Please sign this petition regarding when summer-born children start school [headline edited by MNHQ]

[Sootball]

Yes I'm posting for traffic. But this is important. It really is. Because very few people know that the UK government are currently consulting on whether to change the guidance for allowing summer born children to defer a year.

And yes I know many start school at 4 and are ready, they have no problems, that they are the top set. But the research evidence does now show that socially and emotionally the summer born effect lasts for some into adulthood. This is simply about allowing those children who are NOT ready for school, whose self esteem and confidence will be impacted to wait a year.

If you care or have faced this issue then please can I ask you to take a moment and respond using this link >www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-the-school-admissions-code

Even if you are not sure what to write I have been advised in a box 5 the following will suffice Parents who wish their summer born (April 1st – August 31st inclusive) child to enter Reception class at compulsory school age must submit an application for the relevant academic year. The application must be treated equitably with children starting school prior to compulsory school age, and the child can remain with that year group cohort for the remainder of their education.

AND THANK YOU

[Ticklemonster897]

Bump - yes signed

[splendide]

Won't this just move any disadvantage to March born children?

[PiperIsOrange]

What's the point of this.

[Trills]

If it's true that the youngest children in the class are disadvantaged, you've just shifted this onto those born in March instead of those born in August, with the added difficulty that children with less stable home lives (or generally parents who are not good at filling in forms, for various reasons) will be even younger than the oldest in the class than they are under the current system.

[IneedAwittierNickname]

But surely someone has to be the youngest?

And I say that as a high achieving summer born mum of am average summer born child.

[Waffles80]

Thank you for sharing. The point is that summer born children are at a disadvantage academically when compared to peers with birthdays at the start / middle of the academic year because they are so much younger.

[IneedAwittierNickname]

Oh no hang on. Light bulb moment.

If the school year still starts in September then the 'youngest' children will still be 4 1/2 rather than 4 and a couple of weeks. And therefore more mature and ready (presumably)

But then say they start this next year then the children who defer for a year will be needing spaces that in many areas just don't exist.

[morethanpotatoprints]

I think you are wonderful to point this out OP
My ds August born deferred for a year and still started in reception, but many years ago.
There is no way we were sending him at 4, he wasn't ready.

Even though I have no little ones anymore, I will sign.

However, don't forget that for many school is free childcare compared to paying for pre school for an extra year so you may not get too much support, even if this is a possible optional policy.

[Nerf]

What happens at the other end of compulsory school age? They will be starting Year R a year later so finishing Year 11 ( year they usually turn sixteen) a year later, what's to stop them leaving at the end of Year 10?

[ZenNudist]

I've got 1 sept born ds1. Oldest in the year. Starts next year when all his little chums going already. Queue so much 'sympathy' and general agreement from all my friends and acquaintances who have dc starting this year, saying that it must be utterly shit for him to be 'missing out' in starting school this year. I've been really low about it.

All the august babies I know are love loving school. I guess time will tell on if it's really best for them!

[strawberryangel]

So will they just start in year 1? (Already legally allowed)

Or will they start reception a year later? (Shifting the 'youngest' problem to March born children and introducing bigger age discrepancies in the class)

I do not understand the point of this petition. They are disadvantaged because they are younger than, so developmentally behind, some of their peers. Not because they are only just 4 at the start of the school.

If it is the age of 4 that is the problem, surely we should be campaigning for everyone to start school later.

Could you explain this please, OP.

[Bugsylugs]

It's not to do with being the youngest.
The difference in age from 4 to 5 is massive. The difference from 4 to 4 and a half less so.
For children not ready even more significant. Why not allow this to continue? It is to protect those not ready not to make it harder for those well within the year.

[hazeyjane]

Children can already defer for a year (ie go straight into year 1). I assume you are talking about delaying for a year (ie going out of year group) and being able to do reception a year later?

[ATruthUniversallyAcknowledged]

Done. As the mum of two August borns, thank you for sharing.

[gamescompendium]

It would be better to have all children starting school a bit later, 4 is very young to start school. I know some kids who have been barely potty trained when they started school. A year later and all kids will be that much readier to start.

I'm not convinced that allowing people to delay starting school is actually helpful, except possibly for children who were premature (maybe that's because I have a preemie, who thankfully is a September baby, a week earlier and he'd have had the double whammy of being even more preemie and the youngest in the class). Completely agree about allowing some kids to delay means you end up with even bigger age differences in a class.

