Mumsnet Talk

Has anyone succeeded in delaying their summer-born child and starting RECEPTION (not Year 1) until after they've just turned 5?

I'm not interested in starting a debate about the necessity of doing this - mainly because there will always be anecdotal cases of 'my son started school three days after he turned 4 and he took his GCSEs aged 10' - I'd just really appreciate hearing from anyone whose local council and/or MP supported their parental choice.

Thank you.

Are you in England? If so it is usually very hard as it means they are in the wrong year for funding at gcses. Often they have to skip back up at secondary, especially if you move areas. There are some other threads on this, I'll try and link for you later.

Pretty much not a chance, sorry. If they did for one and all that, not helpful I know.

Thanks very much for your help - yes, I'm in England.

From what I can ascertain so far, unless we have a national rule change - where everyone with summer-born babies can choose, and issues of funding and examinations are altered accordingly - those of us who feel strongly about it will be left to choose between our children being too young at reception versus old enough for reception but only allowed entrance into year 1.

The irony for me is that if there was greater flexibility, this could surely help improve results tables in schools...?

Thanks again!

Tbh, I doubt it would improve results that much- on a national scale there is such a huge spread anyway. And some children get more distracted by other things at 16!
It would be great to decide in an individual level- especially for premature babies- and seems to work in Scotland. However I'm pretty sure fundin would be a nightmare, as would you get an extra year of nursery hours? If you went in the "right"year could you claim an extra year at the end to retake/ change your choice? Or would all the march ( or whenever the cut off for flexibility was) children just become the youngest and potentially disadvantaged?
If it helps my August born son is doing fine, bit frustrated by always being on the small side, but academically great. I don't know what I would have done with a choice!

God sorry thought I had paragraphed better!

Flexibility does introduce problems with sorting out funding. It also has other issues. Teachers have to cope with a wider age spread as the oldest in the class will be more than 12 months older than the youngest.

Looking at Scotland where the system is more flexible, there was an interesting academic study a few years ago looking into development of children in P1 to P3 (broadly equivalent to infants in England). This study found that children starting school young made as much progress from P1 to P3 as others. So, although older children tended to have better performance, the younger children were progressing at the same rate and not being left behind.

Interestingly, this study also found that children in P3 who had been held back a year made less progress than other children. Unfortunately the study did not identify whether these children had been held back by the school due to poor performance or by parental choice. If they were held back due to poor performance the result is, perhaps, unsurprising. However, if they were held back due to parental choice this study suggests that it may not be in the child's interests for parents to take advantage of the flexibility on offer in Scotland.

There would be pretty much no chance of success in England unless you have compelling expert evidence that says this is absolutely necessary - and even then most LAs will argue that they can cater for any additional needs in the 'correct' year group given that the normal spread of abilities is vast even for children just 12 months apart.
If your application is not based on additional needs, just purely on birthdate, your chances are pretty much zero. The flexibility only extends to start dates not moving outside the 'correct' academic year.

"Interestingly, this study also found that children in P3 who had been held back a year made less progress than other children. Unfortunately the study did not identify whether these children had been held back by the school due to poor performance or by parental choice. If they were held back due to poor performance the result is, perhaps, unsurprising. However, if they were held back due to parental choice this study suggests that it may not be in the child's interests for parents to take advantage of the flexibility on offer in Scotland."

I don't follow your reasoning, prh47bridge. If the children were held back due to parental choice then in a number of cases the parents will have done that because it appeared that their child was emotionally or academically unready for school at four. Doesn't it follow that this group of children will include a disproportionately high number of kids who have learning delays, ADHD etc? If that is the case, those problems won't disappear as the children get older and they may continue to make slow progress. That doesn't mean that the later school start did them any harm. Perhaps they would have had even more trouble if they had started school early.

For example, if I had lived in Scotland and had planned to send my younger child to school there, I would certainly have pressed for her to start school later, with children slightly younger than herself. This is because she has significant learning delays as well as social and physical problems. Now, two years later, like the late-starting children in the study, she is continuing to make slower progress than other children. That is to be expected regardless of when she might have started school.

Likewise, I would imagine that the Scottish children whose parents chose to send them to school young will include a disproportionate number of quite bright children, and relatively few children who have issues like my daughter's. It's to be expected that this parentally-selected group would make as good progress as the others in their classes, maybe even better.

