Experts warn gadget use and social confidence may create an illusion of readiness, urging a focus on deep learning foundations for young children.
THE government’s announcement allowing six-year-olds to enter Standard One has reopened an important conversation about childhood readiness and learning.
While this move is welcome, it also calls for a closer look at what we mean when we say children today are more advanced.This view is not entirely unfounded. Many children speak confidently, adapt well in social settings and navigate digital spaces with ease. These traits are especially visible in urban and semi-urban contexts shaped by early exposure and structured environments.
However, these visible strengths often lead us to jump to a bigger conclusion that children are ready earlier, can learn faster and can handle more.
That leap deserves scrutiny. Using a device well shows familiarity with interfaces, not depth of learning. Swiping, tapping and searching are skills shaped by repetition, not understanding. They reflect exposure, not readiness. Yet, gadget use has quietly become a proxy for intelligence, maturity and learning ability in public discourse.
Learning, especially deep learning, works differently. It requires sustained attention, the ability to sit with confusion, memory formation, emotional regulation and the capacity to connect ideas across time. These skills are not accelerated by early screen exposure; they are built through real experiences, repetition, interaction and guided struggle.
Rather than debating whether children are “advanced enough”, the government’s announcement should push us to ask a more useful question: What kind of learning are we prioritising?
Formal schooling is not about speed; it is about depth. Children need time to process language, form concepts, manage emotions and build learning stamina. They need play, conversation, mistakes, boredom and real world interaction. These are not soft extras; they are core conditions for meaningful learning.
When we overestimate children’s abilities based on gadget use, we risk raising expectations without strengthening foundations.
A child who appears confident on a screen may still struggle with focus, frustration, comprehension and independent thinking. These struggles often surface later, when learning demands depth rather than recognition.
This is not an argument against technology. Digital tools have a place but they cannot replace real learning experiences. Touching, talking, reading, thinking deeply and being guided by an attentive adult still matter more than speed and convenience.
Perhaps the government’s announcement should not be read as proof that children are ready earlier but as a reminder that our education system must slow down where it matters.
If children are entering school earlier, then deep learning must be prioritised even more intentionally.
The danger is not that children cannot learn; the danger is that we confuse fast interaction with meaningful learning and exposure with readiness.
Kanmani Batumalai
