Advanced search

Holding Summer born boy back a year

(97 Posts)
Oopla Fri 01-Feb-13 19:57:55

DS is a July baby and started nursery the sept after he turned 3. I'm thinking of asking his nursery teachers if it would be possible for him to stay another year in preschool.
He has settled ok in nursery but doesn't particularly look forward to going (is a real homebody) and its taking him a whole to get used to the social side of things. In my heart I don't think he's emotionally ready for full days and more structure. Not keen on him being the smallest boy in the class either.

It's a standard state nursery attached to a primary, not sure if they will just laugh me out the room! Can you think of the pros and cons of this idea or any thoughts about it? Many thanks.

SCOTCHandWRY Sat 02-Feb-13 19:33:23

Ilovepowerhoop- re Scotland, we choosing to delay ds4 entry to p1 until the August after his 5th birthday, ie he will be almost 6 at the start of p1... This is absolutely the decision of the parents, no consent from school or nursery is needed! However it is true that in order to get an extra year of free nursery education, you need nursery or school and councils do try to use this to force parents of sept, oct, nov born kids to start p1 while still age 4, when actually there is no legal requirement for them to start P1 until the August after they turn 5.

OP consider moving to Scotland grin

lingle Sun 03-Feb-13 13:21:33

that sounds sensible Oopla,

This isn't scientific, but I must have networked with over a hundred parents who, like me, really really wanted to give their child an extra year.

From those I've touched base with later I'd say only about 5% say that the passage of time has proved that it really was a big deal (either positively like me or negatively for children who weren't given the option).

The other 95% all talked about their children adjusting and catching up.

Nothing you've said about your child is suggesting he's in that 5%.

Of course, for us in the 5%, it remains as big a deal as ever! If you don't feel strongly enough to genuinely, seriously consider moving to Scotland (I would actually have done this) then your child probably isn't in the 5% smile

IrnBruTheNoo Sun 03-Feb-13 13:30:08

DS2 is a late July baby so he'll be starting school in August 2015 (starts ante-preschool place this August when he turns 3yo).

I have a little concern about him being young starting in the nursery/school system but that's only because my eldest is an April born and he is one of the eldest in his class. I'm comparing the situation with what I already know! Which is pointless, because no two children are the same and DS2 may get on fine, even with being the youngest of his peers when starting nursery in six months' time.

TalkinPeace2 Sun 03-Feb-13 15:45:49

Look at it the other way - why should the 1 September kids not go to school early?

There HAS to be a cut-off and as kids get older, the developmental difference diminishes year by year till puberty when the girls ALWAYS outstrip the boys except in Maths until year 12
and then they even up
ready for the hormone fest that is Univeristy

speaking as somebody who went through Secondary school in the 'wrong' year, I'd not wish it on my worst enemy.

Lostonthemoors Sun 03-Feb-13 15:57:56

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

TalkinPeace2 Sun 03-Feb-13 16:10:29

I'm April, but because I'm bright the private selective school were willing to take me into the year above.
SHIT move.
The details would out me and them, but it UTTERLY convinced me that ALL children should go to school with those of their age
BUT SEN / thick kids will need support
AND bright kids will need stretching sideways
well, no shit sherlock
its obvious really
the academic stuff is linked to learning curves (which all even out by year 14)
but the critical social stuff is cohort linked - and MUST NOT be ignored

mrz Sun 03-Feb-13 16:12:10

It is Lostonthemoors ...your child doesn't have to attend school but if you choose to send him he doesn't have to start school until he is 5.

Ooopla if it is a nursery attached to a state primary you will need to speak to the head not the nursery teacher.

Feenie Sun 03-Feb-13 16:15:09

In terms of putting him down a year at school, this is not a parental right at all and is something that is only granted in extreme (very extreme) cases.

Depends on your LEA - here children are out of year group all the time, they just started a year later in Reception.

mrz Sun 03-Feb-13 16:20:48

My LEA will only consider this for children with extreme SEN difficulties and even then it is unlikely

tiggytape Sun 03-Feb-13 16:25:12

I personally would prefer it if school starting age was raised to 5 for every child

The school starting age is 5 for every child.
Legally you absolutely can keep a child home (or nursery) until he or she turns 5 (they just start reception class half way through the academic year and miss a bit).

What you cannot do though is to keep them at home until they turn 5 then put them in the year group below the one they actually belong to. So you cannot decide you want your August child to be the oldest one in the year below rather than the youngest one in the correct year group for his age.
In very, very exceptional circumstances state schools will allow it but it is rare. Even children with complex additional needs are not kept back. They stay in the right class based on their date of birth but get extra help.

Feenie - I don't know where you are but if that is really the case, that children are routinely kept a whole year behind then yours must be the only place that does it and you'll have people flockng!
In England it is so rare that it is virtually unheard of and certainly not granted for people who just fancy it. There has to be overwhelming expert evidence that it is absolutely essential before the LA will relent. And even then it is not always advised because of the implications for secondary education and being forced to skip Year 6 later on.

Lostonthemoors Sun 03-Feb-13 16:27:42

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Feenie Sun 03-Feb-13 16:28:37

We are one form entry, and have four out of year group atm - it's always been so for the twenty+ years I have been teaching.

