unfortunate effect on early childhood education around the globe (House 2011).
This controversy rages across Europe. Whilst former English Education Minister
Vernon Coaker opined that a starting age of 6 for formal education would be too
late, and completely counter-productive (Curtis 2007), the Cambridge Primary
Review found that children should not start formal learning before this age
(Alexander 2009). The most comprehensive enquiry into English primary education
since the Plowden report of 1967, this review asserts that the kind of play-based
learning featured in nurseries and reception classes should continue until the ‘school
age’ of 6. It found no evidence that an early introduction to formal learning has any
benefit, but instead saw indications it can do some harm. In fact, there is a body of
evidence to support the argument that an early introduction of didactic curricula
may increase anxiety, and impact negatively on both self-esteem and longer-term
motivation to learn (Elkind 1987; Elley 1994; Alexander 2009). Finland, which
consistently ranks at the top of all OECD countries for educational attainment and
one of the highest per capita number of PhDs in Europe (Bruton 2007), is currently
among only six European countries (also including Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia,
Lithuania, and Sweden) starting formal schooling at age 7 (National Foundation for
Educational Research 2010)

Source : http://www.ecswe.org/wren/documents/Give-them-time-school-readiness-20120913.pdf

There are plenty of references there for you to check out yourself

Science is a far better indicator of what is correct...not your grandfathers opinion,
which is most likely bias

You must be very ignorant to factual based evidence around child development..this is over evident from your posts

It would serve you well to educate yourself further on the topic