Never heard it done but I would like to see parents given the choice. Most are over keen to get the DC off their hands and this, combined with the push for earlier and earlier nursery education makes it highly unlikely IMO.
I would probably have held back DS1 given that option, though he coped better than I expected. (This was 12 years ago when they didn't start nursery until 4).

DS is in top sets of his big school
he is late August birthday.
If I HAD held him back a year he'd have spent the whole of primary bored and have probably done worse

too many parents have very unrealistic views of where their children fit into the big scheme of things

Saracen - According to the figures in this study, when they join P1 those children held down a year are performing at the same level as their contemporaries in P2. By the end of P3 they have fallen behind. But I did not make any definitive statement. I said it may not be in the child's best interests, which falls some way short of saying that it is not in the child's best interests.

Thank you for all your replies; this is certainly an interesting topic.

In terms of funding, I agree that there would need to be checks in place so that pre-school funding (for example) does not ending up costing more if the summer-born delays starting school. Although on this example, and I appreciate that this is only anecdotal, our son does not attend pre-school yet, even though he's 'allowed' a place by the government. And our daughter only attended pre-school for one morning a week before starting school - even though she is a September child. She was happier that way and didn't want to go any more than once a week. I guess what I'm saying is that the type of child we're talking about - that is not ready for school at the age of 4 - is less likely to be in nursery or pre-school at an early age either.

As for academic achievement, these articles (just examples) point to research that makes interesting reading:

Does it matter in which month you were born?
http://www.anthonymillard.co.uk/independent-thinking/does-it-matter-in-which-month-you-were-born

Children born in summer are '13 months behind classmates' in maths, a study has found
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2237523/Children-born-summer-13-months-classmates-maths-study-found.html

School odds stacked against summer babies, says IFS
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15527145

That said, I think the point about whether spring-term babies might become the 'disadvantaged' ones (in general terms) is a good one, and the only thought I have on this is that even if the choice to delay some 4-year-olds was allowed, not all parents would make that choice, so in effect, the spread should remain the same. And even though some children would be a year older than others, if developmentally they are close (i.e. the August-born babies that we all hear about who go on to do really well - and who are ready for school), there shouldn't be a problem for teachers...?

TalkinPeace2, you have added to this discussion precisely what I wanted to avoid here - an anecdotal example and sweeping criticism of anyone who wants to make a different choice to the one you've made - or whose individual child is different to yours.

The whole point about choice is that you assessed your own child as ready to start school, while someone else might assess their child as not being ready. You say your child would have been bored if he hadn't started when he did - yet I can say the opposite about our daughter. She is thriving in school as a September-born baby - had she been born two weeks earlier and forced to go last year, she would have been very unhappy. Yes, she may have 'coped' but I am grateful that she's able to enjoy more than that.

If you are a summer born child and already less mature than those born up to 11 months before you and they have a term, two terms or even a year in school learning about school and all that entails is it really surprising that you may behind your older classmates.
Now the choice is do you delay your child starting school and give their classmates a year's school experience (possible advantage) or do you wait until your child is more mature and hope they can make up the year when they start school ... it's not an easy decision

PMHull
my opinions are based on feedback from DH who works in upwards of 100 schools every year
particularly the point about parents not seeing the bigger picture about how teachers deal with the spread of ages and abilities

I can't see why it would cause a problem with nursery funding - currently autumn born children get two terms more funded nursery as they can start the term after they turn 3 but then don't go to school until they are almost 5, as opposed to the summer born who go to school at just turned 4. I don't know why we are so rigid on this, I know of no other country which is so fixated on birthdate. Why is the peer group of an august born child considered to be those up to a year older, whereas those of a sept born child those up to a year younger?

When we were in NL it was apparently quite normal to hold back pupils who struggled with a particular year. A friend of my DD's was held back a year. The thing we noticed was that physically she fitted right in with her new year.

I think this chimes in with chocolatecrispies view.

Apparently it takes until the age of 15 for the effect of this to unwind - I cant cite a source though I'm afraid.

A disportionate number of children with summer birthdays have statements typically for moderate learning difficulties/ emotional behavioural difficulties.

www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/summer-born-children-more-frequently-identified-having-sen-9935

I imagine that funding a couple of extra terms at nursery would be cheaper than paying for a statement for several years to come.

Prehaps the costs could be ofset by allowing precous september/ October born children to start early. Clearly there would need to be some assement paid for by the parents to allow a child to start school early.

I believe that starting children when they are ready would actually save the country money long term. More children would achieve GCSEs and there would be fewer statements.

