Primary school delayed entry - clueless parent questions

[schoolapplicant]

Mum to only child who is 3. We will be applying to primary schools for Sept 2024 start. Child is July born.

As first time mum I've only just familiarised myself with the process and had no idea that legal school age is actually 5, and that there is the option to apply for a delayed start. On further enquiry I now discover that my sibling, who is August born, had school start delayed by a year. So they were always the eldest child in their class. Coincidentally (or was it) they achieved very well academically and did engineering at Oxford. They were always "top of the class".

So a few random questions from a newbie up all if this:

• Is it perceived to be usual/common to delay a child's start, or is this usually only done where there are specific concerns or SEN?
• since the research seems to show children are greatly disadvantaged academically by being summer born, is it common for parents of summer borns to delay simply to improve the child's chances of academic success?
• is the above a moral application of the system?

Yes the sport thing is important. My friends son was born in July but is on the 96th centile for height. (both parents very tall). Had my friend deferred him starting school and he had been playing sport in his now year group I expect there would have been some complaints from the parents of children in opposing teams because he would be clearly gaining an unfair advantage. I understand that in some sports a child will be placed in their 'correct' school year for teams but then the child will never play alongside classmates.

Our second son has just started in reception having deferred the year. We are lucky in that our local authority are happy to defer based on parent preference. In any event he is going to an indy where they are happy to accept deferred children and acknowledged there can be many benefits to doing so. I don't really mind how he does academically as long as he tries his best but the key thing for us was emotional regulation and we have seen a massive difference in the last twelve months to the point where he is now a calm articulate little boy and that was not the case a year ago. Definitely the right decision for us. Please check out the facebook group mentioned above rather than relying on the nonsense always trotted out on these threads about having to go straight into year one or skip a year for secondary.

Please seek out the fb pages as pp's have mentioned as you will get a lot of wrong info on here eg having to skip a year etc. Also, I always see people mentioning height as being a factor, my youngest started school at 5 and he was certainly not the tallest in his year group! And that really is a rubbish reason to send 4 year olds to school! My other 2 children are also summer born but started at 4, if I could do it again I would 100% of deffered them. My eldest has just gone into year 9 after turning 13 3 weeks ago, some of the kids have already turned 14!

If the child was wanting to join a football club outside school, they would not be allowed to play with their school cohort (at least not for league games) and would have to play a year up, i.e. in their chronological age group. You can only register for e.g. an U10 team if you are under 10 on 31 Aug of that year. I assume this is not just football but also other sports.

I have an Aug born premature child and would seriously have considered deferring if it had been available to me at the time (it wasn't, he's now grown up). The football thing would not have crossed my mind at all. However, it became a massive part of his life and would have been a huge issue if he couldn't play in the same team as his classmates - something to consider.

I wouldn't do it because of the sport. Sport is really important to me. I think it's absolutely right that you have to play sport with your correct age.

I also don't agree with it morally, unless SEN, (as essentially you're buying your child an advantage but thereby making it even more difficult for disadvantaged kids by widening the potential gap from 12 months to 15 months).

I think your latter point is really interesting. Ultimately, everyone's going to make the best choice for their child as they should but I do wonder how much the choice to defer is generally only a choice for the better off/middle class parents who can afford an extra year of childcare etc. And the extent to which that then perpetuates inequality. But it goes without saying that I didn't think about that when I was making a decision for my DS.

Absolutely @mynameiscalypso
And I don't think anyone would. Just their own child. Which is why I don't think it should be legally allowed, so remove the option of the parent being able to make the decision. Caveat - unless exceptional circumstances (special needs/premature etc), dealt with locally case by case.
I actually think this will happen anyway in a few years when they realise this hasn't achieved anything at all apart from giving another additional step up to already privileged children.

