Why is the cut off age for starting school different in England?

[QuietBatperson15]

There is a thread just now about deferring summer born children who would be starting school after just turning 4.

I live in Scotland and the cut off is February rather than August. So the oldest children in the year will be around 5.5 years old (March born) and the youngest will be 4.5 years old (February born). I know a couple of February born children who have/will be deferred because they could do with that extra year to catch up.

This seems a bit better than starting straight after turning 4. Does anyone know why it is different in England? Had a quick Google and didn't see anything, sorry if this is a really daft question!

Not a daft question at all, just a different system. And another one of a million things that give the lie to the notion that everything we do is controlled from Brussels...

Years ago the children started in reception in the term they turned 5,

i.e. there were three intakes each year, but that meant the youngest ones only had a term before they moved up to Y1. As we got better at assessment and data analysis it became clear that many of those children were struggling to catch up years later, so it was decided to have just the one.

School year is different as well.
School in England is September to almost end of July.
They have different curriculums.
And younger children in Scotland can be deferred too, well, they used to be able to. My friend was - but that was over 30 years ago. :)

Just saw I didn't actually answer your August/February question! I honestly think it's just arbitrary which country picked which date. Of course, the earlier they start, the sooner benefit claiming mothers can be pressured back into work. 🧐

Surely it’s irrelevant when the school year starts?

Thanks for the responses. Wondered if it might just be down to the differences in curriculum.

Also appreciate that the school year starts a bit later in England but only by a couple of weeks really. My son started on 15th of august having just turned 5. If we lived in England he would have started a year earlier at 4 years + 3 weeks and can't imagine him being ready then!

It would be interesting to see if there has been any research to show if that extra 6m does make a difference for the youngest as some of the biggest challenges starting school seem to be social and self-care.

I always assumed the school entry thing is as early as possible to get people into work and paying taxes as early as possible.
All research and evidence from other countries on academic achievement and mental health point to starting school at 6 or 7 to be the most beneficial, so the pay off for organising it as the U.K. has must be financial?
The Scottish system is an improvement.

I assume the term dates are different due to harvests, as that is historically why schools have longer summer holidays, isn’t it?

It does seem strange to have the cut off date being the day before the new school year starts. But that was still certainly the case when I started school many years ago, as there was a boy whose birthday was 31st August in my year. I am sure he would have benefitted from deferring. I was a few days older than him but would have hated being deferred.

I expected that there would be a bit of a difference between P1 in Scotland and reception year in England, to account for the difference in age. My memory of P1 was of sitting at a desk all day from the start, and I thought reception was more akin to the preschool year at a Scottish school nursery.

However, my DC has started P1 this year, and it does seem quite relaxed and more about learning through play than I expected. He won't have an assigned desk until near the end of the school year, for example.

So I don't know!

One of the issues in England of starting school at say 6 or 7, is that there are a higher proportion of families than in other countries, that for a variety of reasons don’t prioritise their child’s development. You read about children not knowing what a book is, still wearing nappies (where no SEN involved), not using cutlery. I think Finland, where children don’t start formal education until they are 7, have the highest number of books per household in Europe or something like that. I think that is one of the reasons why pre schools are now allowed to take in 2 year olds (which originally started in deprived areas and also where it was felt it would be in the interests of the young child)

Doesn't the Scottish system mean that quite a few end up at university at 17? Certainly the January/February born ones that I know have domne that. That seems to be a disadvantage to me.

I might be being a bit thick, but surely it doesn’t make a difference when the school year starts as some kids will always have only just turned 4?

Or does the system in Scotland mean you start school in August/September only if your birthday is before the end of Feb, so even the youngest children will have been 4 for at least 5 months?

One of the issues in England of starting school at say 6 or 7, is that there are a higher proportion of families than in other countries, that for a variety of reasons don’t prioritise their child’s development.

I don't think this is the reason--in countries where the starting age is later, children are nearly always still spending time in group care prior to that. Kindergarten, daycare and so on. In fact, the starting age for these places is usually even earlier than 4.

