to think its unfair that september born children get more nursery education paid by the state than august born children

[reallytired]

August born chidren are young in their year. It is a bigger challenge to get an August born child ready for school than a september born child as the september born child is almost a year older.

I find it ridiculous that a september born child gets 5 terms of nursery vouchers, but a summer born child only gets 3. It is completely arbitary and nothing to do with need.

I think that all children should get three terms of nursery paid for by the state and children who are not ready for school should be allowed to have an extra year in nursery. The money saved by only funding children for 3 terms could pay for children who need longer in nursery. It could also help to pay for early intervention to help with school readiness.

A disportionate number of children with special needs have summer birthdays. Allowing children who NEED it to have more nursery education woud save money later on.

Reception teachers could teach rather than having to clean up poo. Children would not be put of education for life by being asked to do things they are not developmentally ready for.

my dd and ds are both july babies, the nursey had to places in of this yr to take ds, he would have been 3yrs, 7 weeks, so he had to start in jan. at 3 yrs 6 motnsh, he started at the same time as kids who were 3 in the xmas hols. he will go f/t in sept, and they wont go f/t until sept 2012.

So why are you not making the case for children to start school when they are ready instead? Surely it's up to the parent.

My August born son is, according to the teacher, at least 2 years ahead of the oldest child in the class. Why should I hold him back? Why should he need extra help? I am not sure what point you are making.

A child who cannot speak in sentences or reliably use the toilet is not ready for school.

Oh Dear - My DS is going to struggle come September then.

Excuse me but what about the fact I have to find funding for a whole extra year for my September child as I will need to have her in for more nursery time than the allocated hours i will get once she turns three? You are talking rubbish!

Seems like a damn silly thing to get upset about.

It's like complaining that some people get housing benefit and you don't because you earn more. You get what you need.

August-born children don't need 5 terms of pre-school. So they don't get it. I fail to see how this is an issue on any level.

"Overall an August born child has less education than a September born child. All children sit their A-levels in June and leave at the same date."

Is it less education? the younger ones started at 4, the older ones nearly 5.

When I did my exams I felt the summer borns had an advantage in that they had a year in hand.

YABU. August born children go to school a year earlier than September children, so the state is still paying for their education from age 3, just in a different setting.

yes I agree with this totally ! My September child was desperate to start Reception. We did the nursery school play and curriculum twice !!!!
Whereas my unborn child will still get state educution but in a different setting.
In actual fact, summer born children are better off !! I hate the stupid half day business lol ! Makes my work arrangements very difficult !

The doesn't affect the arguement about achievement at school, but you could argue that parents of sept born children need to look after them financially for longer. Assuming they do a levels they leave school at nearly 19 (when theoretically they could reach financial independence), but a summer born child will leave at only seventeen / just 18.
I think the cost of funding a large hungry teenager probably ourweights some free nursery months.

I don't think that childcare is the problem of the state. However education is the problem of the state. Pre school education is provided to prepare children for school.

Our children are provided with 14 years of free school education and varying amounts of free pre school education. It is to prepare them for life, not a baby sitting service.

Why should a september born child get two more terms of nursery than an August born? If the child ends up repeating the nursery curriculum is it a waste of time? Wouldn't be sense to only repeat nursery work if the child actually needs to?

childcare is the problem of the state if parents can't work because of a lack of it........

The government believes that a child benefits from nursery/preschool/some sort of thing like that from age 3. Therefore, all children are offered it upon turning 3. There is no more to it than that - it is not about giving different amounts of childcare to people.

I presume that was directed at me??

They want people (especially lone parents) on benefits to go out to work - but quite often the biggest barrier is childcare. Many are faced with either not working, and staying on benefits, or leaving their young childrne at home alone.....

Other countries in Europe subsidise Childcare quite heavily and as a result have more economincally active parents of young children/

maybe the school admission process should be looked at. I have three children - 1 in each term. When DD1 (July) was do to start school, the system in the area we lived in was that you started the term you would be 5 (nursery was attached to school so a lot easier transition)So she started reception at start of summer term, then the school would keep the summer term children in reception for autumn term of year 1 (with Sept below children) so that they were in a smaller class for a term and could be nurtured) and they then joined year 1 after Christmas. It seemed to work well and she never had a problem. By time we had DD2 we were in area where all children start in Sept regardless DD2 (sept baby) however hated the last 2 terms at nursery as she was bored.