We have relatives in Scotland, whose son's birthday falls just before the cut off for deferring, as you are only allowed to defer if your child is in the last 3 months of the catchment year. They were saying that it is now very common for parents (in Edinburgh) to defer, resulting in him being one of the youngest in the class.

I think giving free choice would probably effectively shift the school starting age. Not necessarily a bad move when one looks to the continent, but their experience was that now most parents were deferring, whereas when their older dd started it was more unusual. Most children starting school in Scotland are now either 5 or within a month or two of turning 5.

IMO the Dutch system of starting all children in the right year then seeing how they go worked well.

The starting age was 4 - they start on their 4th birthday or the day after. However the first couple of years were far less academic than they are here. Reading and writing started in year 3 though obviously the activities in the earlier years lead up to this.

It felt like a more flexible system.

My DN started reception a year later than he should've done - but he is in Wales. The LEA told my DB that it was at the HT's discretion, although they didn't like doing it and often blamed the LEA; HT was sympathetic. He went through primary being the oldest in the class and has thrived - occasionally there is an issue with another parent, and they are currently having to have a conversation with the secondary school (he's Y5).

ReallyTired - that article doesn't say they have statements. Just that they have SEN.

The vast majority of children with SEN don't get statements, nor does the school get extra funding for them.

"Saracen - According to the figures in this study, when they join P1 those children held down a year are performing at the same level as their contemporaries in P2. By the end of P3 they have fallen behind."

Ah, thanks for the clarification, prh47bridge. I hadn't understood that. In that case I can see why you came to the conclusion you did.

It is possible to have a more flexible system of progressing through school.

In the Netherlands pupils start on their 4th birthday whenever that falls in the year. At our DCs school they joined a mixed group 1/2. For children who's birthdays fall early in the year they would do a full 2 years in group 1/2. The school assessed children to make sure that they would be ready for group 3. Those who were ready moved up, those who werent (generally the younger ones in the year) did another year in group 1/2.

Once in group 3 the academic work started (learning to read/write etc). Some children might find that they had gone up too early. It was not uncommon for pupils to redo year 3.

For this type of flexibility to work you need to have a curriculum which allows for this and you need the funding structured for it.

It would be unheard of for your child to be allowed to be held back without any evidence that they would need it, eg just on your gut feeling that they're too young. Maybe if they already had a diagnosis of a global delay and you already had a statement in place (sometimes these children can go to an 'assessment unit' in a nursery if there is one.

It is not, however, unheard of for them to be allowed to repeat a year or be 'held back' if there were particular and exceptional reasons to do so.

I do think the nursery provision is an interesting topic (I know it's been lowered to a starting age of 2 in some deprived areas but it's not universal): Your August born child is not only up to a year younger than others in reception he/she has also had only three terms of nursery education compared to five terms for Autumn born children. That would possibly compound the differences between the average Sept and average Aug born.

Not sure there's a solution really. SOmeone has to be the youngest.

Sorry that second para should have included '...once they've started school'

Yes, I managed to get the Council to support my application for DD1, born in July, to stay at nursery school for another year.

In the end, after lots and lots of discussion with the primary school, she had short days until January.

There is some very useful and interesting information on this site:

www.myschoolgate.co.uk/blog/view/your-rights-deferring-your-childs-primary-school-place/

The primary my children attended had both a younger age child (dob 6/9) in the reception class and over age 31/8.

They both went to secondary school with all of their peers so the younger child was only just 11 and some children had turned 12. The younger child is a top lawyer and has excelled all the way through school and uni.

It can work for both, just depends on the HT and LA.

I know a girl who was born on 30th August, whose actual EDD was in November. She was immature compared to the rest of the class and when she left school at the end of year 2 she was the perfect example of someone who would have benefitted from repeating a year, especially as she would have ended up in her 'correct' year by doing that. But I don't agree with parents deciding which year their child should start, it would have to be in agreement with the school and other agencies. What would happen to the children who couldn't get a place in reception due to a large number of deferrers?

One of the big advantages of getting the children in on age but then 'managing' the pupils through the groups after that.

Our experience in the Netherlands was that pupils were held back if repeating a year would be of benefit. There wasnt a process of passing each year. There is a difference in my opinion.

Having 3 DCs we managed to cover all the bases of being the youngest in the year (DC1), held back a year (DC2), being proposed to go up out of group 1/2 a year early (DC3).

The thing was that the system worked for each child.

