The School Starting Age

"Sending children to school too early is only likely to exacerbate, rather than ameliorate, these issues. The development of a national kindergarten system, universally available to all children from the ages of three to seven, with mixed-aged groupings, and either massively subsidised by or entirely paid for through general taxation (just like primary and secondary school), would help to focus attention and resources on the vitally important early years. It is one of the very few policy changes that could begin to equalise the foundational experiences of children across Scotland and taking such a step could be just the catalyst we need to rethink not just the school system but also some of our fundamental social assumptions.

Success would depend on both expertise and infrastructure. We would need to see the development of a well-qualified and high-status workforce and the construction of appropriate physical spaces (combining new or converted buildings with outdoor learning environments) across the country. In the end, the goal should be the creation of a truly national early years sector to replace the current patchwork of provision that further entrenches the divide between rich and poor. All of this would cost money, although given that we currently educate children from four years old anyway and are in the process of a significant expansion in early years provision, a lot of the resources are already likely to be in place.

This sort of change might also raise questions about the overall structures of primary and secondary schooling in Scotland. Just like with the school starting age, there is a tendency to believe that our current approach is also the ideal one, but what if we’re wrong? If we were to raise the starting age of formal schooling from four or five to seven, would it then make sense to reassess the point at which children shift from primary school to secondary? Should we perhaps go further, and ask whether the introduction of a middle stage – such as those used in countries like the usa, Japan or Norway – might be more compatible with cfe and allow us to better meet the needs of young people? Maybe it would be better to alter our approach to the final years of high school so that those aged 16–18 learn in an environment that looks and functions much more like a college, thus ensuring that they are better prepared to take their next steps after leaving the school system?

There’s really no reason why all of this shouldn’t be up for debate, even if it means overcoming the small-c conservatism that so often dominates our approach to education. Sometimes it is worth asking how much of the status quo would be replicated if we were building a system from scratch and then using the answer to help us focus on the possibilities for progress rather than the limits of the present.

The biggest barrier to these sorts of structural changes is probably political. Although some aspects of early learning could be improved relatively quickly, especially given the recent publication of updated guidance for early years education in Scotland, there is absolutely no way that the entire landscape of Scottish education could be redesigned and rebuilt within a five-year window. These are generational changes for which no single government is going to be able to claim the credit, so why start the process at all? It is also worth bearing in mind that the chaos and anger sparked by endless, aimless animosity over schools suits some politicians just fine. Keeping people outraged is, after all, a more effective way of shoring up your vote (and keeping your job) than cross-chamber collaboration."