Early birds

While there is a controversy over whether schoolchildren need a reception class or whether the current transition to primary school is smooth and effective, a UK university is instead probing whether formal education at the age of five is too early for young children.

The Cambridge-based Primary Review, an independent enquiry into the condition of primary education in England, which includes comparative research into the educational systems of other countries, has asked whether an early start has long-term advantages.

While only Malta's, the UK's and The Netherlands' education systems start at five, most European countries have a compulsory school starting age of six, which is also the most common starting age worldwide. In Sweden, where compulsory education starts at seven, parents may request an early starting age for their child; in Germany, children can start early as long as they are "ready" for formal schooling; while in Finland, one of the top scorers in educational statistics, students start school at seven, as in Denmark. Children younger than seven are either playing at kindergartens or spending treasured time at home.

Two sides of the coin

There have been various arguments in favour of an early start, one of them being that even at an early age, young pupils are capable of learning the more formal skills inherent in the curriculum. In addition, starting school early enables children to get a head start in learning.

Another argument is that an early start gives children from disadvantaged backgrounds an opportunity to make up for the disparity. In fact, in 1999, the UK Chief Inspector of Schools argued that the inclusion of reading, writing and counting in the early years' curriculum would help to overcome the educational gap experienced by children from disadvantaged families.

On the other hand, concerns have been raised about the appropriateness of a formal environment for young children and the risk that young children's freedom is curtailed too soon.

This argument has often been backed by statistics which demonstrate that highest achievers in education are the countries whose students start formal education at a later age. One such study is that conducted by the International Association for the Evaluation for Educational Achievement (IEA), based in Amsterdam, which, after measuring the reading standards of more than 30 countries, had showed that the 10 top scorers had a later starting age (these countries were also the most economically advantaged).

Which system is better?

The Cambridge-based Primary Review, which has published its findings last week, said that it has been suggested that it is an advantage for children to learn basic skills (such as reading, writing and counting) at an early age."

However, the review seems to challenge the idea that an early start has long-term advantages: "Two aspects of school structure have attracted more evaluative consideration in England and elsewhere: school size and the starting age for formal schooling. The available evidence suggests that neither of these has a strong positive impact on children's attainment or progress at school. Nevertheless, school starting age is a contentious issue: proponents of an early start argue that it raises standards; opponents argue that it may detract from other kinds of experience and activity which are important to young children's development and learning."

Prior to the Primary Review, another study conducted by UKs National Foundation for Education Research (Nfer) had similarly said that the assumption that an early school starting age is beneficial for children's later attainment was not well supported in the research.

"The best available evidence suggests that teaching more formal skills early (in school) gives children an initial academic advantage, but that this advantage is not sustained in the longer term."

As regards the IEA study, Nfer concluded that: "Top-performing countries in the TIMSS study had a school starting age of six, as did those participating in the earlier IEA study of reading attainment. However, this cannot be taken as evidence of a causal link between later starting and better achievement, because many factors could contribute to the higher achievement demonstrated in these countries."

Age or substance?

In a parallel discussion drawn out of a debate prompted in the US by the Bush administration wishing to see Head Start emphasise early literacy skills, research conducted by Elkind and Whitehurst in 2001 had placed more emphasis on what should younger children be learning at an early age.

Elkind concluded that early literacy teaching was developmentally inappropriate: "Those calling for academic instruction of the young don't seem to appreciate that math and reading are complex skills acquired in stages related to age. Children will acquire these skills more easily and more soundly if their lessons accord with the developmental sequence that parallels their cognitive development."

Instead, Whitehurst called for a less formal approach in pre-school. As explained by Nfer, Whitehurst findings showed "that children's ability to demonstrate simple knowledge of print (knowing letter names), phonological awareness (being able to rhyme) and writing (printing their own name), at the end of the pre-school year was a good predictor of reading performance at the end of the first grade (age six)."

"The researchers argued in favour of teaching these skills in pre-school because children are unlikely to obtain knowledge of letters, letter sounds and writing without specific adult intervention: 'If children enter preschool without an interest in print, how is a child-centered programme in which the teacher follows their personal interest and supports their play ideas supposed to develop that interest?... Children learn these things because adults take the time and effort to teach them.'"