It's widely recognised that children born in August are at a disadvantage when starting school compared to children born in August. The August children have just turned four when the start compared to September children that are nearly five. The nearly one year difference very big relative difference for a four or five year old.
This article in The Times says that 'Ed Balls’s idea is that children can stay in nursery for an extra year.'
As the article says, this means that the children miss out reception and go straight into year one. When they enter year one they'll have just turned five but they will join children who are nearly six and have spent a year in reception learning to go to school. Also, the social groups within year one will have formed during reception while the August children were held back in nursery.
Now can this be a good idea?
How can a government minister put forward such a badly thought out idea?
Comments
Post a Comment