Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
Groovee · 28/05/2011 16:40

I deferred my dd from starting P1 at 4 and a half and being a january birthday was entitled to request it. My friend's son is an October birthday and any child with an August to December birthday has to prove why they need the extra year and 99% of the time they do get deferred. He was deferred as he really didn't cope with change well and the extra year made a huge difference to him.

Dd was more than ready to start school at 5 and a half, while ds who was 4 years 10 months was more than ready too. Dh and I are both december and really struggled with school.

GypsyMoth · 28/05/2011 16:40

doley...he has an iep,but not much contact with teachers really. and parents eve all concentration is on his targets,which is good. but now they are not being met

also,we have 3 tier system here,meaning he transfers from middle school to upper in sept. he will be one of the first year groups to stay on an extra year,so he may be able to catch up that way

presario · 28/05/2011 16:45

My daughter will defo not be going till she is 5 and a half and I am so glad she is a Feb baby as no problems about deferring.

My older daughter is 19 now, she was a December baby and went to school at 4, she coped ok but was always emotionally behind the older kids. She even felt it when she was only 17 and had to leave school.

tyler80 · 28/05/2011 16:45

I think flexibility in start date would be a good thing and I don't think deferring if allowed should be limited to July/August born children. Some August born children will be ready to start the September after they're 4 whilst a child born in March may not be ready. It should be what's right for the individual child.

If children have been held back I don't see why the ability range of the children in a class would be wider even though the age range would be.

TheHumanCatapult · 28/05/2011 16:52

ds is a July child and he had to start age 4and 2 months and that was with dx of Global delay and no speech .If not we would lost the place or if defered he would gone straight into Y1 and thats evne with a statement .He is now y1 in speech unit and he is struggling big time .He be 6 end of July and is on pscales ( other kids are not his PD hold him back as well as still no speech ).

Ideally he needs to be in reception

Nojusticejustus · 28/05/2011 16:55

Exactly presario, its more about emotional maturity than acedemic ability imo.

My dd is bright enough but socially that year makes a huge difference.

Beamur · 28/05/2011 17:00

My DD is in a nursery class and will still be 4 when she starts in Reception. I noticed when applying for her school place that the website said that children who were not yet 5 did not have to go into Reception full time.
I mentioned this to the teacher who was fine about it, but said she needed to find out more as no other children in the school were doing this - she has since come back to me and said it would be fine and that DD could be part time in Reception until the term after she turns 5.

But I agree that the inflexibility of starting/deferring based on a date without any consideration of how suitable it is for that child seems all wrong.

merrymouse · 28/05/2011 17:08

I think it is a completely mad system. The predictions for requirements for reception places are a complete guess anyway - It's not as though they can look at the local hospital records and say "aha, that will be the exact number of school places we will need 5 years hence!". I don't think it would cause problems if a few summer babies deferred.

MadamDeathstare · 28/05/2011 17:14

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

SJisontheway · 28/05/2011 17:14

In Ireland children start after 4 but before 6. In reality most start between 4.5 and 5.5, but flexibility exists to start earlier/later if needed. It's not a logistical nightmare. Although a typical class would have a wider range of ages there could be a smaller range of maturity/ability. I think it works well.

Dylthan · 28/05/2011 17:18

We've just made the choice to hold ds back a year (scotland) he is 4 and was due to start in august he will not be 5 until December he's a Christmas day baby. I just went up to his nursery teacher said that I didn't feel he was ready she asked that we write a letter explaining why we felt this and then that was that.

I really hope we've made the right descion I think we have and a lot of parents that I spoke to while we were agonizing over it had made the same choice and they all thought their dc were happier and more settled for it.

MadamDeathstare · 28/05/2011 17:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Carrotsandcelery · 28/05/2011 17:22

I am in Scotland and my ds is a November birthday. He is emotionally immature and I wanted to defer him but my request was refused by nursery and the school.

He started school aged 4 (no reception here) and although he is doing well academically he is having horrific problems socially - as predicted.

I am already worried about what will happen in the teenage years. Children tend to experiment as a peer group, not according to age, which means he will be making big decisions earlier than I feel he needs to.

