Save us from trite journalism. The Guardian reports on a study survey by a market research company of 1,000 primary school teachers in England and Wales, highlighting concerns about children’s school readiness.
The reported findings suggest that many children are starting school with delayed motor skills and other developmental challenges. However, several statistical issues raise questions about how these findings are framed and whether the article does enough to challenge the conclusions.
As well as children arriving at school in nappies – one in four who began reception last September were – teachers reported children with poor basic motor skills and underdeveloped muscles, which they linked with excessive screen use.
“I’ve got two children [in my class] who physically cannot sit on the carpet. They don’t have core strength,” a reception teacher in the north-west told researchers.
A deputy head in the north-west reported an increase in “delayed walkers” with “clumsy movements, dropping things, unable to climb a staircase”
The article jumps out at me because children with underdeveloped muscles, poor motor movement, delayed walking, and clumsy movements sounds a lot like me starting school. Only, that was around 1981.
In my case, it was due to a relatively common chromosome disorder, then undiagnosed. Nothing to do with excessive screen time. Who knows, perhaps these children suffer from one of numerous such conditions impacting child development.
A quarter of children starting reception? Really? According to? Oh, just 0.4% of the UK’s 250,000 primary school teachers questioned. Show us the data then.
Sample representation is clearly a key issue here. The article does not clarify whether the surveyed teachers form a representative cross-section of those working across different regions and school types. Response bias is also a concern, as the findings are based on teachers’ perceptions, which can vary significantly and may not provide an objective measure of school readiness.
The reported decline in school readiness is also difficult to assess without baseline data. Without previous measurements for comparison, it is unclear whether this is a new trend or part of a longer-term pattern. Furthermore, while the article suggests links between delayed development and factors such as increased screen time and pandemic-related disruptions, these are correlations rather than proven causes, a distinction that is not fully explored.
Another limitation is the lack of precise quantitative data. For example, the claim that “one in four” children were not toilet trained could be more rigorously presented with exact percentages and historical comparisons. Additionally, a separate survey of 1,000 parents found that 90% believed their child was ready for school, highlighting a stark contrast between parental perceptions and teachers’ reported experiences — something that could have been examined in greater depth.
Finally, the article does not appear to account for broader influences such as socioeconomic disparities and access to early childhood education, both of which can significantly impact development. While the reported findings raise important concerns, the article’s lack of scrutiny over the survey’s limitations leaves key questions unanswered and risks reinforcing conclusions that may not be fully supported by robust data. Not exactly the standard of journalism expected of The Guardian.
Last modified: 2 February 2025
