Start schooling later than age five

[Still Waters]

Formal schooling should be delayed until the age of six or seven because early education is causing “profound damage” to children, an influential lobby of almost 130 experts warns.

Traditional lessons should be put on hold for up to two years amid fears that successive governments have promoted a “too much, too soon” culture in schools and nurseries, it is claimed.

http://www.telegraph...ay-experts.html

[Ealdwita]

In Nepal, formal education begins at age 6.

In Singapore, it's Pre-school playgroup/Kindergarten to ages 6-7, then on to formal education.

So yes, perhaps the UK does begin education proper a bit too early.

(Not so sure about the "profound damage" bit though...... sounds a little dramatic to me.)

[Michelle]

In my neck of the woods people are putting their names on a waiting list for the best preschools from almost the moment of conception. Even daycares have become learning centers instead of babysitters. Kindergarten starts at age six.

From what I've seen it has benefited the majority of the kids that start early. After all, when there were more stay at home moms they would read to their kids and spend more time teaching them at home before kindergarten.

[Leonardo]

I'm not sure I agree with the experts opinions as to what is "damaging the children". They should look first at the way govt grades schools before allocating funds - because it is this, imo, that is pressuring schools into promoting an exam, rather than learning, culture in schoolchildren and also for shifting that emphasis earlier in the child's scholastic career.

Children at the earliest years in the school curriculum have always been there to learn, but this issue [raised in the OP] has only arisen since govt introduced "performance tables" of schools.

Edited September 12, 2013 by Leonardo

[J. K.]

Something needs to be changed. I'm tired of getting seventh graders in my classes who can't comprehend what they read, can't write a grammatically correct sentence, and can't work math problems other than addition. However, I don't think that an early start is the answer. Instead, spend that first year - at six or so - teaching them how to read. Hold off on all other material until they have the skill of reading mastered.

[Essan]

So this means I was profoundly damaged because I had to go to school and learn to read and write (and tell the time and even, shock horror! tie my own shoe laces) when I was 5 or 6, instead of sitting at home playing computer games (which, to be fair, hadn't then been invented). This also forced my parents to buy me lots of books (which if I hadn't been able to read I obviously wouldn't have wanted). Mostly on dinoaurs, as I recall.

Can I sue the gubberment?

[rashore]

I always giggle a little when I see "the three R's".

I don't think it's terribly detrimental to start teaching kids early. By the way the article reads, it looks like they are promoting play learning early and more formalized classroom learning later. So it's still school for the tots, even if it is by a slightly different format.

[Shayde]

Another group of experts, yes? Well, this announcement does raise a few questions that would nice if they'd get put to rest:

1. According to this mob, education isn't working because the kids are going to school at too early an age.

2. This age limit has been in place now, what decades?

3. By this reckoning, that means a mighty chunk of the UK population must be suffering from dire education given in the past.

4. This would include, I offer, the same experts who've come out with this new brilliant idea. They went to school at age five, after all.

5 Would that not mean that because the experts went through this education, then their hypothesis is flawed, because they have been in the same boat as the rest of us?

6. Or could the actual cause of badly educated people not be down to the fact that we have too many experts who are in fact bloody stupid and they have wrecked education by coming with bloody stupid ideas?

[Leonardo]

Another group of experts, yes? Well, this announcement does raise a few questions that would nice if they'd get put to rest:

1. According to this mob, education isn't working because the kids are going to school at too early an age.

2. This age limit has been in place now, what decades?

3. By this reckoning, that means a mighty chunk of the UK population must be suffering from dire education given in the past.

4. This would include, I offer, the same experts who've come out with this new brilliant idea. They went to school at age five, after all.

5 Would that not mean that because the experts went through this education, then their hypothesis is flawed, because they have been in the same boat as the rest of us?

6. Or could the actual cause of badly educated people not be down to the fact that we have too many experts who are in fact bloody stupid and they have wrecked education by coming with bloody stupid ideas?

Which makes a good case for what these 'experts' are saying. If they are so stupid, surely it was the education system, and starting structured learning at such an early age, that made them so?