Advanced search

Great news for summer borns...

(329 Posts)
satinpillowcase Tue 08-Sep-15 17:09:31

GudrunBrangwen Tue 08-Sep-15 17:17:52

Yes...but what about the childcare and other issues that go alongside this? Will single parents still be made to go back to work when their child is four?

Otherwise I think it is a good plan.

Lowdoorinthewall Tue 08-Sep-15 18:04:28

Bit gutted for my August born DS who has just gone into Y1. I guess he will be one of the last 'summer borns'.

I wonder if I should put him back into Reception.

LaVolcan Tue 08-Sep-15 18:06:42

They can do this in Scotland already though - not summer born as such because their year starts at a different time. How do they find it? Perhaps a Scottish parent could come on and tell us.

I suspect it won't be all summer born children - more like the August, and perhaps July children.

mrz Tue 08-Sep-15 18:49:35

It's April to August birthdays

CrotchetQuaverMinim Tue 08-Sep-15 18:52:24

I think it's a good plan.

Where I grew up (abroad), parents are allowed to do this - for children born in the last 4 or so months before the cut off date (and possibly earlier, with special permission/extra needs), they can choose whether to start them in that year or the next one.

It works well - it isn't the case that parents automatically decide that children should defer so that they'd be the oldest. Some children are very ready to start in the original year, and do. But equally, there is no stigma to other ones starting later, for whatever reason. It doesn't mean that there is a new cut-off that makes a different cohort automatically youngest, because there are some who do defer and some who don't, over the span of a few months age range as well. So it all becomes more flexible, and more attuned to what fits for the child.

CocoPlum Tue 08-Sep-15 18:56:32

Too late for DS who turned 4 less than two weeks ago and starts at the end of this week. sad

CarlaJones Tue 08-Sep-15 18:58:21

Dd is 11 now and born mid July. I would have delayed if I'd had the opportunity back then.

mrz Tue 08-Sep-15 19:13:44

Itshouldntmatter Tue 08-Sep-15 19:32:02

Won't it just mean that the jan-March become the youngest and have some similar problems? Although the report I read commented that the issue was that in the UK children start so young, and that makes the problem worse.

JollyGolightly Tue 08-Sep-15 19:33:42

I'm in Scotland and have deferred my DS's start of school. He's spending another year in the school nursery, mornings only. We organise childcare outside his 15 free hours.

alltheworld Tue 08-Sep-15 19:35:34

My July born very young for his age speech delayed son is about to start reception next week.

Does this mean I can pull him out and insist he goes into reception next year?

Article says the govt want this to be implemented asap but there will also be a public consultation so when will it come into effect.

The only reason I didn't delay his start was because I didn't want him to start school in year one.

Am really worried.

BrandNewAndImproved Tue 08-Sep-15 19:37:29

You can actually do this already. Ds is August born and I was given the option of delaying him until Jan or April. As he would of been in nursery anyway I didn't see the point. Tbh reception is still very child led and in the eysf or whatever its called.

Badders123 Tue 08-Sep-15 19:38:48

I would have delayed for ds1 (June b day) developmental delay.

alltheworld Tue 08-Sep-15 19:40:08

No this would mean you could delay by a whole year which is important. I was offered ds da starting in January but he added have been the only one and it was clear the school had no plan for him to catch up.

StetsonsAreCool Tue 08-Sep-15 19:40:34

I have a summer born who is just going into Y1, and personally I wouldn't have chosen to hold her back. But what happens if lots of people decide to hold their children back one year, and the following year hardly anybody does? Do you end up with a shortage of school places? Or does the LA decide to defer the youngest children the following year, and create a snowball?

Not being argumentative, just very curious.

zoemaguire Tue 08-Sep-15 19:43:55

This actually made me feel slightly sick that our very prem DS has just missed out on this. He's just gone into year 1 and he would be SO ready for starting reception now, as he would have done if he'd been born on time (born in june, due in october). But no, he has to struggle being the baby in yr 1, smaller and more immature than everyone else in his class, and barely starting to read. If it was allowed, I would get him to repeat reception without a second of hesitation.

clam Tue 08-Sep-15 19:44:25

Does anyone know how this is going to be managed on a practical level? If KS1 classes can only have a maximum of 30 pupils, how will they allocate places for the "actual" cohort, if there are going to be places taken up by children who should technically be in the year above?

MrsJorahMormont Tue 08-Sep-15 19:44:53

Yes Stetsons I wondered the same. There might be one massively oversubscribed year in the year following implementation and some primary schools are already hugely oversubscribed.

VeryPunny Tue 08-Sep-15 19:49:28

It's a stupid idea. Teachers will now have to potentially teach children 16 months apart in age, which when they are young is a big deal. And it will be pushy middle class types that defer, as they will have the financial wherewithal to cope with another year of childcare and the nous to reaslise that deferral may benefit their child.

Far better to move the cutoff from end August to earlier in the year.

poocatcherchampion Tue 08-Sep-15 19:51:10

Ooh I wonder when. Dd2 might be well up for it in 2 years. Should be through by then...

fkatwigs Tue 08-Sep-15 19:51:44

They can do this in Scotland already though - not summer born as such because their year starts at a different time. How do they find it? Perhaps a Scottish parent could come on and tell us.

The Scottish system works from March - February. If your child is born in January or February, you have the right to defer with an extra year of nursery paid. If your child is born Oct- Dec, you can also defer, but you may not be given nursery funding.

alltheworld Tue 08-Sep-15 19:52:51

I am middle class but would struggle financially with another yr of childcare but would do it as ds clearly not ready. Have been treated as precious when clearly I was right

Nc19999992 Tue 08-Sep-15 19:58:54

Ds is an August baby, does this mean if I choose for him to start his 'proper' year not the deferred year that the next youngest child could be 5 months older than him? Doesn't this just mean everyone is forced to defer to try and keep their dc on a remotely level playing field?

I think that we should split the year groups further and have 1a and 1b for the oldest 6 months and the youngest..

tiggytape Tue 08-Sep-15 20:02:40

Mr Gibb has today written to parents confirming that the code will be amended again to make it easier for parents to request a reception place for their summer-born children.

Is suspect the devil might be in the detail here. The article still uses the word "request" not "choose" or demand" or "insist."
The system we have at the moment is a "request" system i.e. parents can request it but councils can say no. It remains to be seen how flexible chnages will make things.

It will also probably not be a case of anyone here just missing out given that this is only at pre-consultation stage and will still need all of that to go through followed by parliamentary approval.

I am against it based purely on parental demand for several reasons - the main ones being:

1. The fact that, since summer babies are defined as all April - August births, delaying some would create classes with a 16 or 17 month age gap not an 11 month one.

2. In 11+ areas, parents would defer to get a grammar school advantage (12 year olds taking 11+)
Parents could delay a bright April baby just to make doubly sure they were biggest for sports and top of the class when they finally started.
They could delay a bright April baby to ensure they could take GCSEs at age 17 and A Levels at age 19. Basically it would be as much done to gain an advantage as done for genuine need.

3. The gap between rich and poor could widen as wealthier parents who can be more flexible / plan for this could choose to delay more often than other parents who cannot delay for work reasons.

4. Admissions are so competitive for some schools that some people would use the rule to apply 2 years in a row to get the best school offer they could (putting admission numbers under more strain and giving April - August babies 2 chances of getting reception places at the most popular schools when Sept - March babies only have one shot at it and more people to compete with).

There's lots more reasons too including the fact that some research pointing to poor outcomes is out of date - being based on the days when being born in summer meant only getting 1 term in reception. I think it should remain as it is - based on genuine need and a child's best interests not just parental insistence.

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