FWIW I know that the FA now grant dispensation for summer born kids. That said I actually think it’s important for kids to have friends outside of school so if my DD (haven’t yet deferred but considering it) wanted to play football or another regulated sport I’d welcome her being in a different group to school friends. I was in a different brownie and guide pack to school friends due to being on the other side of town and funny catchments, and it was a real panacea when (as most girls do!) friendships got a bit cliquey at points.

This is an interesting point and I agree it probably does perpetuate inequality, as one of my reasons for wanting to defer is that it’s popular in my area and I think it would be unfair to my DD if she wound up in a class that she’s not only not ready for, but among other deferred kids. So I appreciate the position, although we may go private at some point and it’s effectively the same thing - what I disagree with on a social level I’m not about to make my child an example for my own views. Same thinking when my other DC had a potentially life threatening issue and I didn’t think twice about using my work-sponsored private healthcare.

But is the gap that wide? I only ask because as far as I can see, most people who have kids fit into one of three categories - can afford childcare (whether comfortably or cutting back on luxuries), can afford to be a SAHP (whether comfortably or cutting back on luxuries) or can’t afford childcare or being a SAHP but have support from the state via UC/tax credit childcare element, free hours etc. And any state support continues for deferred kids until they start school.

I can’t see how an extra year changes that? We are in the ‘can afford childcare through cutting back’ camp and while I’m not overjoyed to spend an extra year scrimping it’s a sacrifice I’m happy to make for my child’s happiness, school readiness etc. Also, if she’d been born 11 days later we’d have had to do it anyway - I had people telling me how lucky I was that she arrived before 1 Sept as I’d just saved myself thousands in childcare! So not sure how it makes much of a difference except for the small number of kids who (1) would never have been born in September and (2) whose parents are in the negative every month paying childcare (ie using savings or debt to pay for nursery/childminder/being a SAHP).

It seems to be quite common to defer where I live. In my daughter's class I know of four summer-born children whose parents deferred them. One arrived in the UK without much English and started in Reception rather than Year 1. One has SEN and has a one-to-one TA. As far as I know the other two don't have SEN but their parents just wanted to defer them.

Last year there were some children in year 5 who were older than some of the children in year 6.

We deferred our DS. No SEN, but just thought 4 was too young. I would love our school system to be like so many other countries with later school starts.

CSA (compulsory school age) is the term after a child turns 5. If I exercise my right for my child to start at CSA, why should he miss a year of school? If reception was genuinely play, I probably wouldn’t have deferred. But they’re expected to know a lot by the end of reception.

He was due in September as well. Academically, he is doing well, greater depth in maths but pretty much average for reading and writing. He’s happy, comfortable and loves school. Best thing we did, as I feel for him, it gave him the chance to grow at his speed, without pressure.

But people make choices for their kids, which is the way it should be.

Please check out the implications at year 7. We have a child with significant SEN needs who started a year late. He is now ready to move onto a specialist secondary school. However we are struggling to find one with space as he now needs to go into year 8 and that cohort is full- even though the children in the specialist schools don't learn in year groups but in ability groups. If, at the end of primary the LA expects your child to go into year 8 you may find the school you want is already full!

I thought that the LEA is encouraged to keep the child in adopted cohort and act in their best educational interests?

Why can your son not stay in his adopted cohort in a specialist school?

This isn’t true.

There is so much rubbish spouted about this topic, especially on MN. Join the Facebook group Flexible School Admissions for Summer Borns.

It’s fairly common in our area but I suspect it depends on the social class of the school’s catchment.

Please check the Facebook group “CSA transfer to a new phase of education”. Your DS should continue to be taught in his adopted cohort and there’s a wealth of material in that group (including the DfE guidance which is clear on this) to support you.

I'm not from the UK and it's extremely common not to educate children full time until closer to seven. Therefore I see the appeal of sending your four year old when they're older. In the UK it seems they go for longer and still have worse outcomes.

I live in scotland and have a 4 year old and have defered her to start next year when she is 5 in january instead of this year she could have gone into year 1 but i think she isnt ready and will benefit her when she goes to secondry school. Anf it never harms them having the extra time in school

I see the appeal too but there are lots of implications as discussed above, it’s not as straightforward as all that. And certainly not common.

