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

[doley]

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

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 ?

Oh yes and we had a girl who had been put ahead at least two years when I was in the sixth form. I think that was a very bad idea (she seemed very very young to the rest of us, and I don't think she had an easy time at all). I like it here that in high school all the classes are modular and children can go into advanced classes if they are ready (even university level in the upper years), but just for those subjects.

The younger children are kept back from staring school in Australia and it is not a problem at all. Eg in new south wales you are allowed to start school if you will turn five by July. But the schools actually encourage parents to hold back children born after April. The teachers don't want tiny, unready four year olds in their class. You have to be in school by the time you turn six.

In Scotland, DS has a January birthday and we have deferred his entry to p1 until he is 5 1/2.

nooka :)

In some situations it doesn't matter how much help some kids are given academically, the fact remains they need more time in younger grades .

There is never any teasing here ,and no stigma in being held back .

I am glad they don't just send them automatically to the next grade here.

My main point earlier ,is that the option should be in place for parents wanting to for whatever reason hold back or start their children later.

I know many children thrive starting at the traditional point ,sadly many do not .

There is no need to change anything with start dates ,just let the parents decide when to start and take advantage of the best way for their child :)

DD truns 4 in two week's, and will be starting school full time in September. I really wish we could deffer her starting she does seem so little. But the only option we have to deffer would mean she'd start a year latter BUT in year1 not reception. Which I beleive is the case in most school's in England (although there is some variation from area to area) She has a friend who will turn 4 on the 31st of Aug and will be starting full time a week latter.

If we could deffer and she'd go into resption next year I think I wouldn't need to think twice about it. Lucly she does seem to be quit bright so I don't think she'll suffer academicly but it's going to be a long day for her and I see a lot of tired tantrums at the end of the week.

tryingtoleave you can never please everyone though, my sister was annoyed that the earliest her daughter could start school was 5 years 8 months!

Interesting to compare countries...here in NZ you have to start school any time between 5 and 6 years old. Most children begin when they turn 5, which means that at the start of the school year (Feb) a new entrant class may only have 4 or 5 children, but children join in dribs and drabs through the year (and my DTs, being late Nov babies, had 3 weeks school followed by 6 weeks summer holidays, although we also could have waited till the new school year). I was [shocked] when I heard and thought it would be complete chaos, but it see,s to work pretty well.

No probs with getting children held back a year if they are struggling either, and many parents with April / May b'day DCs are given the choice after "new entrants" whether to go straight into year 2 or do year 1 again (year cut off is end of April, but this isn't set in stone either)

Now I am used to the system here, the England system seems very inflexible and 4 seems too young to start school, esp for Aug babies...seems crazy that you can't delay.

I see with interest that the policy here in Glasgow is 'Parents/Guardians whose child's fifth birthday falls after the first day of the start of the new term may choose to defer their child's entry into school until the following August', which seems very flexible. My DD was born in January - she is only 16 months old, so not sure if we will defer entry! But at least we have the option. I also have a January birthday, and started school at 4.5. I think it was a lot less common at that point to defer entry.

YANBU. The Scottish system is much better and more flexible. DS1 is an August birthday and would not have been ready for school if we were still in England. He is also the type of personality who would have been put off learning by that.

My friend is a teacher in England and agrees that the sytem needs to be more flexible.

I'm in Germany where it is also thankfully flexible. The cut off date for children who are 6 is the 30th Sept and the children born in Oct/Nov/Dec (so nearly 6) "can" go to school but there is no fuss if they're not ready. So we deferred it for our Oct born DS1 who will then start school this sept nearly aged 7. But there is also some flexibilty for the August born dc - 3 of DS1's friends were august born and got deferred. I'm wondering what we'll do next year for DS2 who has an end of Aug birthday but its good to know the options are there.

This doesnt seem to cause any logistical problems and there is absolutely no stigma involved. The schooling here is really hard going so parents are happy to leave their dc out of it for as long as possible.

The English system needs to be looked into - have seen many August born dc just nowhere near ready for the practical aspects of school - ie sitting still, the long days never mind the academic work. If it can work in other countries then it can surely work in England.

The system in England was one of the big pushes towards coming home to NI - the system is equally inflexible here, but the cut off date is different, so DS1 is the oldest, rather than the youngest.

He would not have coped with starting full time school aged 4 yrs 3 weeks - he was still in nappies, barely verbal (although very academically able) and unable to cope with his peers in Nursery - he was miserable. The "extra" year he got has enabled him to settle at school perfectly.

there must be a small number of children in every class who just started before they were ready and had their confidence knocked, and never caught up...

Somebody said "but there has to be a cut off date".

why does there have to be a cut off date?!! Why can the parents not decide? It's the parents' decision in ireland and I'm not saying things are perfect here, but parents are trusted to make the decision about when their own child is ready for school! I shudder to think how my son would have struggled if I'd sent him in to reception at just four.

Maybe see what you can negotiate with the Reception class.
Delay start till after Christmas, then half-days till Easter, then full-time in summer term, when they may have better access to outside play anyway.
Could be a possibility.
Then they'd have a chance to get to know class-mates and have an experience of Reception before going into Year One.
With a summer born child you should have a good case for something like this I would think as school doesn't become compulsory ( unless home-ed'ing) until your child is 5.