Twobuttonsaway Sun 03-Feb-13 16:29:22

My late-August born DS1 started in Reception full time in Sept aged 4 and 2 weeks. A third of his class turned 5 before Xmas, and (particularly the girls) are a way ahead of him in reading and writing as you would expect. That said, he's not really aware of it. The teachers are happy with his progress and socially he's doing fine. The reality was much less stressful than I thought smile

Feenie Sun 03-Feb-13 16:29:34

They don't skip Y6 - they stay permanently out of year group and move up to Y7 with their peers.

mrz Sun 03-Feb-13 16:38:57

In 20 years I've only had 1 out of year pupil Feenie

mrz Sun 03-Feb-13 16:39:43

and they arrived from a different LEA out of year.

mrz Sun 03-Feb-13 16:40:49

In my LEA they either skip Y5 or Y7 or Y11

tiggytape Sun 03-Feb-13 16:44:24

Feenie - that is very unusual. You probably have more children out of year group in your school alone than some LAs have in their whole jurisdiction!

In most areas it is something a lot of parents want, a few parents think they might qualify for (due to exceptional level of additional needs) and something no parents succeed in getting. Additional needs are catered for in the correct year group no matter how serious they unless a parent is successful in getting medical opinions that say the child must be moved and parental preference does not enter into it. A parent has the right oly to delay starting reception but no right to say which year group they want to belong to.

Whilst I do sympathise, there does need to be a system. For the sake of secondary transfers and exam entry and admissions fairness, it wouldn't be possible for people to shift as they pleased.
For example, some parents would happily opt to send their child in the year that the council added the bulge classes rather than the year that they didn't because then they'd get a desirable school not a rubbish one.

Or parents would all jostle to make sure that their child wasn't the youngest so, in England, parents of June babies would also want to move back a year as soon as the July and August babies had done it and the May babies would feel disadvantaged. Somebody has to be forced to be the youngest. In England it is August babies, in Scotland it is Autumn babies (forced by funding more than laws).

And finally, age is not the only factor. An April born child with glue ear who had no speech or communication for the first 3 years is just as much in 'need' as an August baby with no other issues apart from age. A September born child with severe dyslexia or ASD does not have it easy at school. People imagine that their Summer born babies will go into a class full of September born geniuses and sink when this of course is not the case. There will be children of all abilities at school, children further behind and children streets ahead, children who are born at the same time and children born much earlier but with differing needs.

mrz Sun 03-Feb-13 16:50:00

I currently have a child assessed as developmentally around 15-18 months hmm

3birthdaybunnies Sun 03-Feb-13 17:18:52

Dd2 is six months older than one of her best friends with Aug birthday, he couldn't read at begining of yrR, now in yr1 she is on turquoise (fine for nearly 6), he is at least two levels above her. It doesn't always work out badly.

aliasjoey Sun 03-Feb-13 17:27:54

DD was born 6 weeks early, if she had been born on her due date, she would have started school a year later - as it is, she's the youngest in her class.

There really is no flexibility in England, if you keep them back till Easter, they miss 2 terms of schooling. However teachers are very aware of the summer-born issue, and should take that into account.

aliasjoey Sun 03-Feb-13 17:30:14

Sorry if that's not clear, I mean the teachers do know and differentiate between the children, and your DS should get extra support.

lingle Sun 03-Feb-13 20:54:47

gosh, you are responding to Feenie as if she was making it up. she isn't. Her LEA just quietly gets on with it and it works, just as it has worked for me and changed my family's life for ever.

We've gone so far backwards in the last couple of years since Labour asked for a report on making year-deferment for summer borns a universal right.

TalkinPeace2. I sympathise with your distress about being placed in the year above. But your argument that this means summer borns should start reception at 5 makes no sense. If you suffered by being with children who were at a more advanced developmental stage than you, then you of all people should have some inkling of what those of us with immature summer borns go through.

and Tiggy tape,
"Somebody has to be forced to be the youngest" is, I can only hope, not something you would have dared say to my face, and not something you would say if you knew my story. Show some basic compassion. These are children like yours we are talking about.

Feenie may remember my story but all I can say is that in the autumn of the year DS2 turned 3 we were advised by our LEA to apply for a statement because of DS2's language delays and suspected ASD (do you know how hard people fight to get these?) and send him to reception in his default year. But because we instead put the correct interventions in place working in partnership with the school in the nursery setting, the next big meeting we - when DS2 was 4.10 and due to start school at 5.0 - lasted five minutes. We opened the meeting. We asked the SENCO how things were going. She said she felt he was now ready for the demands of reception. We all paused and looked at our watches. The head said "that was a good judgment, waiting until now". Then we all went about our business.

Then DS2 started reception in touching distance (just!) of his new peers, despite being older than them by a whole ten days, found a best friend, and, crucially, engaged in those everyday jostling crude interactions that boys had and so slowly developed the skills he had missed out on.

lingle Sun 03-Feb-13 20:55:27

sorry talkinpeace - 4 not 5.

lingle Sun 03-Feb-13 20:57:28

The saddest thing among many sad things is that when we finally hauled the man responsible for cutting off the possibility of summer-born deferment on to mumsnet, he admitted that he had never intended there to be no exceptions.....

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now