Such a classic case - read here.
If a parent decides, for whatever reasons, that it is perfectly OKAY for his child not to learn much in his preschool years, then he should be prepared that his child will meet kids in primary school who are more advanced academically.
Is it unfair to differentiate a fast learner from a slower peer at this age? In today's education system and the world our kids live in, it isn't. It is the smart thing to do. In fact, I think it should be something that ALL primary schools do. Perhaps the differentiation should begin even earlier as explained by this expert.
If a school can differentiate the fast learners (let's say those who have a good foundation in their Maths and English) right at the beginning, from those who are still grappling with their alphabet, reading and counting, then the teachers can be more effective in delivering lessons to both groups.
So whenever I hear or read (from blogs of) people's negative comments on parents who are too anxious over their preschoolers' education, I just smile at their obvious ignorance.
Perhaps these parents aren't aware of the reality: what's expected of our 7-year-old newbies when they enter Primary schools. Perhaps they know, but are in denial! Whatever the reasons, their offsprings are the ones who will pay the price later if they can't catch up with their peers - either by being burdened with tuition classes on top of their already crazy workload and/or have their self-esteem and confidence take a serious beating.
The funny thing is this very same camp who feels so strongly about NOT pushing their kids academically at early age (or 'hothousing' or whatever terms they use), will most likely be the first to complain too if their child ends up in the 'NOT Top 30%' group.