[RustyDalek]

The changes proposed aren't going to allow parents to choose whether their child's entry can be deferred - they are just a clarification of the current position, which is that the parents can request and the LA have to consider each request on its merits and not have a blanket policy. It intends to clarify the circumstances that must be taken into account and requires the LA to make clear the reasons for their decision.

[WooWooOwl]

I don't think it would work. People would just defer their children to give them an advantage academically, and some would end up with a significant advantage being well over a year older than some of the others who they'd be educated alongside until adulthood.

Someone has to be youngest in the year, and parents already have the option of not letting their children start school until after they are five if they want to. I realise doing that can come with problems of its own, but it is at least an option that parents have.

Fwiw, I and my children are all late August borns.

[hazeyjane]

Agree that all children should start school later.

The way the system works at the moment, it is possible to delay entry (ie going into reception a year late) if the lea agree there is good reason (eg developmental delays whether due to prematurity or disability) and the link concerns the fact that they want these reasons to have a clearer set of criteria.

[skylark2]

I'm honestly not sure how I feel about this. DS was born 3 weeks early at the end of August (so "should" have been a September baby). When he started school he was physically small for his age and emotionally rather immature - and already reading fluently and silently, and very bored with the level of playgroup activities. He started school at 4 and a week as far and away the most academically advanced child in the class, and far and away the least socially and physically adept.

I'm glad I didn't have to choose, because he's now 15 and I still have no idea whether I should have tried to hold him back a year. I'm not sure giving parents additional choice does anything beyond providing something else for them to get wrong and for disadvantaged, unsupported families to be more likely to get wrong. Like someone upthread said, someone is always going to be the youngest.

[WooWooOwl]

It might also be worth saying that I feel that my late summer birthday gave me an advantage when I left school and went to FE college, as it pretty much gave me an extra year to do a course I chose to do before starting A levels, by which time I was only a month older than other in my classes.

[Primafacie]

Have you considered the economic implications of deferring school entry? From what I hear, in the US where deferring is allowed, a high proportion of wealthy families opt for it, as they can afford the extra year of childcare. Being the oldest in the class through deferral confers advantages, not only academically but also in sports which are really big in the states.

At the other end of the spectrum, poor families who can't afford nursery fees, and families who don't have access to all the studies and info on the benefits of deferrals, probably won't defer their kids. So the youngest ones in the class will also be the ones from poorer backgrounds, or of less well-informed parents.

Do you see how this could widen the social mobility gap even further?

There has to be a cut off point somewhere. If you introduce flexibility to the cut off, you are allowing someone to take advantage of it to the detriment of others.

[WooWooOwl]

That's a very good point I hadn't thought of Primafacie.

[Sootball]

Yes - thank you for the corrected terminology this is about delaying a school start into reception rather than deferring and entering year one.

I want what is best for my child the same as everyone else - this is not a policy that will be mandatory nor will it be taken up by everyone - it is however enabling a choice. A choice which currently doesn't exist.

Children do not reach milestones at the same time - why should we actively continue with something which we know has long term effects on some children. Effects that could be mitigated by starting school later when they are ready. Many LEAs do support this but many more do not, I went up against one of the worst and I won but I shouldn't have to when the evidence was so overwhelming and the solution quite simple.

To those who have signed and shared thank you.

[Permanentlyexhausted]

I don't believe this will have any real impact on the relative disadvantage of summer-born children. What we should be looking at is a more flexible approach to the school day and to the learning environment so children's individual needs are catered for.

This particular initiative is only really accessible to those who can afford to keep their child at home/in paid childcare for another year. Those for whom school is a welcome financial break may find it a considerably more difficult decision to make.

[Sootball]

The only argument I considered was that my four year old who is barely toilet trained, unable to dress herself, sleeps for for a two hour nap every day and cannot read or write in anyway (August born) was meant to have started school this week.

And it wasn't going to happen. And she also wasn't going to miss a year of school which she needs. But I had to fight to get a delay for her ans so do so many others. Every system has its pisstakers. There is no one solution but when so much evidence suggests we are disadvantaging a subset of our children why the hell wouldn't we try to improve things?