Ds1 started school the term after his 5th (summer) birthday.
He started play group late (because he didn't like it at 2); and at 4 did just 2 hrs per day at a nursery with a "free choice/unstructured" nursery.

But he went straight in to yr1, skipping reception. (He'd learned to read at home, though had done very little writing.)
The first term was a bit bumpy as he came to terms with the amount of conformity required at school, but he soon settled in.

Fast forward 10 years and he's currently on track for A* in all his GCSEs. I'm pleased we didn't/weren't able to hold him back a year at age 5.

incogneetow This may be the only option available in the end, and it's good to hear that you've had a good experience. Thank you. :-) Unfortunately, this doesn't take away from the fact that there are still summer-born children who fall through the cracks and don't end up reaching their full potential (possibly) because they began school too young. I've heard (or read about) so many people say they wished their child hadn't started school so young because of problems later - or just at the time of reception and/or year 1.

I can understand the point made by some posters here - that in the end 'someone has to be the youngest', but my point is that if we tried better as a society to have more children starting together at a similar 'developmental age' rather than simply the September 1st cut off, it could be better for everyone. I know of two children whose parents think they would have been happier starting school a year earlier (they were both September-born babies) for example, and that they suffered boredom while 'waiting' another year of pre-school.

As for the argument that by deferring my son one year, I would be taking a reception place away from another child, I'm afraid I don't accept this as a reason for not allowing it. So much of getting a place comes down to so many factors anyway (families moving to the area or closer to the school, or numbers of siblings in a particular year group etc.). Yes, my son would take a Reception place that 'could' have gone to another child in one year, but in the previous year (the one he was 'supposed to be in', that place would have gone to someone else.

A little boy at my kids' school is having another year in nursery this year instead of starting reception. He was born prematurely in August. School has mixed year group classes (admission of 40 per year) so he will go into the reception/yr 1 class next year, then the year 1/2 class the year after then rejoin 'his' year for year 3. So it IS possible.

Personally I have June born twin boys who were/are very young for their age and really struggled in reception-HOWEVER they have now caught up (year 6)and are doing really well and I don't know how they would have coped with jumping up a year if they had spent another year in nursery. Even in mixed year classes the work is set for each child based on which year group they fall into.

So I have mixed feelings about keeping kids back for a year (or moving them up a year)unless there is a clear plan for how they will rejoin 'their' year or for what will happen when they move up to secondary. We shall see what happens with the little boy that I know!

I dont see why there is a need for a pupil to rejoin 'their' year unless at secondary unless they are emotionally and academically ready. If this can be managed through primary then I dont see why that should continue into secondary. It is only the artificial requirements of age based assessment - SATs which forces this.

If you think about it, the August birthday child is only a month older than the September birthday child who is in the year as of right. When our DS was held back a year he was in effect only held back one day as his birthday falls on the day before the cut off.

shouldnt continue

perhaps I should have done an extra year at school!

I thought the School Admissions Code 2011 was supposed to give parents the option, especially as the report that triggered the Code was specifically about summer born children? Did I get this wrong?

Parents have the right to defer entry until after the child has turned 5 and the school have no right to stop this. So for example, a parent can insist their Summer born child starts after Easter and the school cannot take thier place away or have a blanket policy that everyone must start in the September.

What parents have no right to insist upon however is placing a children in the 'wrong' year group for their age.
So with a child born August 31st, parents can delay their entry into Reception until they are very nearly 5 years old but they cannot insist the child start in reception the week after they turn 5 (because that isn't their correct year group for their birthday).

The right to defer only lasts in Reception until the child is 5 or the end of reception year. If you defer beyond that, the child must go straight into Year 1 and your place is not held for you - you have to reapply.

The Admissions Code gives parents the option of deferring entry until the start of term following the child's fifth birthday but it does not give parents the right to have their child start in Reception a year late. If parents choose to defer for a full year the school is not allowed to keep the place open for them. It is therefore likely that any parents who delay entry for a full year will find their child going straight into Y1 and will have a limited choice of schools.

