The school starting age should be delayed until six or seven because early exposure to formal education is damaging children’s reading skills, a Cambridge academic has warned.
David Whitebread said pushing children into school reception classes from the age of four placed too much pressure on infants before they are ready.
In Britain, large numbers of children are being identified as “behind” before they even start school in most other countries, he said.
Writing for an academic website, he said there was no evidence to support claims that “earlier is better”, insisting that children needed more time to play in the early years.
He quoted a New Zealand study that found chlidren who start school at five developed "less positive attitudes to reading, and showed poorer text comprehension" than those enrolled from the age of seven.
The comments run counter to suggestions from Sir Michael Wilshaw, the head of Ofsted, that many children should be exposed to schooling from the age of two to properly prepare them for the demands of formal education.
By law, pupils in England must be in education by the September after their fifth birthday, although the vast majority are enrolled in reception classes from the age of four.
The official school starting age is four in Northern Ireland and five in both Scotland and Wales.
But the majority of European countries start pupils in lessons from the age of six, including France, Germany, Ireland, Norway and Spain.
Some countries such as Finland delay schooling until the age of seven.
Dr Whitebread, senior lecturer in psychology of education at Cambridge, said most research evidence “points to the advantages of a later start to formal instruction, particularly in relation to literacy”.
Writing for The Conversation website, he said: “From the moment children in England enter the reception class, the pressure is on for them to learn to read, write and do formal written maths.
“In many schools, children are identified as ‘behind’ with reading before they would even have started school in many other countries… There is no research evidence to support claims from government that ‘earlier is better’.
“By contrast, a considerable body of evidence clearly indicates the crucial importance of play in young children’s development, the value of an extended period of playful learning before the start of formal schooling, and the damaging consequences of starting the formal learning of literacy and numeracy too young.”
He quoted a New Zealand-based study that found children who began formal literacy instruction at five or seven had no overall difference in reading ability level, adding: "But the children who started at five developed less positive attitudes to reading, and showed poorer text comprehension than those children who had started later."
The Coalition has appeared to endorse a more formal approach to early education, including the planned introduction of a new test for four-year-olds, weeks after they start reception classes. It will act as a “baseline” assessment, enabling schools to measure pupils’ progress in the seven years of primary education.
Michael Gove has also been critical of the educational establishment for advocating a later school start, branding them “the blob”.
Last year, academics who wrote to The Telegraph demanding a delay in formal schooling were called “misguided” by a Department for Education source.