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.

I find it ridiculous that I have to pay for almost a whole extra year of childcare for a september born child as opposed to a summer born child. It is completely arbitary and nothing to do with need.

boohooyou, I know your question was not addressed to me, but I have a summer-born ds who I'd like to defer for a year. Basically he is extremely small for his age (10.5 kg at 2.8 years), he has various issues with not eating (he simply won't) and I therefore think that even though he is bright, he would benefit from an extra year in pre-school than starting full days at school next year. In his case he is also socially quite immature for his age.

I work 30 hours a week. dc is due Sept. I will have 15 hours a week to pay in childcare (plus cost of cm picking dc up from pre school) for an extra year as dc won't be in school.

Your child starts school a year earlier than a sept one.

School isn't free childcare, and I'm surprised you care more about the cost of childcare than you do whether they are ready for school or not. You should be keeping them out of school until they are 5 at least, its been shown countless times that early starts have zero benefit academically and may even be detrimental. Especially with the long days you do in England from a very young age.

I am sure I read somewhere that school starting ages were changing in Sept 2011

I could, however, be imagining things as I only had 2 hours sleep last night

DS was born a day after the cut off for nursery funding, so instead of getting 15 hours free at Easter will get it in September

This is mildly irritating, especially since the was supposed to have been born earlier but went overdue making me miserable!

Somebody has to be the cut off though so I wont worry too much (just hope the free funding will still be there in September, no more cuts)

YNBU at all & I too have often thought about this, it makes far more sense, for BOTh ends of the School year age spectrum,

my own DD is September born & had to stay on at Nursery whilst her friends all left for School :( ,

it was the reason I first discovered sites like this 1, as she was more than ready for School & WANTED to go, but the LEA were just so bloody inflexible, & I remember getting a totally ridiculous reply to my asking about an early School start & assessment based School access, ....something along the lines of, " the Time of your DDs birth, would put her firmly in the 3 year old age range, & Schools do not have the facilities for dealing with nappies " .....DD was nearly 5 & had been out of nappies over 2 years, yet another Mum whos Son was in DDs class & WAS still struggling in nappies, would GLADLY of swapped places :(, but it just wasn't allowed

I've never understood why the cut off is like it is. Surely it would be better if it were April or something so that at least the youngest ones wouldn't be just four, they'd be four and a bit. But then the older ones would be nearly six. Hmm ... there isn't a right answer is there?

Really I think YABU. And I speak as the mother of a summer-born. It has to cut off somewhere and I think it's great you get any free preschool at all tbh. And I wouldn't want to send DS before the age of 3 anyway, there's no benefit for him in going earlier.

You don't legally have to send a four year old summer born child to school. However, if you don't, you might find it harder to get a place in the school of your choice when they are five. So is a difficult situation for parents. I can see your point. but I'm not sure what the solution is. I don't see that starting nursery at an even earlier age is the solution if they aren't ready for it yet. Really don't know what the answer is.

I agree that there has to be a cut off point somewhere and as someone else said the foundation stage teachers will plan and work around different children's abilities, ages and stage of development.
As far as I know very few nurseries/pre-schools would be teaching formally anyway and also I wouldn't be at all suprised if early years funding doesn't come under threat in the near future.
I would be a little concerned if a child was starting school at 4 or 5 and wasn't able to speak in full sentences or deal with the toilet at all - would that not be an individual case of special needs that the school would have to deal with anyway?
And I say this as an August birthday myself, so I took my GCSEs when I was 15 and A levels at 17 etc.

I wouldn't worry too much: I'm sure the nursery education grant will be part of the slash and burn cuts to public services sooner or later so none of us will get it...

Ofcourse some August born children do great at school. However some are just too immature for school.

There should be the option for children who are very immature to spend an extra year in nursery, if they do have not reached a certain level of development. For example a certain level of fine motor skills. Prehaps there should be an option for an August born child to start school early if they pass an assessment.