The Rose Report was about the primary curriculum in general, not just summer born children. In considering summer born children the report cited research that suggests deferring entry on the grounds of date of birth, language delay or social factors is a questionable response to the issues surrounding summer born children. At the time of the report some schools would not allow summer born children to start school until January or April. The report was of the view that this practise disadvantaged the children affected. The primary recommendation to help summer born children was to allow all children to start school in the September following their fourth birthday whilst giving parents the right to defer until later in the year or opt for part time attendance. It did not recommend that parents should be allowed to put their child into Reception a year late.

prh47bridge thank you for the clarification, although seems to me that it's two separate issues; deferring which is covered under the School Admission Code and then the Council policy of whether to keep children in an age related group or not. I know that a friend in a neighbouring area, one of her children was held back a year (probably extenuating circumstances) but he was given a statement, whereas when they moved to our area, he was put into his age related group.

One of the interesting aspects from a developmental stance about summer born DD1, is that she puts so much more effort into her school work. Being one of the youngest she has felt the need to prove herself, but as a result is happy to ask for help, ask when she doesn't understand something, and is doing very well.

I noticed with two summer born children that they work hard and I probably worked harder with them for them to catch up. The school also helped a lot and the younger ones caught up by year 5/6 and became the added value kids for the school. It does depend on the school and I could not have held mine back. Statistics are dangerous things because they make you assume the worst. The top stream at ds school has a large proportion of summer born in fact all the summer borns I know and none were hold back. I realize this is anecdotal but I think the statistics sometimes make parents push harder to gef the best to avoid the pitfalls. Summer borns may struggle in pe though due to size.

ilovemydogandMrObama - Perhaps I didn't make myself clear. The Rose Report specifically considered the option of allowing parents to put their child into Reception a year late and rejected that option. That was part of the context for the comment in the report regarding research into deferring entry which I mentioned in my last post.

That doesn't make sense losingtrust! Statistics are better than anecdotes.

OP am in similar situation with DD2 and agree with many of your points, but think the reality is that there is little prospect of change (see the recent thread on MNabout michael gove's comments about premature babies and deferring to the due-date year). For those of us in England, there is no choice to start reception aged 5 in the state sector.

I know of several DC from wealthy families in private schools "out of year", but suspect that should they have to move back to state at some point the local authority would require them to skip a year to go back to the "correct" year, which would obviously be difficult.

My point really Dozer is that the statistics make

Sorry damn iPhone. My point was that the statistics can cause people to worry and assume that they should hold their children back otherwise they will fail but in reality parents can do a kith themselves. Knowing the children are likely to be behind means you can do extra work to help them catch up. It does not lead to an unwanted outcome for the child. It is good to know but no need to do anything as dramatic as holding back a child which most schools would not allow but to do more work with the child. Statistics show potential outcomes but not predetermined outcomes and are not case specific. Better to be known though and allowances made.

I think the phrase 'holding a child back' is not how I would describe what I would like to do, although I can see how it is viewed that way by others. I just want to wait until my child is mature enough / ready for school - to move him forward at his own developmental pace instead of prematurely.

And it's not just about being worried about the longer term overall academic outcomes for summer-born children either - I'm more interested in my son's experience of his reception year. I know that he would enjoy it far more aged 5 than he would age 4, but yet a rigid system discounts that, and says 'oh, he'll be alright; he'll cope'. Everyone else manages ok.

Except they don't - I'm talking to various mums at the moment (all with children in reception year - both at school and at after-school activities) and they talk about how tired their chidren are or how their behaviour has got worse (more tantrums etc.) since they started school.

And this is not an issue of teaching skills either - I've had one teacher on facebook take my preference to delay starting my son quite personally, as though I was somehow not trusting enough of teachers' ability to be able to differentiate effectively in the classroom. This is about more than ABCs and 123s - it's being flexible enough to allow naps as needed, having one-to-one affection when wanted, feeling safe and comfortable in a home environment (along with outside activities with other children of course, e.g. toddler groups) and generally not being so 'structured' in a school setting - when he's barely 4...

I think that perhaps this doesn't make sense to lots of people because the norm today is for many children to be in structured settings from very young ages. Four years-old probably sounds quite old! But I'm not criticising that choice, I'm just saying that I wish the education system would accommodate ALL parenting styles and choices, and not just those that support or encourage school or nursery entry at what I feel is a very early age - for my child.

My October born child was tired and had more tantrums once he started school. My (now grown up) daughters who didn't start school until they had turned five were tired and had more tantrums once they started school.

Reception follows the same curriculum as nursery. It is about learning through play and making a gentle transition into school, preparing the child for the more structured approach that starts in Y1. It has far more in common with a nursery than with most people's picture of school.

Thanks again everyone. I hear what you say about nursery, but as I say, I don't send my children to nursery. That's not my choice.

