school starting age - will dd really not start until she's nearly 5?

[JiminyCricket]

She was born 10th Sept. Do any schools stagger starting age, or is that just for the ones starting younger? She will carry on going to nursery/pre-school, so I guess its no big deal (apart from costing us a fortune). Funny that friends from her baby group born a month before will start a whole year before.

[lapsedrunner]

DS was born 11 Sep so will be in the same boat. I currently live abroad so haven't investigated current UK system too closely but assume ds will also be almost 5 when he starts. I'm told it's an advantage for boys.

[ponygirl]

It depends on the number of intakes your education authority has during the year. Where I am, we have two: children born between 1st September and 28th/29th February start September before they are 5 and the rest in the January. So here, yes, you're dd would start just before 5. Check your council's website: it should have an education section which will give start dates.

HTH.

[Whizzz]

My DS is the same - he's 5 at the end of Sept & he starts school at the start of Sept. Its weird isn't it ? There is such a huge difference in development at that age too - still I suppose they have to draw lines & decide these dates somehow !

[Ellbell]

It's wierd that LEAs are so different (or possibly even different individual schools). Here they go full-time in the term in which they are 5 (for my dd that's this term, her birthday is in May), but start school two terms before that part-time. They do a term of afternoons, then a term of mornings before going full-time. That means that at the end of this year, my dd will be leaving reception and going into Year 1 having only done one term of full-time education, whereas a lot of her 'peers' will have done two or three terms full-time. It does worry me a bit, in the sense that I know that they are assessed (albeit informally) in Year 1, but it seems obvious to me that my dd's reading, numeracy etc will be behind that of children who've had two whole terms more in school than she has. On the other hand, she is (how can I put it?) not particularly mature (LOVES school and adores her teacher and also really likes the work, but has the concentration span of a gnat...), so maybe they are right not to start cramming her with formal learning too soon.

[Ellbell]

It's wierd that LEAs are so different (or possibly even different individual schools). Here they go full-time in the term in which they are 5 (for my dd that's this term, her birthday is in May), but start school two terms before that part-time. They do a term of afternoons, then a term of mornings before going full-time. That means that at the end of this year, my dd will be leaving reception and going into Year 1 having only done one term of full-time education, whereas a lot of her 'peers' will have done two or three terms full-time. It does worry me a bit, in the sense that I know that they are assessed (albeit informally) in Year 1, but it seems obvious to me that my dd's reading, numeracy etc will be behind that of children who've had two whole terms more in school than she has. On the other hand, she is (how can I put it?) not particularly mature (LOVES school and adores her teacher and also really likes the work, but has the concentration span of a gnat...), so maybe they are right not to start cramming her with formal learning too soon.

[Ellbell]

It's wierd that LEAs are so different (or possibly even different individual schools). Here they go full-time in the term in which they are 5 (for my dd that's this term, her birthday is in May), but start school two terms before that part-time. They do a term of afternoons, then a term of mornings before going full-time. That means that at the end of this year, my dd will be leaving reception and going into Year 1 having only done one term of full-time education, whereas a lot of her 'peers' will have done two or three terms full-time. It does worry me a bit, in the sense that I know that they are assessed (albeit informally) in Year 1, but it seems obvious to me that my dd's reading, numeracy etc will be behind that of children who've had two whole terms more in school than she has. On the other hand, she is (how can I put it?) not particularly mature (LOVES school and adores her teacher and also really likes the work, but has the concentration span of a gnat...), so maybe they are right not to start cramming her with formal learning too soon.

[Ellbell]

Oh sorry... computer went nuts there for a minute

[puddle]

My dd will be the same when she goes to school in a couple of years time. My ds has just started reception this year and I have decided that his birthday (march) is perfect timing for our LEA. The rule here is they do mornings only until the term they are 5. So he started full days after Xmas. Perfect IMO, he had a term of half days to get used to school before going full time. Meanwhile the summer born children, like Ellbells, have only just started on full days and only have a term to get used to it before the more academically challenging year 1.

I am already thinking about how I will prepare my daughter for school. She'll be one of the oldest in the class - my worries are that a) she will get bored in her last year of nursery and b)5 full days at school right from the start will be a huge thing for her to cope with.

[ionesmum]

All the studies show that the later children start at formal school the better they do, although they benefit from pre-school/nursery. I so wish that our dds wouldn't be starting until they were five (or even six) but here the intake is September only, and full-time at that. I intend to ask for a January or part-time start, but know I will have a fight on my hands . I could keep them back a year until after they turn five, but then they won't go up with their friends. We had a service at church with the Reception class recently and I found it really upsetting to see little children barely a year older than dd1 in a uniform and having to sit still all the time, it seemed so unnatural.

[LunarSea]

Yes - ds will be 5 when he starts (1st day of term will be his birthday!) next year but some of his friends who are less than a week older will start a whole year before. Actually I think it's an advantage to be the oldest rather than the youngest, so other than the cost of an extra year's nursery (ouch!) I actually think it's a good thing.

[JiminyCricket]

Looked on my council website, thanks ponygirl - bath and north east somerset - and it just says your child will be able to start school in the appropriate september, so presume that means they don't do staggered intakes?

[littlerach]

We are in Wilts and it is the same.

It is worth asking the school when it is thatthey go full time, as DD1's seems quite accomodating. She is a March bday, but there are only 2 spring born for that yr so they will be put with the autumn born, so do a week of mornings, a week of mornings plus lunch then a few weeks of 2/3 full days and the others just part, to lead them to go full time by mid October. But they have reassured us that if she seems tired she can wait until Xmas to go full time.

[aloha]

I'm really glad ds won't start until he is nearly five. He was born on 17 Sept and I was so pleased he wouldn't be in school f/t at four. It is expensive though!