Scottish vs English primary school- Aibu?

[susannahmoodie]

My ds1 is 5 in January and is starting in reception in September. We live in the north of England. I have a friend from uni who is English but lives in Edinburgh. Her Ds1 is a month older than mine. I met up with her the other day and I started talking about my ds going to school- she said that she couldn't believe I was sending him as he was far too young, that they will be deferring her ds's start so that he will not start until he is nearly 6, and was generally very sniffy about the fact that my ds would be starting at 'such a young age'. Now, I understand that the Scottish system allows children who will be young for the year to defer. Even though my ds is younger than hers, as a winter baby he will be far from the youngest in his year group, whereas I understand the Scottish cut off is feb/March, so her ds will be amongst the youngest. But even so, I don't have the option of deferring and even if I did, I wouldn't as I think he is more than ready for school. She kept going on about how cruel it was to make kids 'sit down and do sums', but having looked around my ds's school I know that it won't be like that at all- it is very much a "learning though play set up", with free flow indoor/outdoor and lots of 'forest school' activities which my ds will love.

I also don't really get the point about being the youngest in the year- surely they have to have a cut off somewhere? I know there is some evidence that summer borns (in England) are disadvantaged but Someone has to be the youngest? I have another Scottish friend with a feb bday who didn't defer and so when we started uni she was only 17.5 and she said it was great as she felt she had a 'year in hand' over other people so could take a gap year etc whereas I as a winter baby felt pressure to get on with things (my mum used to say I'd had my gap year when I was 4!).

I'm not saying the English system is ideal, far from it, but Aibu to think my friend was rude to question my son starting school?

I'm Scottish and have an early March birthday, but my parents opted to send me a year early, so I started school in the August after my fourth birthday.

For me, it was absolutely the right decision. I was desperate to start school and loved every minute.

Although I could have stayed on for another year, I did end up leaving school at just 16, with five A-grade Highers and a university place. That meant that even after a gap year, I was still only 17.5 when I went off to Uni, but it wasn’t an issue at all, and I can assure you that I went out and got hammered during Freshers’ week like everyone else!

Now, I live in England and my daughter has an August birthday, so she’ll be starting school next year when she’s just turned four. There is SO MUCH scaremongering down here about ‘summer borns’! Despite my own experiences, I seem to have absorbed some of this by osmosis and do feel a tiny bit of trepidation about her starting school and whether she’ll be ready/feel behind her peers, BUT…clichéd though it is, every child is different and you and your friend, need to do whatever you feel is best for your individual offspring.

Pippity, the difference is at secondary - 6 years as opposed to 7.

I think your friend was incredibly rude and judgemental. However I think the ability to defer for those with Jan/Feb birthdays is a great idea because some children aren't ready. It helps solve the problem that there can be at school in England for those with July and August birthdays. That's not to say it's wrong not to refer , I just like the choice being there

I deferred Dd who is now 15! I think because the difference in Scottish, starting later and different cut off's can get confusing.

Dd was quite immature and just needed an extra year to thrive. I know of English friends with August born children who hate having to send their child so soon after their 4th birthday.

Generally I think the UK as a whole send our children into formal learning too early.

I know a couple of people who have deferred, their choice.

I wouldn't. The reason being that they may drop out of school early at the other end, and they'll have missed a whole year at school. I couldn't take that risk.

The majority of my son's age group that had birthdays at the end/start of the year (Scotland) deferred. I'm not aware of a single child of that group who that has left. If anything, they have done better in the recent exams than the younger age group

I'm in Wales where children tend to start (half days) the term after their third birthday and then attend full-time the term after their fourth birthday. So your son would have already been in school full-time since Christmas here!

So even within the UK the systems are very different. Your friend was rude to criticise your choice - completely reasonable for her to decide that deferring starting school for her son was the right choice but unreasonable of her to suggest that was right for all children.

I only wish that what you say about Wales were true, disappointed. You're right that the eyfs extends up to year 2 here (there is no KS1), so the curriculum supposedly stays more play based but in reality my experience is that it's not really play based and actually quite formal. Because they still have national tests at the end of year 2 (and yearly thereafter) in English, Welsh and Maths, the teaching is quite geared to those. It's certainly not a Scandinavian model. Ds spent a term in an English school and it was actually less formal than dd's current Welsh school.

