Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

to think it should be made easier to hold a child back/start later at school ?

84 replies

doley · 28/05/2011 14:41

I have been very spoilt living here in the US ,it is a piece of cake to defer a year or hold your child back if you and the school want to ...

Why is it such a pita to do it in the UK ?

I want to do it for my August born son when we return in the Autumn ,he only started school in 2009 (at 6) and when we come home he needs to go to year 4 !

I understand this particular part only pertains to me ,but there are so many parents who want to start their summer born kids later ~I think they should be allowed to with zero fuss .

Now that school/training is going to be gradually introduced till 18 ,surely we should have more flexibility to do what we want for our children Confused

Obviously ,those that would like their children to start in the present system should be given that option also .

I have spoken to the Primary school my son will attend ,and although they are not ruling out holding him back ,it would only be a temporary measure ?

I want it for good ...I personally want more choice ...

Unreasonable ? Grin

OP posts:
WeirdAcronymNotKnown · 28/05/2011 14:46

Unfortunately it'd create a logistical nightmare if lots of parents did it. It's a shame though, so YANBU. I would like to have more choice - I don't like the fact that it is automatic to send a child so young (I've a June and an August child) - it's like it takes the decision away from the parents because 'that's just what you do' IYSWIM.

pointydog · 28/05/2011 14:49

Lots of people do it in Scotland. It's very common. Not a logistical nightmare.

GypsyMoth · 28/05/2011 14:50

i agree. having a ds born on aug 31
i tried when we moved to new area,but no. wish i had tried harder now

he's going into yr 9 in sept and is so behind. i feel i failed him,and he just seems to have stopped trying now as he says he can never catch up

i feel he may be right Sad

Original poster
doley · 28/05/2011 14:55

I wondered about Scotland ...I am glad to hear they have a workable situation Grin

Ilove I am so sorry :(
You didn't fail him , I believe the system( as it is right now) has though .

OP posts:
Nojusticejustus · 28/05/2011 14:56

I am having the same nightmare, dd born 23rd Aug, I want her to start school when she is five, which is when she legally has to start, but all schools say she will miss reception and go directly to y1

Why cant she go into reception at five like a child born seven days later ???

It makes my blood boil !

yukoncher · 28/05/2011 14:56

Oh damn TIFF
My son's preschool want to keep him an extra year because of his delays, not sure what to do, maybe it's the best thing :/

Original poster
doley · 28/05/2011 15:06

nojustice exactly ...I think it totally defeats the purpose to then put them back with what would have been their year group .

I think the system is flawed .

Not wanting to bang on about the US again ,but ...it is not a given a child will automatically transfer to the next year here ~they have to pass .

They help kids reach the level they should be at instead of just pushing them through .

OP posts:
zukiecat · 28/05/2011 15:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
doley · 28/05/2011 15:11

zukie so simple ...just like here .

I can't understand why the idea is not even entertained properly elsewhere ?

I feel like moving to Scotland Grin

OP posts:
GypsyMoth · 28/05/2011 15:11

his school report yesterday came back below average in everything.....he's stopped trying too. previously he has tried his hardest

his 2 older sisters are doing really well with gcse and a levels. i dont know what to do now to help him. he's really immature for his age anyway,but being still only 12 where his peer group are all 13 going on for 14,is very very noticeable

Original poster
doley · 28/05/2011 15:13

ILove

What are the school doing to help you ?

OP posts:
ShinyMoonInAPurpleSky · 28/05/2011 15:27

Personally, YABU. I was born in August, was always the youngest in my year and never had a problem in school, was never behind, never struggled and got good exam results (all As and Bs). BIL is also an August baby and again, never had a problem.

applechutney · 28/05/2011 15:33

Good for you shineymoon.

I don't think the op is actually talking about people in your situation - she's looking for a choice for parents.

Nojusticejustus · 28/05/2011 15:34

Its not about doing badly shiny, its about starting your child in school at FOUR !

