Extra year is no answer

Linking the change in the retirement age to the proposed reception class, as Christian Zammit (February 19) did, is a red herring. Retirement at age 65 is very common and in fact some countries are looking at moving the retirement age to 67 as birth rates decrease, pension funds are depleted, and life expectancy increases.

As to the Reception class proposal, some are proclaiming that "many" advanced countries have this class. Well, the UK and perhaps another handful of European countries does not constitute "many" countries. Most countries have adopted the two-year system of Kindergarten so that children are better prepared for the first year of elementary school. The reception year idea will not help those students that for various reasons are not able to keep up with their peers. Such students will need special attention throughout most of their scholastic life and it behooves the government to provide the necessary resources to help these students.

As Joseph Farrugia (February 19) suggests, learning must be a life-long experience especially as the pace of change continues to accelerate. However, adding an additional year before the start of elementary education is not the answer. It is far more critical to the competitiveness of the country to encourage more students to continue on to higher education after finishing secondary school. Delaying a student's entry into higher education by one year will result in more students opting not to continue on as pressure to enter the job market increases due to economic necessities.