A year later, he went to school and, while he learned to read and write, he was hardly an enthusiastic pupil. He would still rather have been making things out of boxes and running around in the playground or park.
This year, however, he is seven. Since September he has been reading anything he can get his hands on, his writing is legible at last and he hasn't got a spelling wrong. He is not the only pupil in his class who has suddenly woken up to the joys and disciplines of learning. His friends'
parents report similar surges of interest.
All of which raises the question of the point of the previous two years.
Does it really matter whether children can read or write at the age of five? Why not leave all that until seven and concentrate instead on more fundamental skills of socialisation and enquiry through play?
What is the point of imposing that academic work on five- to seven-year-olds when the majority of them are clearly not ready for it? How has it come about that our education system works against the grain of children's natural development, rather than with it? And is it too late - are the structures now too embedded for us to do anything about it?
* Jerry Beere, partner, Morton Michel insurers