I also hear what you're saying about all children being tired, and I would agree - my September-born child is more tired - but she's not having more tantrums or showing signs of real distress or being overwhelmed/unhappy. The latter is how some of the women I've talked to describe their very young boys - anecdotal, yes, but a view upported by many early-learning specialists who say that boys - in general - are starting school too young.

In Canada, children don't start school (reception/ kindergarten) until they have actually turned 5, and parents are even given the choice to differ their equivalent of summer-born children (actually winter-born over there due to different cut-off dates) for a further year.

I think we're just set in our ways here in the UK, and as I keep saying - I'm not criticizing what the majority seem happy doing, but I am criticizing a system that does not allow the flexibility of something different.

My post was looking for others to contact me if they'd succeeded in deferring their child for one year - into reception. I think I've learned that there are very few!

My window cleaner did it! We have long chats about our kids as his DD is only a week older than DS, but it is the week of 31 Aug - 7 Sept. He didn't feel that his DD was emotionally mature enough for school this year, and she has been very ill and still sleeps for 2 hours in the afternoons. He put his case to the Council, who accepted it but are encouraging him to do simple learning things at home. I think she still goes to pre school too. She's skipping reception and will join her peers in Class 1 in Sept.

I believe some schools only do mornings for the first half term to settle the kids in better which may suit better. I suppose the difficulty with the argument is that many children are at full time nurseries from ver young ages for long hours and stop napping when they go to pre-school. I know you don't agree with anecdotal but I would not generalize about boys and girls. My ds loved going to school from day 1. Never had tantrums and made friends straight away with many kids including the older one. My dd found the social side harder but I changed to a child minder with her for that reason as I knew from a very young age that she found being sociable harder and was much happier in smaller groups but that is more down to personality. Both are summer born and I have had a different experience with them both. However both are mature for their ages as teachers have told me and therefore there could be a September child who also struggles socially and therefore schools would have to allow for these children to delay starting too if circumstances permit. As many have said reception has the same environment as nursery and the teachers switch between them both and there were plenty of cuddles and quiet places for children to rest if they got tired.

Incidentally I would be happier if the school age was put back to six instead of four as this would prevent a lot of the issues that summer borns face and then parents could choose whether they used nursery or not. I suspect the issue is that most families have two working parents now although. The extra two years childcare would have killed us but I would have preferred that solution.

The debate on mn shows that there isn't much support for the kind of flexibility we'd like pmhull. National government won't mandate it, but in theory there is local flexibility. Local govt won't allow it because if there were precedents more and more people might want it and it'd be administratively difficult and possibly more costly.

Your best chance could be a school that's its own admissions authority, like an academy, but you might still run into problems later, eg transferring to high school.

The ifs stats show worse outcomes for young-in-year pupils even having taken account of extra parental input. Parental input can't address the problem.

I don't regard starting reception at 5 to be holding dd back: it would be giving her a better chance to enjoy more and learn more.

Why don't you try and get more flexibility about the school day to suit your child which more schools are willing to accept. It would be an admin nightmare to have different start dates but I have known children just doing mornings or four days a week. They were certainly more inclined to be lenient on absences in reception year and would always ring the parent if child seemed tired or off colour. At mine the youngest children started a few days earlier than the older kids to help them settle in in a smaller group particularly important and they seemed to form bonds. I found it better to use a private pre school first with ds as he seemed to be bounding with excitement whereas dd had gone to the nursery attached for the normal two and a half hours and the novelty had worm off. Ironically I thought it would make it easy for her to settle. If I did it again I would not use the school nursery but again different personalities.

i dont know if this discussion is still going but i am currently in a battle to get m y son a reception place this september instead of a year 1 placement at school and is only 10 days over the cut off. he has social communicatio issues and delayed evelopment so i have repeaated nursery where he is on differentiaded leanring plans and interventions are in place to help him catch up with the other preschoolers who are techniclly a year below him and have all rights to apply for a reception place this september.
i am part of a campaign group on google groups "Campaign For More Flexible School Admissions For Summer Born Children" and we have a facebook page too.
we had a meeting yesterday up london with the Department for Education and what we have established is that 5 is the COMPULSARY school starting age and 4 years old is VOLUNTARY. there is a section in the admissions code which was updated feb 12 that states that reception class is mainly for 5 years olds and those turning 5. august born children turn 5 at no point during their time at school if admitted into reception at 4 years old so there is a LEGAL OBLIGATION to have them into reception in the term aftwer their 5th birthday.