The timings are as England, cut off the same and Compulsory School Age the same. The new admissions code won't apply to Wales but let's hope they follow suit.

I have two Jan birthday DCs in Scotland. My Ds wasn't allowed to defer in the area we lived in so had to go to school at 4.5. He wasn't ready (went on to be diagnosed with ASD at 9). We moved regions and he went back into P1 the following year. He did well and has just left school at 18.5.

My Dd was more ready and has just started 6th year as Dep. Head Girl with 5 As in her Highers. It did her no harm to start young, but I'm very glad I had the opportunity for my boy to start again when he was more ready.

Not all of Wales sticklebrick - here they start part time the Sept after they turn 3, full time the Sept after they turn 4. They don't legally have to atte d full time (or at all) until the term after they turn 5 in any part of England or Wales.

My DD went to nursery full time the sept after she turned 3.

I don't get the fear of starting school at 4. Both mine were bored at nursery and itching to start at 4, and would have been happier 6 months to a year earlier. Every child is different, and I think 4 is about right.

My niece started school in the Aug and didn't turn 5 til Feb. As Feb/Mar is the cut off she's always been youngest in her class. Some of her classmates are the best part of a year older than her but it's made no difference she's excelled at school since P1. She'd have been bored stiff doing another year at nursery but obviously children are all different.

It's definitely rude to criticise someone's choice

It depends on what a child does in school at four. Having to meet phonics and numeracy targets at four makes for a school environment that would cause me to run for the hills, while other setups such as Montessori or a more Scandinavian approach would attract me.

YANBU to be annoyed at your friend's judgemental attitude.

Having said that, I like the Scottish flexibility and don't understand the rigidity of the English system. I'm in Glasgow and know loads of kids who've deferred, both at ds' primary school and at our rugby club (I do registration so I know both their age and what school year they are in) - from all sorts of different demographics. In fact, I'd go as far as to say that the majority of Jan/Feb birthday kids deferred (and a few earlier) - and the one kid I know with a February birthday, his mother acknowledges she made a mistake in not deferring him.

And in defence of Scottish education and the Curriculum for Excellence: ds is now in S4 and I am more than happy with the way his education is progressing. And his primary school was "doing" CfE long before it came into existence (lots of team teaching and cross-fertilisation, mainly because of the very high proportion of "English as an Additional Language" pupils), so their teaching approach barely changed when CfE was implemented.

Rose - it was the Labour government in 2004 who started the whole process for the design and rolling out of CfE.
And just because some Secondary schools aren't summatively testing pupils until S3 doesn't mean others aren't.
If memory serves the policy documents stated something like "there should be no need to test before S3" or words to that effect. So that's a bit different to a direct order not to test.
Every school I've taught in has had topic tests for S1 and S2 as well as summer tests in S3 to determine whether they are Nat4 or Nat5 level.

Salmotrutta - ds has had very low key tests since S1 and had more "real" tests at the end of S3: in his case, not so much to for Nat 5 v Nat 4 as he's already well in to the Nat 5 curriculum but to ensure that he had his Nat 4s "in the bag" He's also going to end S4 with an "extra" Nat 4 in RME.

To be honest, I've not taken much direct interest in what he's doing: I know he's on course in all his subjects and the teachers have high expectations. He's currently upstairs doing his English homework which will form part of his portfolio.

Strike that: he's now doing French homework as he's come to ask me for some help

Yes. I have been "doing" ACE since its inception. I was even involved in some of the early research into the methodology. However, teaching methodology (AFL) and curricular are two different things.

Yes - we summatively test pupils. Of course we do. However, the advantages (as a parent) of external testing of pupils is that teaching weaknesses can be exposed and dealt with. The problem with low expectations of teachers is that it then produces pupils who are not challenged. The lovely middle class parents keep their children on track, the disadvantaged are lost.

Also, Salmontrutta isn't it a weakness in the system that some schools can choose not to report on their pupils' progress? That there is no way of checking up? Are you absolutely convinced of the wonder and brilliance of all your children's teachers - or would you like a bit of reassurance from an external body?