5 year olds at school count, 4 year olds don't

[KinderWild]

Can anyone help me understand the logic of the under 5 cut off in the regulations for lockdown 2.

My son is 5 and an only child. He is at school with plenty of 4 year olds. As he is 5 he counts in the numbers and cannot come out for a walk with me plus my sister. His friend at school who is 4 can go out for a walk with his mum and her sister.

My son has also just lost his place in his football class which is continuing under the guise of being a parent and child class but can only cater for the under 5s. He went with two of his buds and we e been told the class change is permenant and he won't be allowed to rejoin the class when lockdown ends.

I know this guidance is just how it is, but I can't figure why it didn't distinguish between kids in school and kids not in school, rather than picking aged 5. Surely the issue is that kids in school are more likely to have more contacts and it makes no difference if they are aged 4 or 5.

Thanks if you made it to the end. I know this is a champagne problem and we all need to do our bit. Parenting an only child who has been lonely during lockdown has been really hard and heartbreaking at times. I am currently avoiding telling him there won't be any football anymore, well at least not with his mates.

It is hard they have to measure some way.
At this point there are only a couple of months of children in school who are 5.
Summer born children often have lots of other disadvantages

School is only compulsory from after the term in which the child turns five. That's probably why.

There has to be a cut-off somewhere and they have probably have picked under 5s as they tend to be classed separately in early year’s settings (there are lots of holiday clubs that only take over 5s for example) but also it is compulsory school age so a neat proxy. There are lots of things to moan about but you’re effectively annoyed because some 4 year olds in school have access to things that your 5 year old doesn’t. You’d be taking away freedoms from them rather than gaining anything for yourself by a change to say pre-school age and below.

Yes, I agree that it's not a huge problem but also that if they'd given it 5 minutes thought they would have made it preschool/school age instead.

They probably don't distinguish by school/not school because giving a date of birth is easy and a very standard measure.

There has to be a solid cut off or you get a NY Metro scenario with parents giving their 10yr olds piggy backs as an excuse not to count in numbers "because they're not mobile".

It seems ridiculous on the surface but when you're the one making and enforcing the rules you need something tangible to enforce.

I thought the point of the exception was to enable parents who might otherwise not have social contact due to being home all day with a child to have social contact.

I have a feeling the U5 football class isn't operating within the rules either.

The rationale for this was to help parents with pre-school children at home all day. If your child is at school you're not on their own with them all day, and they get the opportunity to socialise with other children. The fact that some 4 year olds who go to school can take advantage of this rule is just lucky for them really. Rules can't cater for everyone. If it had been "school age" then younger children who'd deferred school places would be unfairly differentiated against.

I thought it was preschoolers so kids not at school yet.

So I would take that to mean the 4 year olds who are at school do count as a person when socialising

It's definitely under 5s that's the wording. I understand about the statutory school age and not including those who could be at school hence making the distinction between those going to school and those not.

I don't think the football club is complying either.

As I've said it's really tough dealing with an only child who is very lonely.

It was preschool, it did state under 5s but it really isn't that school attending 4yos can and 5yos can't!! It's to stop parents of preschool children being totally isolated from other adults. The parent of the school aged child can go for a walk with another adult while their child is in school in theory (or not, as we're at work )

It's 12 here - but as said there has to be a cut off somewhere. In school it's a year group cut off. Primary 1 and 2 come under early years and no masks required at any point. There could be younger children in primary 3 due to deferrals. It's just the way it works!

I understand the rationale. It makes sense.
However
Take your boy out on a walk with you and your sister.
(Sits and waits for mumsnet to tell me its people like me that are the reason lock downs happen.)

Thanks @Twattergy this is where my head is at. It may sound ridiculous to some but the permenant loss of his place at football has broken the camels back. I've complied with everything to date.

It does penalise only children and especially mothers whose partners work all hours so are unable to form a bubble. It's ridiculous that I can meet with my sister and my preschool nephew with my baby and that's fine but if I take my 5 year old it's illegal.

