Schoolchildren would be allowed to develop more naturally if they started at six years old academic Dr Richard House says
He said that only children from deprived backgrounds should enter formal education at the younger age because they would ‘benefit from such early interventions’.
Calling on the Government to look again at the school starting age, he will outline findings of an empirical study on the topic to the Westminster Education Forum later today.
Dr House told the Daily Telegraph: ‘The conventional wisdom is that naturally intelligent children should have their intellect fed and stimulated at a young age, so they are not held back.
‘Yet these new empirical findings strongly suggest that exactly the opposite may well be the case, and that young children’s runaway intellect actually needs to be slowed down in the early years if they are not to risk growing up in an intellectually unbalanced way, with possible life-long negative health effects.’
LEGAL STARTING AGES ACROSS EUROPE
Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Republic of Ireland, Italy, Liechtenstein, LuxembourFOUR: Northern Ireland
FIVE: England, Malta, Netherlands, Scotland, Wales
SIX: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germg, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Turkey
SEVEN: Bulgaria, Estonia,Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, SwedenHe added: ‘The evidence is now quite overwhelming that such an early introduction to institutional learning is not only quite unnecessary for the vast majority of children, but can actually cause major developmental harm, and at worst a shortened lifespan.’
An 80-year study in the U.S. found that children who started later and developed naturally benefited from being slowed down.
Dr House said that bright children put into education too early could even suffer life-long negative health effects if they grew up in an ‘intellectually unbalanced way’.
A similar study was carried out in 2009 when Professor Greg Brooks at Sheffield University also said that formal schooling should be started two years later.
Another study found that England’s starting age is among the lowest in Europe. Legally pupils must start at five but the vast majority now begin at four which has, in the past, been branded a relic of the Victorian age.
In 2009 Professor Brooks told the previous government that some children ‘do not get’ reading if forced to start at four.
Children would have reached a level of maturity that would enable them to grasp reading more easily if they began at six, he told MPs.
‘We induct children into formal school too young in this country,’ Professor Brooks told the Commons science and technology select committee.
Twenty out of 34 European countries have a starting age of six, while a further eight wait until seven. In the U.S., children start between four and six.
A spokesman for the Department for Education said: ‘It is vital that all children get a thorough grounding in the basics from an early age – the three Rs form the bedrock of education.
‘There is a wealth of international evidence which shows how much each additional month of education benefits a child’s development and achievement by age 11.
‘The new early years foundation stage, starting this September, focuses on getting all children ready for education at age five and increasing their attainment.’

Dr Richard House said that formal schooling should be delayed until six to allow children to develop naturally. Photo:
Pupils should not be subjected to full classroom tuition until the age of six to off-set the effects of premature “adultification”, it was claimed.
Dr Richard House, a senior lecturer at Roehampton University’s Research Centre for Therapeutic Education, said gifted pupils from relatively affluent backgrounds suffered the most from being pushed “too far, too fast”.
He quoted a major US study – carried out over eight decades – that showed children’s “run-away intellect” actually benefited from being slowed down in the early years, allowing them to develop naturally.
Many bright children can grow up in an “intellectually unbalanced way”, suffering lifelong negative health effects and even premature death, after being pushed into formal schooling too quickly, he said.
Most British schoolchildren already start classes earlier than their peers in many other European nations. Children are normally expected to be in lessons by five, although most are enrolled in reception classes aged four.
Dr House, who was due to present his findings at a major conference in central London on Wednesday, called on the Government to launch an independent inquiry into England’s school starting age.
He said: “The conventional wisdom is that naturally intelligent children should have their intellect fed and stimulated at a young age, so they are not held back.
“Yet these new empirical findings strongly suggest that exactly the opposite may well be the case, and that young children’s run-away intellect actually needs to be slowed down in the early years if they are not to risk growing up in an intellectually unbalanced way, with possible life-long negative health effects.”
At the moment, most English children start school in nursery or reception classes at the age of three or four and are taught using the Early Years Foundation Stage – a compulsory “nappy curriculum”. They then move into formal lessons at the age of five.
The Government has already unveiled a radical overhaul of the EYFS, including a significant cut in the number of targets all children are supposed to hit.
But critics claim the revised pre-school curriculum still places an over-emphasis on desk-based tuition, with children forced to spend too much time practicing reading, writing, spelling and basic numeracy.
Earlier this year, a coalition of 50 leading academics, authors and childcare organisations launched a campaign group – Early Childhood Action – to push for an alternative curriculum focused almost entirely on a play-based approach.
Dr House said the new EYFS should be used up to six, with parents given the option to keep children out of school until this age. Ministers should consider the move as part of a wholesale review of the school starting age, he said.
Speaking before the Westminster Education Forum on Wednesday, he claimed the case for change was supported by a longitudinal study of gifted children who started in school in the US in the 1920s.
Prof Howard Friedman, a psychologist at the University of California, analysed their progress over 80 years and found that “early school entry was associated with less educational attainment, worse midlife adjustment and, most importantly, increased mortality risk”.
Prof Friedman told the Telegraph that formal education usually began at six but early starters entered education at four or five.
He added: “Most children under age six need lots of time to play, and to develop social skills, and to learn to control their impulses. An over-emphasis on formal classroom instruction – that is, studies instead of buddies, or staying in instead of playing out – can have serious effects that might not be apparent until years later.”
The conclusions follow a study from the National Foundation for Educational Research in 2002 that starting late “appears to have no adverse effect on children’s progress”.
Dr House said the Government must “help slow down the premature ‘adultification’ of children”.
“There are of course some children from very deprived backgrounds who on balance would, and certainly do, gain a net benefit from such early interventions,” he said.
“But the evidence is now quite overwhelming that such an early introduction to institutional learning is not only quite unnecessary for the vast majority of children, but can actually cause major developmental harm, and at worst a shortened life-span.”

