Children should start school at the age of two to stop disadvantaged children slipping behind, says Ofsted chief Baroness Sally Morgan believes 'big, bold, brave' move is needed to tackle the under-achievement of under-fives from poorest areas of the country Currently most children in England go to school at three of four Ofsted report found poor five-year-olds are 19 months behind affluent peers Ofsted chairman Baroness Sally Morgan said children should start school at two years old Children should start school when they are two to stop the most disadvantaged from slipping behind, according to the Ofsted chairman. Baroness Sally Morgan believes that a "big, bold, brave" move is needed to tackle the under-achievement of under-fives from the poorest areas across the country. Currently most children in England go to nursery at the age of three or four before starting school in the September following their fourth birthday. Legally all children living in England have to be in full-time education by the term after their fifth birthday. But Baroness Morgan told an education seminar held in London that schools "could be two to 18 as far as I'm concerned." She added: "If you could get them coming into school at a different level then it would save time and be transformative." The move comes amid complaints from teachers that too many children who are arriving at reception classes are still in nappies, unable to speak properly and lacking basic skills. Baroness Morgan believes changing the rules would mean "early intervention work, from the age of two, was really focused on the poorest children." She said: "You're much more likely to have them starting primary school, ready, without the big gap and ready to learn. But at the moment, a lot of the children from really disadvantaged backgrounds are not ready to learn so the school almost has to provide nurturing before it can start to educate. A recent Ofsted report found that poor five-year-olds are still 19 months behind their more affluent peers. Baroness Morgan went on to say: "What a dire start to their educational life. Those children had low level social skills, especially reading and communication. They're not ready to learn at school. Weak parenting, low educational attainment of parents, poor diet, poor housing and so on - the gap between affluent and disadvantaged is greatest in that group. She added: "I think there needs to be a big, bold, brave move on the under-fives agenda to target funding heavily on the children who will benefit most and increasingly, I think, to look to strong providers to go further down the system." However, critics said that children are already expected to do "too much, too soon" and should be allowed more time to play. Dr Richard House, from the Save Childhood Movement, labelled her comments as "completely misguided." He said: "If this proposal happens, I think it could be a catastrophe for young children." He added: "What will happen is that early childhood is going to become "schoolified." That early childhood time when children are young - at least up to the age of five, and I would say six - is a period of their development and learning which has its own intrinsic value. It shouldn't be treated merely as a preparation for schooling. A recent Ofsted report found that poor five-year-olds are still 19 months behind their more affluent peers A Department for Education spokesman said: "We know that teacher-led early years education has a positive impact on children, especially on those from low income backgrounds. That is why we are making it easier for schools to take children from the age of two by removing the requirement on them to register separately with Ofsted when doing so, and introducing 15 hours of free early education for 240,000 of the poorest two-year-olds. Our wider reforms will ensure all children, regardless of their background, get a good start in life.