Were you listening? ...

Those of you who have been listening to me for any length of time will know what I feel about the moment our children begin their institutionalised education programme … they go to school. I have always said that it is too, too early for the formalisation that is foisted upon them and, in the end, it does harm rather than good.

The Cambridge-based Primary Review's report suggests starting school at the age of five may be too early and questions provision for the very young Our European neighbours have known this for a long time and their children begin their formal education at a ‘readiness’ point for most more than two years down the line.

Now this reputable report has been released saying the same thing! The BBC reported it this morning (as did The Independent, on their front page).
The report by the National Foundation for Educational Research will be widely regarded as positive by most educationalists. It is called:Primary Review: The Structure of Primary Education: England and Other Countries (Primary Review Research Report 9/1) by Anna Riggall and Caroline Sharp and asks the questions: When should children start compulsory schooling? What should they be taught? What is the impact on children's learning of different schooling structures? It is well worth reading section 6.1 The impact of age of starting school.

It is hoped that the conclusion from the report (one section of thirty-two) will influence the Government in the development of education provision especially in the early years. For me, one of the key things that come from this report are the comparisons with countries around the world and the use of the word 'assumption' in the way that we have developed educational provision.

After examining the research evidence Primary Review Research Report 9/1 concludes that:• Since the 1967 Plowden Report there have been a number of significant structural changes in English primary education, many of them initiated by or as a consequence of the 1988 Education Reform Act. These have resulted in an increased standardisation of primary school curriculum,teaching, assessment and inspection arrangements across the country.
• There has been an increased participation in educational provision among younger children. The number of small primary schools has decreased markedly during this period.
• A comparison of structural features across the six countries included in this study shows considerable variation in such features as age of starting school, length of the school year, average size of school and length of primary schooling. This diversity may be of potential interest to those wishing to consider alternatives to the prevailing structures in primary education in
England.
• While it has been relatively straightforward to collate information about elements of primary school structure, it is much more difficult to find evidence to evaluate their impact and effectiveness. One issue that has received greater attention from researchers is the impact of school starting age on attainment. The assumption that an early school starting age is beneficial for children’s later attainment is not well supported in the research and therefore remains open to question, while there are particular concerns about the appropriateness of current provision for four-year-olds in school reception classes. (the emboldening here is mine)
• The general lack of evidence on impact does nothing to reduce the relevance of structural issues for children, parents, teachers and decision-makers. Further research may help to illuminate some of these issues. It is, however, inherently challenging to identify the influence of specific structural arrangements when considering the many different factors that influence learning and teaching in
primary schools.

It is interesting to read details of the Compulsory age of starting school in European countries, 2007.

Add to this the article by Jenni Russell in the Guardian of Thursday February 7, 2008. Read down to Michael Rosen's comment and then on and on to the others ... several comment: How did it come to this? How indeed?