School starts about a year younger in most English-speaking countries compared to elsewhere (5 is usual, as opposed to 6 or 7 in most other countries) partly because it takes longer to read and write English. In England, it starts at 4, partly I think because we were one of the first countries to mandate mass education, and there was a feeling of, we need the kids to get as many years of school under their belt as possible by the time they leave school at age 11 or whatever. For whatever reasons, the tradition has stuck.

I might be being a bit thick, but surely it doesn’t make a difference when the school year starts as some kids will always have only just turned 4?

No, not in Scotland. The age cutoff goes half-year to half-year. So the youngest kids will be 4.5, the oldest will be 5.5, at the start of the school year.

It is, however, true that someone has to be the youngest in relative terms, regardless of what system is used.

I think part of the issue is that childcare is so expensive in this country, with hardly any state subsidy. Even Sure Start was stripped in the name of austerity.

And another issue is the complexity and inconsistency of English spelling, leading to complications with children learning to read and write, complexities not faced by learners in Finnish, say, which is completely phonetic.

And our curriculum expects children to be fluent readers and writers by age 6 when children in other countries are still a year off even starting school - but they have government subsidised high quality childcare.

Our children spend that year between age 6 and 7 acquiring more of our much broader vocabulary (more words than any other language, ever) and being led through the 'code overlaps' of pronunciation and spelling, i.e. how the same combination of letters can represent different sounds in different words likewise the same sound needs different spellings depending on the word it is in.

Sorry, you can probably tell this is my specialist area!. 😊

And of course we could have rationalised English spelling at any point in the last 200 or 300 years but the will has never been there. If I were PM we'd be starting on that, but I'm not. We would eliminate much illiteracy and a good chunk of dyslexia at a stroke, but can you imagi e the fuss over which accent would dominate?

Doesn't the Scottish system mean that quite a few end up at university at 17? Certainly the January/February born ones that I know have done that. That seems to be a disadvantage to me

I started Uni age 16 (turned 17 shortly after). Didnt stop me getting into pubs and clubs though!

In Scotland children would have turned 4 by the end of February in order to start school the following August so the youngest starter would be nearly 4 and a half. You are guaranteed a deferral for January and February birthdays (but can try for deferral for earlier birthdays too) so they could start school at nearly 5 and a half

In Scandinavia being a stay at home parent is unusual. While kids may start school at 7 they go to pre-school from 1-2 years old. That’s why Scandinavia have later starts that work. In India kids also start school at 6/7 and with stay at home parents but there are often social penalties for not ensuring your child is potty trained by 1-1.5 / eating by 2/ and going into school without knowing how to read. An Indian mum (and it’s usually the mum who stays at home) is considered a failure if she doesn’t ensure their child can take care of themselves by 6/7.

Another Scot here who started uni a few months before turning 17, and certainly never considered it a disadvantage! (A standard BSc is 4 years in Scotland rather than 3, so it evens out in the end.)

pixie and french me too- started at 16, graduated with honours at 20. No disadvantage here.

My DS3 is a February birthday and there was no doubt in my mind that we would defer him, so he started at 5.5. DS1 was 5 just as he started and was fine but DS2 is a Nov birthday so was only 4.5 and we really saw how he struggled socially (not academically). He disliked school for P1 but flourished and loved it from P2 onwards because he was ready emotionally and socially. If he'd been only just 4 ( like the English system) I would have hated it and been very distressed for him.

Other PP are completely correct that we need good quality, government kindergarten for ages 3-7 to facilitate formal schooling at 7. It is the number one solution to many, many social issues but not one government has had the foresight or long term thinking to see this. Denmark's foresight 30 years ago is now paying for itself and turning profit with regard to less drain on the prison system/ NHS/ Social work.

There is so much more flexibility in the Scottish system. It means children are being taught more to their stage of development than the numbers on their birth certificate. Eldest DD was 4.5 when she started p1, youngest 5.5. This has suited both of them perfectly. A friend of DD2 was nearly 6.5 when he started p1 alongside her due to special circumstances. The February vs August cut off just gives the youngest a few extra months to be ready and has always been the case. Not sure the exact rationale behind it.

It is, however, true that someone has to be the youngest in relative terms, regardless of what system is used.

Some children are cut out for this though and others just aren't ready. That's why it's great that it's looked at on an individual basis