The BBC has been accused of “fragmenting” family life by moving Blue Peter and other children’s programmes off mainstream television channels
Critics also warn that the move will make it harder for parents to regulate their children’s television viewing.
The corporation announced that all shows aimed at children will be moved off BBC One and BBC Two and onto digital channels dedicated to young viewers.
They claim the move will save money while at the same time maximise audience figures for both the flagship and children’s channels.
But the decision has been attacked by former presenters and parent groups who claim it “ghettoises” television viewing making it much less likely that parents and children will watch together.
Valerie Singleton, who presented Blue Peter from 1962-1972, said it was a further blow to communal family viewing.
“It is a shame,” she said. “The idea of sitting around and watching one channel together at the end of the day has gone sadly.
“Families are just becoming so fragmented that they will be watching different programmes in different rooms all the time.”
The decision to move Blue Peter off BBC One means for the first time in its 53-year history it will not be on a flagship channel.
It comes as part of a cost saving process in which the BBC has committed to saving billions of pounds from its budget after the annual licence fee was frozen at £145.50 for six years.
The BBC Trust, which ratified the plans, also agreed to all other children’s programmes including Newsround and Horrible Histories being moved after the digital switchover.
A BBC Trust spokesman said that children’s programmes remained “absolutely fundamental” to the corporation.
“Only a very small percentage of children still solely watch these programmes on BBC One and BBC Two alone,” he said.
“Moving them to digital channels is merely following current viewing patterns and reflects the fact that CBeebies and CBBC will be universally available from the end of this year.”
But parents and children groups said there was more at stake than just ratings and audience shares.

Margaret Morrissey, of the parent group ParentsOutloud, said having children’s programming on BBC One along with adult shows provided a good routine for children.
“It gave them a designated time that at the end of which they would go and do something else,” she said.
“The temptation now will be to spend hours watching programme after programme.”
She said that by grouping all children’s programmes together it would mean less family viewing.
“It is ghettoising children’s television,” she said.
“It is a sad and dangerous thing that we are doing. If the main television channel at that time in the evening cannot be dedicated to children and the family watching something together, then what can be dedicated to it.
“We are just divorcing ourselves from our children. It won’t be long before every child will be locked away in their room watching one programme while the adults watch something else in their living room.
“You would have thought that of all the channels the BBC would be trying to keep the family together.”

Greg Childs, of the Children’s Media Foundation, said that there was also a danger that by marginalising children’s programming it would leave them open to cuts.
“There will be less communal watching of children’s programmes which could mean that they are open to budget cuts in the future,” he said.
One mother on the parents’ forum Mumsnet said: “Having a selection of shows on BBC One or Two helped mums to regulate how much TV their little ones watched.
“Once we started watching CBeebies it was easy to just leave it on and for DD to become something of a telly monster.
“I liked the fact that there was a short selection for each age group and once that was done you switched off the TV and did something less boring instead (as the show used to say!).
“I honestly think it is too easy now for the TV to be the “Telly Sitter” whilst we all sit on Facebook and Mumsnet!”
Helen Goodman, Labour culture spokesman, said it represented a “downgrading” of the priority given to children’s viewing.
“Pushing children’s programmes down in this way does not fit with the BBC’s public service mission,” she said.

