Review backs later formal lessons

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8309153.stm

"Children should not start formal learning until they are six, a review of primary education in England says."

In this BBC article that I came across the reporter explains a cambridge review suggests that children should not be starting education until the age of six. It goes on explaining how at such an early age children between the ages of three and six should not have a structured learning plan but should be use for the children to have more 'play time'

The age change is already in place in other countries (Spain, France, Germany etc) and it has shown improvements for when the children actually start their education curriculum. The report also points out that this could be an advantage to those who have learning difficulties and disadvantage backgrounds however, it could also hold back the brighter children who are ready to start learning.

It has had some positive and negative reactions from the public the main issue being parents having to change work arrangements and will it change how children act socially?

In my opinion I agree with both sides of the arguement. I feel that at such a young age children should not be stuck to a curriculum; they need to first build skills that could help them, for example social schools. Going into a playschool/reception must be quite a daunting experience for children as making friends is a new thing in their lives.

However a point clearly made in the report was that it could potentially hold back children that are ready to start learning. I feel that looking at this report has given me the idea that I could maybe look into ways to combine boths sides of these arguements into a sucessful solution that works for both. Maybe look into simple gaming that could be used within the preschool/reception classes but also be available from the home.

The more I research into my chosen subject the closer I get to my final title question.