LETTER | The government’s announcement allowing six-year-olds to enter Standard 1 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, can learn faster, and are able handle more. That leap deserves scrutiny.

Exposure vs readiness

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 very 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.

Real learning experiences matter

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. However, they cannot replace real learning experiences. Touching, talking, reading slowly, 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. Rather, it is that we confuse fast interaction with meaningful learning, and exposure with readiness.

The views expressed here are those of the author/contributor and do not necessarily represent the views of Malaysiakini.