It can seriously damage a child's self esteem if they can not cope with reception. I am just so relieved that my son had a winter birthday. He would never have coped with school at 4 years and 0 months. Starting at 4 years and 8 months meant that he coped with the reception curriculum easily.

Learning is like a set of building blocks. If you have not mastered the basics then it is hard to progress.

But where we would you cut that off reallytired? There may be June born children who have the same issues or April born children. There may be children born in September who were very premature, there may be children with global delay issues.
The teachers should be working to ensure that a child's self esteem isn't damaged because they are working at a level appropriate to them.
The curriculum, as I understand it, is an extension of the work/play they have started at pre-school.
I do understand where you are coming from and I am more than happy that both my dc are older in their year group. Especially ds who was October as one of my big fears was that he would be prem and therefore a summer born boy. But I also think that as much as possible you either have to trust the teachers to do their job or defer your child for another year.
I also happen to think that we start formal education too early in this country anyway but that's a whole other issue :)

I would like England to have a similar policy to scotland. Ie. children born in the last three months before the cut can defer. Other children can defer if a community paediatrian / educational pycholgoist thinks its a good idea.

Most parents are very eager for their children to start full time school. I doult that there would be many people wanting their children to defer. What I want is choice.

unseen my ds is 2.7 at the moment, so they will supposedly start at the same time.
I have been referred to someone who deals with these sorts of issues and will see what they advise.
He is potty trained, a good eater and good socially.
His speech was delayed but he has caught up now.
It's such a difficult decision. Do i let him go next sept and he struggles or hold him back a year and it's the wrong decision.

Only read op.

You could also say 'isn't it a bummer that children born in Sept means you have to pay for a whole extra year of nursery' - if you work outside the home and require childcare that is

Oh and while you get help towards it from the term after they are 3 if you go to most of the nurseries around here then it doesn't make much of a dent in it

Speaking as someone who only ever claimed the "nursery voucher" for one term in Reception at a private school, I think parents should be given the equivalent amount to spend doing things with their children instead of putting them in childcare. But I can't see that happening, ever.

You can hold a summer baby back, but they would go into the same year they would have been in, so would miss the invaluable reception year.

I don't think you can continue to claim the vouchers if you choose to do this, as they could be at school, so you don't get the free nursery.

Assuming children start Sep in Reception and go through to A Levels, they all have the same amount of schooling, irrespective of their date of birth.

It is hard for summer babies - although my August born was SO ready to go to school, and has thrived and is doing brilliantly.

If you work and pay for childcare its brill to have an August-born child who starts Reception at just turned 4. You pay for almost exactly one year less school-hours childcare than the parent of a September-born child. Very handy.

Disagree about Reception being "invaluable". What's invaluable to children who've just turned four is lots and lots of love, individual attention and experiences of the outside world - not just of a school enviroment.

I totally get where you're coming from, op, and wish that we had more flexibility with regard to school starting ages - I think the system is too rigid in this country. Having said that, I do think that too much is sometimes made of the differences between summer-born and autumn-born kids. At the end of the day, they are all individuals and have their own unique needs.

Fwiw, my dd is in year 1 and they are grouped according to ability. Four of the eight children on the "top table" are summer-born and only two have birthdays in the autumn term - so there doesn't seem to be much of a correlation. Oddly enough, five of the eight also happen to be bilingual, so that's another factor that clearly hasn't held them back!

I think YABU, at 4 your child is receiving funding for full time school, mine was only in nursery for 2h 15mins/day and it was a total pain. I have 2 Sept borns but declined to send them to school nursery at 3 and waited until they were 4 so in fact only got 3 terms in nursery after all. I couldn't have stood the hassle of 5 tbh.

You're citing a DM article as proof for your case? [bhmm] (on that basis alone YABU)

I get where you're coming from, but there is flexibility (at least where I live). If I had an August born child I would start him at School a year later when he was more prepared.