also i can qoute from david laws that the admissions code is not prescriptive and common sense is expected of the local authority to not use it word for word but to apply admission arrangements in a case by case basis with the individual childs needs being put first.

i was given a copy of the new report into statistics hat the dep of Ed did that confirms that not just across the country, but internationally, summer born children on average perform worse than their autumn peers and although the gap in performance is almost closed by university age, the majority of the school key stages show a difference.

it would be extremely advantagous to your child to be admitted to reception in the following year and although your onwt be able to apply online due to entering incorrect date of birth, download and print and return by post an application stating why you are applying out of year and that just by sticking to the statatory starting age , your child should not miss a years worth of education.
is your school supportive? because ultimately it is at the head teachers discretion to allow a child to be out of thier year group in is/her school.

ALSO REGARDING SATS. these are NOT sat by age, but by completetion of the course leading up to them.
regardless of the age of your child, if they have only just finished year 6, whether they are in the right year, up a year or down a year for their age, that is when they sit their SATS. the only thing you cant do qith regard to sats is sit them , then repaet a school year then sit them again.
you only do them once but you do them when your new year group you are placed in does them not when the year group you are technically supposed to be in does them.

for more information please join our google group and facebook group

i dont know if this discussion is still going but i am currently in a battle to get m y son a reception place this september instead of a year 1 placement at school and is only 10 days over the cut off. he has social communicatio issues and delayed evelopment so i have repeaated nursery where he is on differentiaded leanring plans and interventions are in place to help him catch up with the other preschoolers who are techniclly a year below him and have all rights to apply for a reception place this september.
i am part of a campaign group on google groups "Campaign For More Flexible School Admissions For Summer Born Children" and we have a facebook page too.
we had a meeting yesterday up london with the Department for Education and what we have established is that 5 is the COMPULSARY school starting age and 4 years old is VOLUNTARY. there is a section in the admissions code which was updated feb 12 that states that reception class is mainly for 5 years olds and those turning 5. august born children turn 5 at no point during their time at school if admitted into reception at 4 years old so there is a LEGAL OBLIGATION to have them into reception in the term aftwer their 5th birthday.

also i can qoute from david laws that the admissions code is not prescriptive and common sense is expected of the local authority to not use it word for word but to apply admission arrangements in a case by case basis with the individual childs needs being put first.

i was given a copy of the new report into statistics hat the dep of Ed did that confirms that not just across the country, but internationally, summer born children on average perform worse than their autumn peers and although the gap in performance is almost closed by university age, the majority of the school key stages show a difference.

it would be extremely advantagous to your child to be admitted to reception in the following year and although your onwt be able to apply online due to entering incorrect date of birth, download and print and return by post an application stating why you are applying out of year and that just by sticking to the statatory starting age , your child should not miss a years worth of education.
is your school supportive? because ultimately it is at the head teachers discretion to allow a child to be out of thier year group in is/her school.

ALSO REGARDING SATS. these are NOT sat by age, but by completetion of the course leading up to them.
regardless of the age of your child, if they have only just finished year 6, whether they are in the right year, up a year or down a year for their age, that is when they sit their SATS. the only thing you cant do qith regard to sats is sit them , then repaet a school year then sit them again.
you only do them once but you do them when your new year group you are placed in does them not when the year group you are technically supposed to be in does them.

for more information please join our google group and facebook group

The most sensible thing would be to reassess a year or so in and perhaps have a bit of a mixed class between Y1 and Y2.

I'm an August birthday and while I didn't have any academic issues, I was very much younger emotionally than a lot of my peers and I think this did have a negative effect. My brother on the other hand managed to be a year older - private school plus spent most of one year in hospital so repeated - and I think it was a big plus in his case.

DH and I felt so strongly about not having a July/August birthdate child that we decided to actively not try for a baby between September and January.

sorry to have missed this thread, is it ok to start it up again after a month?

I'd like to join the google group - am figuring out how to. Do I need to just set up a google account?

I have an out of year child who is thriving because he is out of year. It's very much the situation that reallytired outlined - the taxpayers paid for three more terms' nursery instead of a mightily expensive statement of special needs and everything worked out well. Everyone, without exception, has benefitted.

We have confirmation from our LEA that the "offset" will continue through school, but I'm still on the alert because the secondary has become an academy, albeit one that uses the LEA for its admissions IYSWIM. Am exlawyer and think that as I have that written confirmation it would be hard for them to backtrack on it (this is a nice way of saying I plan to hold them to it).