It was me who said there has to be a cut off date. I tihnk there does, if there isn't then a lot of parents would want there child to be the oldest, that bit bigger, a little more mature and all the other advantages. It might start off with August born boys being held back but then the parents of the boys born in May, June and July wouldn't like it, their son or daughter would suddenly be the smallest, the least ready for school. More and more of them would defer. Before long March or April born children would be the youngest in the class and children born in September definitely wouldn't be the oldest! Children who previously would have been seen as more than ready suddenly aren't because effectively they're in a mixed r/yr1 class.

And while this may not present too much of a problem for infant or juniors it would by high school, you could easily have 20 year olds at school if anyone messed up lower VI (like a number of my friends did) or if children could leave at 18 they might not get any qualifications at all.

Someone has to be the youngest, and I say this as someone who is due in early september but has a history of having early babies...

In my experience here in the US ,Parents don't defer much over a year .

It works very well and easily ,and the teachers have much less to deal with .

It is interesting that most families I know (who held back) did not do so for academic reasons ,more so to give their child more time to mature emotionally .

When the children start here in Kindergarten they look so tiny ...I reminded myself that they are a lot bigger than my eldest when he started reception at 4 1/2 .:)

If parents don't want to start their children so early they really shouldn't have to It would save a lot of heartache for many families IMO .

YANBU, I think the system needs reforming. In lots of place in Europe they don't even start formal learning until 6, when the difference in an early or late birthday is going to be much less. I believe Wales and Scotland have much more flexible systems and are not so obsessed with reading targets as English schools seem to have to be.

DD is a June birthday and she started reception a term late (so she was 4.7 in January when she started), she was the only one of her group of friends (all summer birthdays) who did not cry on starting school. She was at a good Montessori nursery school so she didn't miss out on learning, but all my friends thought I had lost the plot to delay her (plus it cost a fair bit).

I am also interested to see what will happen now that it will be compulsory to keep children in school till 18 .

4~18 ? makes no sense :) to me ...

My DS was born on 7 August and, unless it transpires he is very mentally and socially advanced (which I doubt will be the case) I want to hold him back a year. I think it's ridiculous to send him to school when a few weeks earlier he was still only 3 years old. There is 23 months between him and his older sister but to be only one year behind her at school seems really wrong.

Also,as I said earlier :) the thing that really annoys me ,is that when the school finally 'allows' a child to start later etc...it is only a short term solution.

It is always done with the idea that eventually they will be placed place back with their original class/group ...that is just not good enough .

I can not get my head around the fact that my son only started school in 2009, and in 2014 will have to go to secondary school .

Watching this with interest!

My daughter was born on 21st August, she is starting reception in September. I'm unsure as she will be one of the youngest in the class.

I didn't send her to pre-school/nursery class because it was difficult to get her there (I work full time). Her cousin is four months older than her, is in nursery class and knows all her letters etc, and can write names. My daughter only knows the letters of her name? Is not interested in learning letters etc, and can barely hold a pencil?

So does this matter? I'm so scared of her being behind all the other kids who went to nursery class? The other problem is she is going to a Welsh speaking school, so will also be learning a new language?

Please reassure me it will be OK?

There was an interesting thread on this in education section a while ago. dd2 was born right at the end of august.

I get really annoyed when people say stuff like "oh, it'll be fine, I/my dc was youngest in year and got great results, if they're clever enough they'll do well anyway, my dc (eldest in year) was ready the year before they started school", "cleverest child in class is youngest" etc etc.

The actual evidence suggests that being summer born is a big disadvantage.

A competitive mum I know recently said they wished their dc (aged 2.5 and under 1) were summer-born so they could start school a year early, since they were so bright they would be bound to be top and couldn't be challenged enough at pre-school/hime blah blah, "desperate to read" etc. Then followed up with " but I can see why you're worried about yours though!"

I feel like my DD's school are holing her reading back (okay, I know I have to let the school deal with this one and trust them and all that)... In fact, I KNOW they are focusing on her handwriting, except her brother (also august born) was ploughing ahead with being given books and his handwriting was really behind, but for him it didn't matter. Her handwriting is better than his, but her pen hold isn't correct... ARGHH she is FOUR and her pen hold was FINE and dandy before she started school... ARGHHH sorry personal rant, made worse by her spending time in preschool with me on friday (inset day for her, but not me). She was allowed because legally she could still be there... and she fit right in, it was her level (socially). She really could have spent the yrar there and been none the worse for it, as long as she then started in reception...
DS was marked as just above average, but the gap is closing and he is beginning to struggle... he is more on par (socially) with the year below and it frustrates me greatly.

AND someone once suggested I could have planned things better... Sure I intended to miscarry and then fall pg again just so I would have august babies!

Sorry, rant over.

YAsoNBU.

It is outrageous that an immature child is expected to start at just 4. The damage it can do is so well documented.

however I do believe that parents should be more active about this. I submitted my views on summer-borns to the (ghastly) Rose review and only 270 parents bothered to do so on the whole report. No wonder the politically motivated recommendations get passed. There must have been some other hyped up parents because at least now as a parent you get the "choice" to start your child later in reception.

My daughter was born on August 29th.

I'm so glad we live in Scotland.

In England, she'd only have been out of nappies for a few moths, yet here, she got 2 whole years of (free) Pre-school.

No way would she have been ready for school a week after her 4th birthday, it would have been cruel to send her then, yet I'd have had to.

Here in Scotland, she started Preschool just before she turned 3, and went there for two years, before starting school just as she turned 5, when she was ready.

I think the English system is awful.

Mrsdoasyouwouldbedoneby, I know, also hate it when (smug) people (who have never experienced fertility issues)suggest that we could have "planned it better".

Samels, agree that parents should be more active - what might we do? Is this policy in england set by central government?