The rules have shat all over children all the way through and utterly disregarded their social needs and right to a family life. Padlocking playgrounds, rule of six not taking into account that children need supervision, letting adults play golf months before children's sports and activities could meet, depriving them of nearly half a school year of education and mixing.

While you can just take your 5 year old for a walk with your sister and no one will blink, (just do it) unfortunately the football club has to comply as they are responsible to their governing body. It's rubbish that it's a long term change but there is the possibilty of this situation recurring and disrupting the 5 year olds again so it is simpler to just be classed as a pre-school group.

But the others will gradually lose theirs too.
Nursery going children are just as much a risk. Imo toddler groups should all have stopped it's 4 weeks. They manage over holidays.
Although it is a bit annoying similar to when a parent group started locally and initially said no older siblings but of course it was alright when thst lot started having them.

The point is so that women with a young child who are all alone can go and see someone in the daytime outside. The same rules apply for anyone with older children who have additional needs, or who have other caring responsibilities. It's only there to stop those people from being cut off when they have no option but to stay with those they care for.

Your child has friends at school, that's why he's fine, because he already has lots of time to mix with his peers. School also gives you time when you can meet someone independently, even if it's only over lunchtime, so you're fine too. Lucky both of you.

I didn't know it said under 4s. Everyone I know is just treating it as just preschoolers. I have a 2 year old and have been on walks with friends/in-laws (just one at a time!) but wouldn't dream of doing it with my school attending 4 year old as he already gets so much social interaction at school.

I'm very happy that the rules are there to allow a parent with a young child or a child with additionally needs to go for a walk with someone else. I really feel for anyone that went through the first lockdown in isolation/without contact or support. And k actively supported the campaign for this exemption.

I can also still be sad that my child is struggling. Not all kids enjoy school.

And yes as a pp poster said it feels mad that it is illegal for me, my son and my sister to go for a walk.

Incidentally the football group have interpreted the rules wrongly. They can not open unless they are a parent & toddler support group.

Not enjoying school at 5 is a different issue entirely. Better not to conflate general child issues with covid issues, or you're ignoring the real problem for a moan. The handful of children I've known who really didn't like school that young, thrived when they moved to a different school that suited them better for some reason (more sports / more space / friends nearer home etc). It might just be that he's struggling to find his friends and settle as it's still really early days, but the teachers should be helping with that do talk to them and keep an eye on it.

it feels mad that it is illegal for me, my son and my sister to go for a walk.

But that's the thing with cut-offs. You have to make them somewhere. If you made the cut-off at age 5, then a parent of a 6 year old would be complaining it didn't help them. If you said it was ok for 2 adults and 1 child to meet, then those with 2 children would want to know why it wasn't ok for them as well. And so it goes on ...

It's a shame that your child is not enjoying school and it sounds like this is the actual problem. Have you spoken to his teacher to see if there is anything they can do to help your son settle in more?

Football group say they've had legal permission it definitely seems a bit off to me. But I don't want to get involved in questioning it with them!

@KinderWild

Football group say they've had legal permission it definitely seems a bit off to me. But I don't want to get involved in questioning it with them!

Yes, we are getting this a lot on a creative group I’m on. The problem is inconsistency between local councils who are not necessarily experts in law.

He has settled pretty well according to his teachers. There are still a fair few restrictions in place which should be lifted after Christmas - they don't get to play in the big field, controlled mixing of kids, no pe. He is an outdoors boy and the grounds and space is a major reason we choose the school. It's just it not available right now.he does have some friends. He does find the 5 days hard but I think that's the jump from nursery to school. I really don't think school is the problem. and I would absolutely tackle that head on if I thought it was.

We are usually a very social family and he is very extroverted. Perhaps saying school does not meet his social and physical needs fully is a better description. Again as I said at the start - I acknowledge in the grand scheme these are not major problems.