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.

Also - some people plan for July/August babies to save themselves a years worth of childcare!

OP - your original post was all about September-born children getting more nursery vouchers. So it seemed a financial argument, and on that point I disagree with you.

However, if we're going to debate the totally inflexible cut-off date for placing children in school years, I would agree. Children are so developmentally diverse at this age and a blanket system is crazy.

IMO, any child born in from mid-July to mid-October should be assessed, by parent and school/pre-school together, to decide if they're ready for school or should wait another year.

I'm not sure about staggered intakes though.... wouldn't that place the class at very different levels of progress and cause chaos?

Reading through many of the comments here, everyone always knows someone who has a summer-born dc who is doing better than autumn born ones at school. However, research still shows that in general they are disadvantaged in comparison to their older peers. This effect is particularly prominent in boys.

Personally, my winter-born ds1 (a year 1) is working with year 2's because he is ahead of all the year 1's at his school (and he's actually ahead of most of the year 2's). He could have started school earlier and been fine. My summer-born ds2 simply won't be ready to start at just turned 4. Different children, different needs. The system is just far too inflexible.

What I find very difficult to understand is the hand-wringing that goes on about 4 year olds starting reception for 6.5 hours a day 38 weeks a year "not being ready for reception" vs. the millions of children in fulltime 8am-6pm childcare 48 weeks a year.

Are we saying that those children, who start nursery as babies, "are not ready for" nursery?

Bibbity - well, I would slightly agree with you, except that nursery is about play (with occasional learning letters and numbers snuck in there). School is about learning.

OTOH, reception year is a lot like pre-school, with lots of play.

Personally, I'm more for a gradual shift from play to learning, with compulsory, full-time play-based pre-school from age 4 to age 6, then school from 6 onwards, secondary at 13 and finishing school at 18, like it's done in most of the rest of the world.

I'm baffled why children are made to do everything 2 years earlier here. Why rush them to grow up? I was barely ready for high school when I started at 13. I can't imagine being ready for those pressures at 11!

Totally agree with you bibbity!
If you don't think your child is ready then keep them home - my dd3 has very end of August birthday and whilst I was worried about her, the school fully reassured me that there was little difference between the group she had been in at nursery and Reception class.
The OP could easily have said that "August babies get more school education than September babies" Is that unfair??

Annie - preschool prepares young children for nursery, so it's not a huge jump for them.

School is ALL about learning through play in Reception - at my school at least? Can't imagine many Reception classes where the children have formal lessons like Y5 and Y6?

bibbity - actually, despite working 30 hours per week, neither of my dc's went into nursery 8am-6pm, simply because I feel that at 6 months old they were not ready for that. I wouldn't criticise anyone who made that decision, but personally I think that full days away from a parent (either mother or father) is too much too young. For some children, enforced school from 9am-3pm every day aged 4 is also too much, too young. Others will of course do fine. Still though, the research stands that summer born children will be adversely affected.

That's my point. At my dc school they had no formal learning in reception, aside from being asked to sit on the carpet for registration and a story for 15 minutes in the morning and 15 minutes after lunch. Apart from that, afaik, it was just free play, no groups, no requirement to sit still at a table of you didn't want to and an awful lot of running around outside.

Reception is invaluable as a gentle introduction to school, to the idea of taking more reponsibility for themselves (eg at dinner time), learning about being in a bigger class, establishing friendship groups. I can't IMAGINE how a summer baby would cope going straight into Y1 at just turned 5, having had no reception year, which is the reality of holding them back from school.

At ds1's school they did have formal learning in reception year. I wouldn't consider letting ds2 skip reception because of this. However, I may seriously consider going against all my principles and put ds2 into private school for pre-school + reception, just to allow the freedom of letting him attend for half days (which is not possible under my LEA).

I see your reasoning OP. It does seem weird that some DCs get a whole 5 terms. But I think that'd be boring for many, my summer born loves hers, she's been there since September but I'm sure 5 terms would be too much.

I think there does need to be more flexibility in starting school. DS was born August 30th so he'll be pretty much the youngest, only just turning 4 before being yrR. It is crazy to think that had he been born just 2 days later, he'd wait a whole other year before starting!