Lessons in history are being increasingly undermined by an “incoherent, fragmented and repetitive” curriculum that leaves most children feeling “bored”, it was claimed.
The subject is also being distorted by a poor-quality exams system, which places an excessive emphasis on broad enquiry skills over core knowledge, researchers said.
In a damning conclusion, experts claimed that English schools were more likely to downplay their own country’s history than those in any other European nation.

03 APRIL 2012 Independent
School meal portions are being shrunk, leaving children to go hungry, teachers and parents have warned. Smaller portion sizes caused by cost-cutting are reported in schools across the country and are of particular concern, given the increase in the number of impoverished pupils who rely on school lunches as their only hot meal of the day. Primary-age children, in particular, are going hungry after being given lunches that are too small, according to teachers.
The findings of a study by the Association of Teachers and Lecturers (ATL) were confirmed by individual teachers and parent groups who told The Independent it was a growing problem that had to be addressed. “Children are going hungry in schools and we all know what hunger does to your ability to learn,” said Mary Bousted, the ATL’s general-secretary. “It is no surprise that, in the current economic climate, there has been an increase in the uptake of free school meals … For some children, it may be their only hot meal of the day.”
Figures from the School Food Trust show that the number of children eligible for free school dinners increased by 43,000 to an estimated 1,055,000 in 2010-11. More than a third of education staff have reported an increase in the take-up of free meals since 2007.
In the ATL survey, teachers warned that private providers, who are often hired to supply school meals, were cutting portion sizes to make their budgets go further and win new contracts. “The younger children pay the same price but get much less than the older ones,” said one reception class teacher in Bradford. “Also, they do not get the choice as this is also saved for the older ones.”
Another primary teacher added: “There are occasions when the portion size is very small and there have been times when portions have run out.”
An early years teacher said: “Children who come with packed lunches eat a lot more at lunchtime.”
Another said: “Some meals are delicious, others are far from it. The portions served to the children are very poor and there seems to be no regular inspection of the food, kitchens or portion size.”
Margaret Morrissey, of the pressure group Parents Outloud, said it had received similar complaints from parents. “Providers would rather cut back on quantity than put up their prices because they fear a rise in cost would lose them the contract,” she said. “Instead of increasing the price, they have cut back on quality and quantity. Councils should monitor providers very closely because many children – especially the young ones – have this as their main meal of the day. It is important that the meal is of good quality.”Claire Kellett, a teacher working in Somerset, warned the Education Secretary, Michael Gove: “Children don’t have to read Dickens – yes, Mr Gove, they’re living it.”
Teachers say that those pupils whose families pay for their school meals are simply receiving less for more. In all, 62 per cent of teachers surveyed by the ATL said meal prices had risen by up to 50p a day – or £95 extra a year – in some areas. Nearly half (44 per cent) of the teachers surveyed believed all primary age pupils should be entitled to free school meals.
A spokesman for the School Food Trust said: “Our research proves that school food is particularly sensitive to changes in price. In these tough financial times, access to decent food for children has never been so important.”
“Every child having meals should be offered a portion of fruit and a portion of vegetables or salad every day. Since nutritional standards came into force, around three-quarters of primary school children now have a portion of veg or salad on their plate, which is great progress.” He added that schools needed support to “run their catering efficiently and to deal with rising costs”.
Michelle Smith, the school project manager at the Jamie Oliver Foundation, urged the Government to make more children eligible for a free meals and for schools to protect quantity and quality. “For those children from lower-income families, a nutritious school meal might be the only hot, nutritious meal they get each day,” she said.
“A nutritious meal at lunchtime increases a child’s concentration, improves their behaviour in class, and their chances of doing well and achieving their best at school.”
A spokeswoman for the Association for Public Service Excellence, which monitors the school meals service, said the major costs for caterers were staffing and overheads such as kitchens, equipment and energy supplies, and these would be targets for cuts rather than portion sizes. However, she added that government grants for school dinners were no longer ring-fenced and had been incorporated into schools’ overall budgets, thereby making the meals service less secure.
Canteen culture: the meals system
The system has undergone radical change in recent years. Schools can hire private providers to run their service – or do it themselves. Local authorities have catering services but schools are free to decide whether to buy into them or not.
Since Jamie Oliver’s campaign to improve school dinners in 2005, new nutritional standards have outlawed junk food and limited the serving of chips to twice a week.
The standards do set out minimum calories for each age group. But Christine Lewis, of the public service union Unison, which represents school dinner staff, said it had “almost been left on faith with the providers to abide by them”. “There is a possibility providers are violating the standards,” she added.
To further complicate matters, academies and free schools are exempt from the nutritional standards. Jamie Oliver is now campaigning with teaching unions and other education staff to reverse that decision.

Please click on the video below to see the show;