I don't think raising the school age is a good idea at all. I started school at four and could already read by the time I was two-and-a-half, and I wasn't "taught through play". We have a problem with kids leaving school illiterate or poor at maths and science, so the solution is not to reduce the amount of time they spend in school!
If you started them later they would leave later, wouldn't they? I don't see how having 12 years of school starting at 6 is any different from having 12 years of school starting at 4, except that they're more mature when they start formal education.
Given that the countries with the highest test scores in the world start their kids in play kindergarten at six or seven - seven! and they're not learning to read yet! - I think there's really something to this.
Grades 1 - 12, yes. Most children also do attend kindergarten, and in many states pre-k is also free. (Plus you can possibly qualify for a third preschool year free under certain conditions.)
At any rate, I view it this way. If starting at 4 means that you take three years to cover the material in such a way that all the children can grasp it (and you really stress out the slower kids) but starting at 6 means you can cover that same material in ONE year (and the kids aren't as stressed), why would you start earlier?
I'll be honest, I would have been bored out of my mind if I'd been doing reception-class stuff at the age of six instead of four. I could already read by the time I was three. So what would they do for kids like me, jump us up a few grades? Because that would put them with people who weren't on their same emotional development levels, which wouldn't be good for them at all. Got to think about all the children, not only the slower ones.
Tracked classes? Smaller classes, so that it's easier to do small groups and the Red group can be reading books a grade ahead, the Blue group is "on level" and the Green group is slightly behind?
The fact is, I doubt you really needed to spend ages 4 and 5 to be on the right level at age 6. You probably needed only half a year - not two years. You would have been less bored because the material would be covered faster.
I simply love all the nattering about schooling as the only place kids ever learn anything.
Remember, my mother was the one who got chewed out by my first-grade teacher because I already knew how to read. I literally cannot remember a time when I couldn't read. Cursive took me a bit, but once it was EXPLAINED instead of everyone just expecting me to magically know the different letter shapes from print, I picked it up in about a week.
I think a lot of people don't give children enough credit.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-17 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-19 03:46 am (UTC)Given that the countries with the highest test scores in the world start their kids in play kindergarten at six or seven - seven! and they're not learning to read yet! - I think there's really something to this.
no subject
Date: 2009-10-29 01:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 03:51 am (UTC)At any rate, I view it this way. If starting at 4 means that you take three years to cover the material in such a way that all the children can grasp it (and you really stress out the slower kids) but starting at 6 means you can cover that same material in ONE year (and the kids aren't as stressed), why would you start earlier?
no subject
Date: 2009-10-30 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-31 04:29 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-31 04:30 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-10-16 05:18 pm (UTC)Remember, my mother was the one who got chewed out by my first-grade teacher because I already knew how to read. I literally cannot remember a time when I couldn't read. Cursive took me a bit, but once it was EXPLAINED instead of everyone just expecting me to magically know the different letter shapes from print, I picked it up in about a week.
I think a lot of people don't give children enough credit.