When he was a few weeks old my friend visited with her boy who'd just turned 1 in early September - over 11 months between them, yet they could be in the same class.

Several of DDs nursery friends are so much older, and while she easily holds her own, it does worry me how she and DS have a hope of keeping up :(

I know I can keep them out until they turn 5 - a friend kept her DS on half days for the whole of yrR because she knew her rights! And for us homeschooling is an option. But I hate the idea that summer babies are automatically behind from the start.

Sorry that was quite a rant!

It's a fact that summer born children fare worse in education (and sport where the seasons run sept to sept) - tonnes of research done about this, lots of reasons that make sense. What the solution is, I don't know.

DD is August born - was difficult at the begining but has come through it and now exceling all round (she can be less emotionally savvy/mature, but gets lots of support from me). Now in yr 3. That's just a personal anecdote though.

foriv spelling.

I have 2 sept born children my oldest dd is 4 and bored out of her brain at nursery. It would be great for her to start school nowish. She used to love nursery now she's the oldest there and fed up with it, and I think it's delaying her in some aspects certainly emotionally.

I hope she does do some learning in reception, she needs it! I'm far far from a pushy parent but she's crying out for learning. We do what we can at home but I think she would absolutely buzz off school.

btw, I'm May born and a genius, as is my June born Sister. Feb born Sister is less academic.

I think there needs to be more flexiblity in starting school. The reason it doesn't already exist is MONEY!!

I think that reducing the number of funded terms for older children to 3 is way of generating the money to help children who simply are not ready for reception.

Under the last governant we develop a mentality of thinking we had a universal right to things that we didn't really need. Free childcare is nice, but should the tax payer really be paying for it.

However paying for extra nursery for a developmentally delayed child is an investment. It might mean the child has less SEN in later years. It is in the interest of all tax payers to have an educated workforce.

can someone point to some research that shows it makes no differnce being young in the year.

I think the system here has its merits - children start school the day after their 5th birthday. There is a cut off (April/May) where some children go into reception before year 1 but (at our local school at least) the child is discussed with teacher & headteacher and can go into year 1 directly where appropriate. DS1 has been ready for school academically since before he reached 4 but has benefitted hugely socially being in nursery a few mornings a week so I think he will settle into school better having waited until 5.

We also have 4 10-week terms, 2 weeks holiday between and 6 weeks holiday at Christmas. So none of the very short or long half term periods which can be hard to cope with so young.

The downside is lots of multiple entrants during the year which I think makes friendship groups more difficult to start and maintain.

I agree with the OP - as I believe this is a question about education, not free childcare. Children born in the summer get 2 terms less of nursery education than those born in the autumn term. The free nursery education isn't designed as a form of childcare, the fact it helps some families in that way is obviously a bonus but it is not what it is intended for. I completely agree that it is unfair that those born at the start of the school year are given 2 extra terms of free nursery education - they start reception class nearly a year older and having been entitled to 2 more terms of nursery education.

Legally, children do not have to start full-time education until the term in which they turn 5. But, for August born children, this doesn't mean the parents can defer the start date into reception class as such, it means that if they choose to start school in the September after they turn 5, they will automatically start in Yr1 as opposed to reception - therefore they miss out on a year of full-time education.

reallytired, educational research has shown for a long time that there is a measurable difference between the oldest and youngest in a school year.

Personally, I think that formal schooling starts too early in this country. It is younger than almost every other European nation and yet British children can not be considered to be better educated than those from other countries.

In particular the school start age in Britain works against boys as it coincides with a hormone surge making it difficult for boys to concentrate at that age. Much more play and activity based learning generally works better for boys at that age.

boohooyou, sorry, have only just seen your question. ds1 has language and social communication difficulties and is possibly mildly on the autistic spectrum. I'd have loved him to have had an extra year to catch up socially before starting in reception.

He could have stayed in the school nursery, which is mixed with reception anyway, so wouldn't have been without stimulation. Reception was fine, but year one is where he's starting to struggle, and is so so tired at the end of every day.