Evidence shows starting school earlier does not help outcomes

... in fact, it may be damaging for very young children to start too early, says Michelle O’Byrne

LEADING early childhood expert Steve Biddulph nailed it when commenting on Tasmania’s baffling move to lower the school starting age to 3½ years.

“Australia as a whole is out of step with the world,” Mr Biddulph said nine months ago when the new starting age was being hotly debated.

“And our State Government is seeking to make that worse.”

But despite the advice and opinions of people like Mr Biddulph, the Hodgman Government is determinedly pushing ahead with its inexplicable strategy to take very young children away from appropriate play-based learning at kinder, where they thrive, to a formal education setting, where the results could be disastrous.

Not only is the move to make three years the starting age by 2020 contrary to solid advice, it is being done without a clear or legitimate reason, and it is going ahead without any real consultation.

Led by Education Minister Jeremy Rockliff, it is being enforced by a government that did not do its homework. If it had, it would not have forged ahead with its arcane plan because the consequences are potentially devastating.

The Government has failed to articulate how 3½-year-olds will benefit from starting formal learning earlier or how families and children under 3½ will benefit from a loss of access to services. That has left teachers and others at the frontline perplexed. It has left parents confused.

The people who look after younger kids so mums and dads can go to work or study are worried for the future, not only their own but that of a generation of Tasmanians.

Mr Rockliff’s unexplained lowering of the school starting age is not based on evidence, but on worrying half-truths.

The education minister has provided little explanation for this dramatic change other than that the Government wants to bring Tasmania in line with “the rest of the country”.

That claim, in itself, is not entirely based in fact.

Even if it was, it does not amount to a compelling or convincing argument for making such a dramatic and potentially damaging change.

Look at the compulsory education starting dates around the country — Western Australia is five years and six months; in the Northern Territory and ACT, children are generally aged six; and the situation is similar in South Australia and NSW and Queensland.

The current starting age in Tasmania is five years of age on January 1 of any given year.

Tasmania already has the highest kindergarten take-up rate with around 98 per cent families participating.

But Mr Rockliff says too many Tasmanian kids miss out on quality early learning. But no evidence has been provided to show lowering starting ages will achieve better outcomes. There is, however, evidence of the risks.

The minister’s argument that starting school younger

will get more families involved in helping kids learn is null and void. He has been unable to back this up with any legitimate evidence.

Mr Rockliff cites what he terms “international and local” research to support his view, but recent academic evidence from across the world shows the opposite. Forcing very young children into a formal setting could be detrimental.

The ABC recently reported a New Zealand study carried out between 2007 and 2012 that showed introducing young kids to formal literacy learning does not improve reading and, in the long run, may be damaging.

Similar research from the UK and US shows younger children exposed to a playbased curriculum perform better. Other international studies link early introduction of structured learning with a higher likelihood of mental health problems.

Last month an academic study of 224,000 Queensland students and their families found the proportion of parents holding children back from starting school until they turned six almost doubled between 2010 and 2014.

Also concerning is the fallout the Government either failed to see or does not care about.

Thousands of Tasmanian families depend on childcare to look after their kids so they can earn a living or study. That sector will become unviable for those who work in it and families as the Government creates an environment where childcare is elitist.

The Discovery Early Learning group estimates that families in areas such as Ravenswood in Launceston and Bridgewater in the South will see out-of-pocket costs more than double as the child care sector faces reductions in enrolments of about 25 per cent as a consequence of sending very young children into classrooms.

Modelling carried out by Discovery shows the out-ofpocket costs of sending a child to long day care for one day will increase from $45 to $80 for a high income family and from $16.60 to $52 a day for a low-income family.

That puts childcare beyond our reach.