It also means he will sit his exams earlier than I feel he needs to - I used to teach secondary and boys generally take a bit longer to take it all seriously.

YANBU

valiumbandwitch · 28/05/2011 17:24

I totally agree with you. My son will be well five when he starts school. If we'd stayed in the uk he would have had to have started at four and he would NOT have been ready. It would have been ridiculous. He couldn't even hold a pencil in his hand, never mind recognise a letter.

SJisontheway · 28/05/2011 17:28

I don't understand why children who develop later are not given a chance to flourish. I believe many children are being badly failed by the system.

presario · 28/05/2011 17:35

Dylthan you have absolutely made the right choice. A child can cope with the work load but emotional can be behind by up to 9 months. My middle daughter (I have 4 kids) is a march baby, her wee friend is a December baby and although they get on great my daughter seems that wee bit older in everything they. The wee girl is very bright and the school work is no bother but she is 9 months younger and always will be, like I said my daughter had to leave school at 17 an extra year would have let her leave at 18.

presario · 28/05/2011 17:39

Totally agree with everything carrotsandcellery said, school at an age is only a small amour to do with the academics, the rest involves socialising, a year of development can make a huge difference, I feel every kids should be assessed on all levels, academically and socially, after all is the curriculum for excellence not about meeting all kids needs.

Another point once these wee kids go into the school system there is no going back.

AnnieLobeseder · 28/05/2011 18:00

YANBU. I think that with any child born in July/Aug/Sept/Oct, the parents should get to decide if they go to school or not in the year they turn 4. And the school should be able to make parents take their child out of school and wait a year if it becomes obvious that they can't cope, to avoid those parents who send their children to school asap for the childcare.

Original poster
doley · 28/05/2011 18:05

Look (even on here) how many of us find dispair with the current system ...

It really is shocking to think the choice is just not there for something so critical in our children's futures .

So,reading the posts, it seems Scotland have a great system as does Northern Island.

It appears then that it is just England and Wales that are stagnating .

I really agree with the emotional aspect ,my DS is happy with 1st/2nd graders and being in the primary wing -year 4 seems such a massive leap .

OP posts:
AnnieLobeseder · 28/05/2011 18:06

Are children seriously never held back here? Do they not have to pass each year to move into the next year? Do struggling children have to go into the next year even if they haven't successfully absorbed the year's work? Are they fucking insane?!?!

Does this happen anywhere else in the world? I grew up in SA and children regularly repeated a school year if they hadn't passed their end of year exams. How would they ever catch up otherwise?

Original poster
doley · 28/05/2011 18:06

island ? so sorry .

Ireland obviously Blush

OP posts:
Original poster
doley · 28/05/2011 18:08

annie sometimes they just don't don't catch up .

Shocking isn't it ?

OP posts:
AnnieLobeseder · 28/05/2011 18:10

Wow. I would sell all my world goods and go private I guess, if that happened to my DDs.

A friend of mine who is fairly well off is sending her DCs to private schools, and she's able to defer her August-born DC to start in reception next year instead of him starting this year, which she'd have to do at state school. So much more sensible.

But not very helpful to those who can't afford to make this choice.

skybluepearl · 28/05/2011 19:16

I know of children held back and other children moved up also. They were behind being just normal behind. Seriously behind. Or about three or so years a head to be moved up. Three or four years ahead naturally without a spot of extra tuition. Very gifted but emotionally average.

nooka · 28/05/2011 23:15

I've an early September child who could very easily have started school earlier and a May child who had a January entry. It's a pity so many schools in England have dropped the January entry as I think for most children a few months would have made the difference.

Then we moved to the States and now to Canada and they are in different years (they have an end of year cut off, not a September one). So now ds is amongst the older children and dd the younger (much to her annoyance). Both children have been in classes with children who have been held back. Personally I don't think it is a good thing at all because it is very stigmatising - I think those children should have been supported to pass their grades, not held back. There have also been some bullying issues, where there is a child who is a good deal bigger than their class mates. But it is a good incentive for children to work hard I guess.