They are there long enough imo, four is just too little.

borderslass · 28/05/2011 15:41

Scotland has different criteria for starting school altogether though the cut off date is or was [mine are older so could have changed] 4 on the 28th February and for the last few years parents have been encouraged to keep their children in nursery for an extra year if born after christmas. My older 2 where 5 starting school [June,July birthdays]youngest was October birthday so almost 5.

LunaticFringe · 28/05/2011 15:42

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

libelulle · 28/05/2011 15:57

With you all the way. DS only a baby at the moment but we'll have this battle to come - he was born very prematurely so that he'll start a whole year before he would have done if born at term (born in june instead of october). Insane system and needs a legal challenge.

LindyHemming · 28/05/2011 16:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

zukiecat · 28/05/2011 16:07

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

fyrtlemertile · 28/05/2011 16:10

I think the problem is that there has to be a cutoff somewhere and someone always has to be the youngest.

I can see this from both sides, my twins were born in early September and I am now pregnant again. DD3 (DC4) is due in the second week of September but the twins and my elder DS were born a few weeks early. If she follows this pattern (which seems to be familial, I was born at 36 weeks, my siblings all born before 38 weeks and my DN was born at 35weeks) then DD3 will be an August born in the same class as her September born elder sisters. I don't think this will be good. The twins are identical and I am already worried about how my as yet unborn daughter would cope being the 'third wheel' and a year younger in her sisters class. (I may be over thinking this slightly but it does not seem to be an ideal situation).

I'd love it to be easier, and I'd be more relaxed knowing whenever DD3 comes she can be the school year below her big sisters but I accept someone has to be the youngest AND this way the max age gap is only 11months and 30 days. If deferring becomes more common then teachers could have to teach a bigger age range. Correct me if I'm wrong but couldn't you have a child born in February 2000 in the same class as one born in Sept. 1998 in Scotland? If parents need the free childcare then the Feb 98 child would be doubly disadvantaged... There is no easy solution.

Original poster
doley · 28/05/2011 16:14

Yes,I want parents to have a choice that actually comforts them and works.

To be honest I am so annoyed by it ,I am wanting to take it further ...not even particularly for my child .

Where do I start ?

OP posts:
Original poster
doley · 28/05/2011 16:19

There are no problems here ,purely (I believe) because not every parents wants this choice .

I think it would balance out .Confused

fyrtle good luck ,that is a challenge :)

Oh ,here(US) they do teach a slightly larger age range ,no problems though .
I think in many cases ,the class runs smoothly as there are very few children that need to be settled as they are older and more able to cope ?

OP posts:
presario · 28/05/2011 16:24

I live in Scotland as far as I know, your child must start school the term after their 5 th birthday. Because we only have one intake this means any kis born after the august start date can technically wait till the following august, this is my interpretation so may be wrong.

My own daughter born in Feb can go either the august before or after her birthday. My other daughter has a boy in her class who is December, shoe went august after not before his birthday.

skrumle · 28/05/2011 16:25

in scotland you are automatically entitled to request a child start a year later if they are born in Jan/Feb, if they are born Sep-Dec of the previous year then it's only really available if there is a documented reason to support it. the oldest in DD's class was born in Jan 2000, the youngest in Feb 2001.

when DD was at nursery i was aware of one child who was held back and was a november birthday, similar to a child in DS's nursery at the moment who will start school in August and turn 6 a couple of months later. both children have ASD and other additional support needs.

OvO · 28/05/2011 16:36

I deferred my DS1 (I'm in Scotland). He would have been just under 5 when due to start but I didn't want him to start then. His nursery said he was ready for school so signed the deferral form but wouldn't fill in any of the other stuff that was asked of them. We sent the form in with our reasons for wanting deferral and we got it and a fully funded nursery place for the extra year (which we didn't take up).

His birthday is early November. I think it's different in different local authorities.

Swipe left for the next trending thread