I don’t think our education system is outstanding but the vast majority of us start aged 4 and come out the other end just fine- i disagree with your assumption that outcomes aren’t good

In my LEA deferred entry is something that is included in all of the admissions information. It clearly states that parents can then choose whether their child goes into year 1 or goes into reception, as an 'out of age' Year group.

However it still isn't very common locally for, what I've seen. I've been at my school for nearly 15 years.

We've not had any moss reception entirely and go straight into year 1. Some have had a length staggered September start, and some have had a delayed entry beginning school at Christmas or Easter. Some h e done reception part time. This has still not been many - definitely less than 5 out of 90 children in any one year group.

We have even fewer children out of age - most we've had in any year group is one, and that's certainly not every year.

So although it's definitely an option it seems most parents don't seem to use it here.

People get too hung up on when kids start school compared with other countries. They'll point to Scandinavia and say well they start at 7 and do fine but conveniently ignore the fact that the vast majority of children are in full time child care from a year, and what they are doing in 'childcare' at age 5 is not all that different to what they do in England in school age 5.

My child is a late summer baby, on Monday it was their first day of Year One. They are 5 years and 1 week.

I said to their dad can you believe some of DCs friends will literally start to turn 6 this week and our DC is so much younger. However when we then realised if we had deferred, DC would only be starting reception this week. Which feels absolutely ridiculous because DC is so switched on, confident and curious. They aren’t top of the class in terms of writing and reading but they are physically brilliant, great motor skills, fantastic comprehension and communication of their ideas and thoughts / feelings.

The thought of them only just starting nursery being with children up to a year younger, seems really off. Whilst being the youngest might have some challenges, I actually think socialising and learning with peers who are older definitely offers some benefits too.

Worse case I will get DC a tutor in later primary.

I have an August born (now 19) and he started as expected, but had been in nursery from a year old. additionally, at that time, deferral would have meant entering into cohort in year 1.

My sister has August born twins who were premature. She has deferred them to be in the cohort they would have been if not premature. They will start 8n reception which was not an option for my son.

Can the LEA dictate to academies, who are their own admission authorities? Also, a lot of special schools are private, but funded via ECHPs, and therefore could refuse entry in this scenario.

It may not apply if the child in question has an ECHP, but for most children, their funding drastically reduces from the school year where they are 16, so schools may not be keen to have students who are 16/17 in Y11. It may also causes issues post 16- students can get funding to stay at school until they're 19 if they need to, so they could do 2 years of sixth form, but there would be no scope for a retake year at this stage, which is something a lot of students use.

I'm genuinely not sure of the situation now, but I know in the past some students have had to return to Y8 to be educated with their cohort for funding reasons. Personally, I think skipping a year of secondary school would put a student at a massive disadvantage, so I'd want to be sure this wouldn't happen.

Academies are their own admissions authorities, yes, but they have to follow the DfE which states that children educated in an adopted cohort must continue in that cohort unless it wouldn’t benefit for them to do so. Yes, you need to be prepared to argue it with some but frankly I refuse the presumption that except for terribly rare cases it isn’t in a child’s best interest to remain with their class.

DfE is also very clear on funding - a summer born child in an adopted cohort will continue to receive funding equivalent to their contemporaries in that class. It’s explicit about this for EYFS, now that summer born CSA starters are moving to secondary the precendent is being set again. And FE/post 16 funding covers to 19 anyway (and has done for years, I’m in my 30s and many of my friends had continued funding available if they needed to retake their AS levels).

There’s a lot misinformation out there.

Edit: sorry, missed that you’d acknowledged the funding to 19 in your post. Either way I’d say that not funding a-level retakes is, in itself, how things were until fairly recently and therefore not a major issue?

Also as the first generations of CSA kids make it to FE I assume that the status quo will be maintained - not least because no government will want to be accused of locking out a sizeable minority from further education.