I have an October born DD. She will be starting pre school in September, when she will be 3.11. The pre school is full time. How does that work if children are only entitled to 15 hours per week. Why can her state pre school offer free full time hours? (I am in Wales btw, so system may differ to England).

I agree unfair, but the other way of looking at this is that for an autumn born child like my DD assuming you go back to work at 1, you have 4 years of childcare to pay for before they start school - you get 5 terms of nursery worth £500 per term.

For a summer born child like DS1 and DS2, you get only 3 terms of nursery but you only have 3 (or 3 and a bit) years of childcare to pay for until they start school.

If you work it out, def financially better off having summer baby unless you don't work and are happy for them to be at home.

August baby is definitely much better if you have to work & pay for childcare . Was certainly a consideration for me in decision to opt for v llate August CS.

Am reading this with interest as DS is August born and haven't got my head around all this yet but it does seem to me that the easiest thing would be for all schools to allow a staggered start - so he could do the summer term only of reception and the start year one in the sept after turning five. If you could add in the flexibility of each child being considered individually on the basis of their readiness you could avoid the "bored" thing of those who ARE ready sooner. As to the issue of no of terms of free nursery etc I do think there are some things you just have to suck up that it works out slightly better for some - you probably have some advantage somewhere else that is not available to everyone.

This seems to split between people who see school/nursery as free childcare and those who see it as education.

I agree with the op and really.

Where I live you start nursery the September after you are 3, unless your birthday is in July or August, in which case you start the following September.

All children get one full year of funded nursery school.

Childcare arrangements are nothing to do with it.

I also agree with OP that parents should be able to defer starting school if their child is not ready.

I agree with the OP.

September-born children get longer in nursery and so are not only older when they start school, but have been used to pre-school.

Summer-born children get a year in nursery and are then expected to start school when they are almost a full year younger and therefore less developmentally ready to start school.

I would love to have the opportunity to defer my summer-born ds2 starting school until the September after he turns 5 (and then go into reception, rather than into year 1). Summer born children performing worse throughout their school-lives is a well-known phenomenon. Summer born children should have the option to defer until the following September.

I have 2 August born children. They were/will be kept back until the following september. i can't think for the life of me why you would send a child to school a few days since they were 3. Madness.

I definitely think there should be some flexibility in start dates, according to the needs of the child. It is possible in some areas to defer a year, in that the child starts in reception a year later, but this is increasingly unusual and depends on the policy of the LEA.

I have two summer born dc's with very different needs. I would have sent one as early as possible, and deferred a year for the other. It's impossible to make blanket statements about these things, as children are so individual in their needs.

The school thing didn't bother me, My dd was 4 and 4 days when she started school, she was physically very tired but coped really well academically.
What I get annoyed about is the fact that she could not go onto the "big" playground unlike her classmates because she wasn't 5 - one day she stayed in the baby playground alone (with supervision)- I complained about that and it didn't happen again.
Despite her being old enough to share lessons with kids who in some cases are a year older than her, she wasn't able to join things like Beavers alongside her classmates and they will all move onto cubs ahead of her aswell.
I know technically they are not getting anything quicker than her but she does all her lessons with them yet is not able to join the same clubs.

snowpoint what was it about your dc that you would have like to have deferred a year?

My ds was due in Sept but born at 27 weeks in June.
personally I think he is at a disadvantage
summer baby, boy and premature.
I am looking into him starting reception a year later and may apply for special dispensation

I think the Scottish system is better. Children start school between 4.5 and 5.5 - basically those that turn 5 between March this year and February next year will start in August - but if your child is born between September and December (as my son was) you can choose (with approval) for starting school to be deferred for a year, and those born January and February have an automatic right to defer for a year.

Also children can be held back a year at school if their development is such that it would benefit them. Does that happen in England?

I have to say though, I never considered nursery provision on the terms of 'that child gets more than mine' - I find that arguement slightly odd (maybe because it is different in Scotland? I don't fully understand your system), the more important aspect is your child being able to start school at a time that is right for them.