School for four-year-olds: Should I send my daughter to school or off to play Pooh Sticks? Were they to delay school until the age of seven, as they do in Scandinavian countries, it would give children more time to develop, leading to greater attainment further up the educational ladder. Or would it? Helen Goldberg, author of Reclaiming Childhood: Freedom and Play in an Age of Fear, and a lecturer in children's development at the Open University, can give a first-hand verdict. "I went to school in Norway, and although some elements were a lot better than here, such as the emphasis on foreign languages, overall there wasn't anything like the same breadth of education that my two children get in Britain," says Goldberg. Their knowledge of biology, the solar system and the world and how it works is much greater. Perhaps children would benefit from not going to school so young if they were spending the time running around outdoors and learning through exploration of their environment, but in a society where we mollycoddle kids and cushion them from real life, they are probably better off at school. Goldberg is keen to sound a note of caution in the early years debate. It is a conflict of philosophies that has become so unnecessarily polarised that, from a parental perspective, it can appear like a clash between buttoned-up Gradgrinds drumming the three Rs into tiny desk-bound tots and hippy Nordics advocating mud pies and wood-whittling with a bunch of seven-year-old illiterates. The truth - and indeed the solution - lies somewhere between the two. "What we do in the early years matters, but no more than what we do in Year Two or secondary school matters," says Goldberg. Constantly comparing ourselves with other countries isn't particularly useful because the systems are very different. Yes, children need more freedom to play, but we shouldn't downplay the role of adult guidance. International education rankings are something of a bugbear with the teaching profession. When England "soars" (due to educational differences in the UK, data reflects the English system) or "plummets," it immediately causes a knee-jerk reaction among politicians. Labour celebrated a good result in a 2000 study, although the sample later proved to be skewed to high achievers. The Coalition has used an apparent subsequent dip in performance to justify a raft of reforms. But a report earlier this year by the Sutton Trust, which aims to promote social mobility through education, revealed that variations in England's rankings can be highly misleading. The trust identified that in the latest OECD (Organisation for Economic Co‑operation and Development), England was 23rd in reading, equal 27th in maths and 16th in science out of 65 countries. But a recent global index compiled for Pearson by the Economist Intelligence Unit placed England 6th out of 40 countries. Lies, damned lies? No, just statistics. Different countries are included in different tables, different criteria are used, different aspects of attainment in literacy, numeracy and science are measured. Differently. Socio-economics, quality of teaching and ethos arguably play a greater role than the age at which a child starts school. Singapore, which routinely tops comparative league tables, starts formal school at seven, but children are intensively hot-housed at Kindergarten for three years in preparation. Similarly, in Scandinavian countries, formal education may begin at seven, but their early years curriculum, while less results-driven in respect of numeracy and literacy, is tailored to developmental milestones. In Sweden and Finland, compulsory education begins at seven but it also does in El Salvador and Armenia. Children in Denmark, Norway, France and Germany start school at six. It's the same in Romania, Azerbaijan and Yemen, yet we don't infer that their educational standards are due to the age at school entry. Peter Moss, emeritus professor of early childhood provision at the Institute of Education University of London, says that the clear distinction made elsewhere between education and early education is more blurred in Britain. Scandinavian children start in early childhood education aged between 12 and 18 months, with distinct, specialist teachers, qualified in early learning. It's not school, it's education in its broader sense," says Prof Moss. In Britain there's a schoolification from the outset; things are geared towards preparing children for school and those aren't necessarily the best ways of working with that age group. But quantifying how this affects outcomes is never simple, and what we need is a sensible, nuanced conversation between educators and the Government, not name-calling and confrontation. Ah, name-calling and confrontation, the stuff of childhood. But, to be honest, I might find myself joining in, if Michael Gove pushes ahead with plans to carry out a "baseline" test on Reception children, such as my daughter, as soon as they walk in the door. On this issue I must side with the Save the Childhood Movement, which is loading up its catapults with conkers, because assessing children's learning before they've started learning is insane. It's Kafkaesque. It's stupid. My daughter is as bright as the next child. But by this proposed baseline benchmark she would be branded - what? A failure? Remedial? In urgent need of special measures? What a lovely, warm welcome to the world of education. On the other hand, if the only alternative was keeping her at home until she was seven, I'm not sure either of us would survive. "We've grown used to schooling as having an educational use, a social use and a babysitting use," says Janette Wallis of the straight-talking Good Schools" Guide. The question is, if children started at an older age, which of these do you jeopardise? It's very possible that the education bit would not be affected, but the social side and the babysitting side would become major issues. No right-thinking parent could be in favour of further testing of children; SATS at seven are unwanted and stressful enough. And the unpalatable truth is that if youngsters were tested aged four, they would be "taught to the exam" from the age of three, which is unthinkable. "Under our current system, for children who come from disadvantaged backgrounds, educational input early on could be crucial," says Wallis. For other children, starting school aged four is too early and they'd be better off playing in the garden. But educational policy, by its very nature, is for everyone. I know I am but a mere parent caught in the crossfire but, to coin a cliché, every child learns at their own pace. Every government minister, too. One educationalist's dumbing down is another's learning through play. Semantics won't improve our schools; how about we stop bickering and discuss the early years curriculum over a civilised game of Pooh Sticks?