Not to send my child to reception year?

[IzzyPopp]

It is not compulsory in this country to start primary school until 5 year old (I find even that is early) but children even start at the age of 4 in reception.

How important is the reception and what is taught, given it is not compulsory to start until the child turns 5.

And then once the child turns 5 they must start the term after their fifth birthday, not in the following September after they turned 5, which is the beginning of school year. What is taught in that year given it is ok for the child to miss the beginning of that school year?

Do people in general send their kids to reception at 4 or do they wait till 5? Or does it vary quite a bit?

This.

@IzzyPopp the issue with the government having the "term after they turn 5" as the starting age (so technically a child could start halfway through the academic year) is it's outdated now as almost all schools only do September intake.
It's an old hangover from years ago.
It's rare for it to happen now.

Keep in mind that the admissions authority (this could be the LA or a individual school depending on type of school) might not be willing to agree to deferred entry and hold a place for a child starting later. So that could be an issue if your preferred school is full and oversubscribed.

My eldest was born in the last week of August, and was only just 4 when she started - we thought long and hard over whether to delay. We decided to start her with everyone else in September of her ‘proper’ Reception year instead of skipping it and going into year 1 a year later - I’m happy we did. It was mostly play-based and she loved it. The days were shorter than her nursery days, so although we went from 4 days at nursery to full time at school she coped fine.

I think she would have had a harder time trying to catch up on the phonics and maths covered in the reception year if she had skipped it and started in Year 1 - I wouldn’t have wanted that affecting her confidence given she’s already the youngest, so playing catch-up developmentally vs some of the older ones. It’s such a tough one though - she did seem very tiny when she started.

In some areas you can delay starting by a year for summer borns, and go into reception a year later (rather than skipping) but it’s definitely not a given.

Age is an irrelevance. My daughter started in September after she was 4 in May, and my son in September after he was 4 the previous November. She settled much more quickly. He had a lot of energy to burn off every day, and it was real effort for him to "keep it all in". They'd both done a year of half days at a state nursery, so the first of the two years of the Foundation stage. All play-led. Children learn a lot through play.

@Hillarious
Age is not an irrelevance. There have been multiple studies which have proven that summerborn children do worse not just at school but throughout their lives .

Thanks, @Grasshopper7. As an August baby, I'll take your comments on board.

Of course age isn’t an irrelevance. Just because you or your kid were fine doesn’t discount the studies which look at the broader data.

You're right that it's ridiculous but as a pp said, it's a hangover from the past. I imagine 95%+ join in September in their correct school year so it's not been a priority to change.