Kids’ interests must be put first in school start debate
Proposed changes to the Education Act could see our children start school earlier and in larger groups, but why the rush now to get children into the public school system before their fifth birthday and to keep them there?
Could it be that the Government is ashamed of the standard of our early childhood education or is it quietly admitting that it believes children’s learning only starts at school level?
Education Minister Hekia Parata says that changes to the school entry rules are about enabling choices for parents and giving flexibility to early childhood education and school providers to meet the particular needs of their students.
On the surface, cohort entry at fixed times and lowering the entry age would seem to offer less flexibility than the present situation.
School-entry laws impact on the age at which children are enrolled, and the minister must be well aware that individual parent choices will be influenced by the law and that the practices of the majority will reflect the changes in the law, so more children will be starting school earlier.
It will become compulsory for children to attend school from the first day of enrolment.
Currently, the age at which parents must have their child at school or in approved education on a compulsory regular basis is 6 years old, and before that children do not legally have to attend every day.
Parents and new entrant teachers can probably say goodbye to the flexibility of allowing a child to have an afternoon off, to start gradually by attending perhaps only a few days a week, or to withdraw and start a term or two later if the child finds it hard to cope.
Internationally, research suggests that a policy where children start school at 6 or 7 achieves better outcomes for them, particularly if there is a good early childhood system in place.
While some young children who are ready for the stimulus of a school environment and are advanced in their literacy skills, numeracy skills and social development may thrive, others will need to develop amazing resilience or will likely sink under the expectations placed on them.
In the debate about school entry age, the issue of loss of revenue for early childhood education services has been raised by a few with business interests in the sector.
An advantage is that early childhood education services will now know exactly when children are leaving to go to school and be able to tell parents on the waiting list precisely when their children can start. Numbers will also fluctuate at more regular times rather than going up and down throughout the year, which may allow for more budget planning.
A bigger problem for the early childhood education sector is what the proposed law change implies about how the Government views it.
It implies that school is more important and that perhaps early childhood education is little more than babysitting. That it is simply caring for children and looking after them until it is time for them to have education at school, rather than an experience that can play an important part in a child’s social, emotional and intellectual development.
The proposed law changes could mean less choice, less flexibility, and lower ability to be responsive to children’s individual needs, so it is important that both the early childhood education sector and primary schools approach any changes with the best interests of children at heart.
Policy-makers must also ensure that there is some leeway built into the new system to allow flexibility for parents whose children simply cannot cope with the rigours of school in the crucial first few weeks or months.
For early childhood service providers, the need continues to show that the sector is not simply a babysitting service. Providers must continue to strive for high standards of care and teaching while remembering that play-based learning is best for young children.
It is easy in the early childhood sector to point the finger at the Government for underfunding, especially when policy supporting the removal of more children from early childhood care closer to the age of 4 or 5 may be interpreted as more funding cuts by stealth. But in order to be taken seriously, service providers need to show they are clearly putting children and their interests first.
Children are a valuable part of our society, and in the debates that follow about these changes, their wellbeing must be at the centre of any thinking.
Dr Sarah Alexander is an expert on early childhood education policy and quality, a researcher, former teacher, a parent of five children, an editor of www.myece.org.nz, and chief executive of the ChildForum National Network.