Tiggytape and I talked about the details of the admissions code on another thread since s/he posted on here - can't remember the link now - but the position we got to is that (i) there's no ban no year deferral (ii) you are supposed to have a "cogent" reason to allow children to be placed out of year (iii) one way forward would be to identify those "exceptional" children for whom year deferral is highly likely to make a massive difference. Tiggytape are you around - can you link to it?

The Jim Rose report is lacking in substance - he never really considered the question that Ed Balls had put to him - dropped the ball really, it was so disappointing. He did have the decency to come on to mumsnet afterwards and agree that he had never intended there to be no exceptions to the rule.... my it took quite a few of us to make him say it, but say it he did and on this very forum

My son was born 29th August and it worries me to death about him starting school too early. having read numerous reports saying this is going to be detremental to his future, whenever i raise any concerns i am just told hell be fine or my child was ok. I do not want my son to be ok i want him to be the best that he can and it surprises me that not more of a fuss is kicked up about this. I am not a pushy mum i just want him to be given the right oppurtunities. I feel so strongly about this I am concidering lmoving abroad or even lying about his date of birth, is this even possible? is it fraud? are there any schools who would accept him in the uk?

Most schools round here you have to provide a birth certificate. You'd also have to lie to him because at some point he would say "I'm 6 tomorrow" or something and it'd all come out. Then you'd probably lose the school place.

You may have more success at a private school-might be as cheap as moving abroad!

I have an aug born ds now in year 4 - he is immature but not obviously different to other boys in his year group as he is tall one of the tallest in y4. So it is hard to picture him towering over his y3 classmates if he had started a year later. Academically he struggled a bit initially but at the last parents eve was predicted level 4s in SATs which is v good considering.

I am more concerned about his emotional maturity especially as he will start middle school in Sept, where he will be walking to and from school without me and the academic expectations will be more vigorous . I will be reliant on the school to provide good pastoral support for the children and ds because he doesn't look young and small does not always get sufficient allowances made for his age imo.

dd2 is oct born and due to start Foundation at the lower school it will be interesting to see the contrasting experiences she has at school due to being one of the eldest children.

Whether being able to start school with more flexibility or if more allowances could be built into how many hours or days a child attends would be universally beneficial, I am unconvinced. I wonder, to have the world shaped to your convenience when you are young only to be cruelly robbed of that illusion when you left school would that be ultimately worse! I think smaller classes with more resources to better support each child accordingly, is more appropriate allowing for the fact that age is not the sole reason some children struggle at school.

Im july born and struggled academically had to work hard.
at time never really considered it was maybe fact was youngest born.

Husband was worse 31st august and he struggled had to work very hard and dident sit a levels even though he would have been more than capable.

Eldest is 7 feb birthday currently year 2 4.5 when started I dident think she would struggle but she dident cope as well as older ones feb was cutoff however due to mixed classes in year 1 the younger 15 in year were in r 1 class and surprisingly when they combined in year 2 class and lost the 15oldest to 2/3 class lots of the youngest were ahead academically than the middle ages 15 in 45 intake.

she had been in nursery from 11months and preschool.

I wasent happy with the school so moved her to smaller school where she was in mixed classes for 1st time and shes one of 10year 2 and 20years 1s and think its been good for her for once she doesnt feel at bottom, confidence and has many year 1 freinds and next year shes back with her year group so combines with oldest 10 in her year as 20a year.

Middle child having issues with shes sept 16th shes big for her age and just wants to be grown up like her sister.

she does 1day a week private day nursery since 18months
A lot of her freinds at nursery and preschool start school this september im really worried about her getting bored as think shes would be ready this year even though would make her youngest in the year.

Youngest hes april and thourght about defering him until maybe after xmas hes due to start sept 2015 so he be slightly younger than eldest. discussed with preschool and they say they against transfering and dont think they would allow him to stay if he wnet there.
Not that hes started yet he could start preschool age 2 now but feel hes too young but feel very different about private nursery as they in age groups with seperate rooms and activities and facilities to sleep.

Not sure what im going to do to be honest.
I have to apply before hes 4 as jan 15th deadline hes 4 in april 2015 and starts sepetember thinking will apply see if get place then decide if should defer.

If I could start middle one this year or even after xmas then I would.

Think we need greater flexibility. we have earliest age to start school.

Also some schools have nursery classes which must be very different to preschool or private nursery.