DID I hear right? That parents of 4 rising 5s can now DEFER school entry in England??

[Tansie]

HAS England joined the 21st century?

I am delighted if this is the case but also rather angry that my May born DSs have struggled throughout school, and will forever struggle whilst in academia to be measured against DC who are nearly 10 months older than themselves?

At 17 you may say: What does that matter now? to which I'd say 'because my DSs were, at 7, 'only just 'good enough' (2s at KS1 SATS); at 10-11, just 'OK (level 4s with the odd 5 at KS2 SATS) then streamed and 'set' ever onwards.

I believe there is a statistic that shows that 70%-odd of Oxbridge entrants are Autumn born, thus I rest my case.

I look now at DS2; 13 years and 2 weeks, school prize for application, contribustion, effort, 'joining in' etc etc- but academically just 'OK' and think : IF he were at the end of Y7, not 8, he'd be in the top sets for most things. He'd be feeling bloody good about himself, his achievements etc etc. He'd be 'aiming high' as his results would demonstrate that he 'was capable'... however, he knows he's 'struggling' academically as he just doesn't have the maturity to absorb some of what's being taught.

Which wouldn't of course be useful for the boys in their 'correct' school year with non-tiger parents barely keeping up with a much higher 'best' to aim at, I guess..

Its hard , I know, my DS born end of August . Maturity wise, catching up?!! But am lucky that he is doing well. Born one week later would have been even better, i'm sure. But can't change it.
You are correct, DH tells me that government don't know how it will work as yet because it's a logistical nightmare for schools re: funding is based on age.
Scandinavia countries agree age matters when starting academic school. Our system differs, sometimes not always for the better.

And start reception, or start year 1?

I think 4 is way too early to start school anyway full time and unnecessary.

Watching with interest!

Your OP makes me so glad I am in Scotland.

DD is 4 in 3 weeks and if she had to go to school this year...well, I just can't picture it at all. She is still a baby!

I hope you're right and it will be changed, it seems a little kinder.

No, you didn't hear right (sorry).

It has always been the case that pupils can be placed outside their age cohort.

All this refers to is that LAs cannot have a blanket policy, and that all requests must be considered individually. It does not mean that it will become any easier to secure. So in the absence of significant evidence that a child has a specific issue that will be solved only by out of year education, it will make no actual difference.

I would still love my 8yo July born DD to move down a year.

DD went into a brilliant reception class, where she really did learn through play. Then when she had just turned 5yo she was expected to sit at a table all day. January born DS was in heaven sitting at a table reading and writing in Y1, but for DD it was just....wrong.

We live in scandinavia so DD1 starts school this year, turning 6. School still won't be compulsory for her till next year though. On the other hand she has been in state-funded preschool education since she was two and a half where her skills and learning have been measured against national standards.
IMO the issue is the level of target that is set, not that targets exist. Don't be fooled into thinking that scandi schools are just free-play in the forest! Learning goals are softer here but they certainly exist and there is little scope to fall outside the guidelines.
And there will always be a cut off point where one year starts and another ends. 24hours difference can mean a whole academic year whether you set the timer jan-dec or sep-aug.

How on earth are there children ten months older than a May born child in a class? Eight months max, surely?

The last 12 years would have been so different if August born DS1 was a year behind.

May born DS2 has been fine, but would have been better a year behind. Interestingly in reception the teacher said, that unusually more than half
the kids were summer born so they would be taking it slowly!!

I'm not sure that I understand how this will change anything, surely then instead of July and August babies being the youngest an disadvantaged it will just move the goal posts so July and August are the oldest in the class and then May and June babies will be the youngest and disadvantaged, so their parents will complain and get it moved so then their children will be oldest and April and May Borthdays will then become the youngest and so on?!?!
Or if only some parents defer then you are going to potentially have an 18 month age gap between oldest and youngest in class making even more of a gulf?!!!
I say this with a dd who's birthday is in the summer holidays, she is doing really well at school and better than some people almost a year older than her.
The only way would be to have twice as many year groups in 6 month ranges

It won't necessarily move the goal posts too much we have the option to defer Jan/Feb born kids in Scotland and it isn't taken up by everyone only those who feel there kids aren't mature enough. You don't really get Dec/Nov parents complaining.

I am rather surprised the OP thinks May born children in England need special consideration, unless she thinks the minimum age should be 4.5 like in Scotland.

I do think the blanket policy by English councils is wrong, there lack of flexibility has made it such a massive issue.

On the Oxbridge entry being 70% Autumn, where on earth have you got that from?

Having looked at official numbers by birth month in 2012, September to December gives you almost exactly 36%. May to August gives 30%, and January to April has 34%. Yes, a statistically significal increase, but nothing like what you said. It should be 33.3% each.

Having been at Oxford, yes, I do think there seems to be a skew in Autumn children-but nothing like that amount. BUT a fair number of theose Autumn children have been moved up a year, so actually are younger than the summer borns.

If I think of my closest group of 10 friends from Oxford: We have 2 summer born, 3 Spring born, 5 autumn born-of whom 2 were a year ahead. And thinking about it, one of the other autumn borns was Scotland which has a different entry system.

I'm not sure that a year makes the difference between struggling academically and being in all the top sets. For example I've a dd in year 8 at a comprehensive. The top set of maths (set across half the year) ended with a range of 6a-7a in year 7. The bottom set in year 8 are achieving level 5s and below. There are similar results in English and Science.

I wonder whether parental expectation does effect the summer borns also. I've heard many times a parent saying something along the lines of "he's keeping well up with the middle of the class. Which is brilliant as he's with children a year older than him" or "she's in the bottom groups because she's a summer born".
Now the thing is, with an August born, there may be children nearly a year older-but actually the majority aren't. Do parents perhaps push the summer borns less, feel the child doesn't need to work hard because they can't compete. Would be interesting to find out?

What I'd like to see is real international research on this. What happens in countries where there is a choice? Does it eliminate the autumn/summer effect? Does it cause other problems?
(for example one friend in USA had the issue that people wanted their girls to appear academic-so sent them at the youngest age possible, and the boys to appear sporty, so sent them at the oldest age possible, so they had a class full of 4yo girls and 7yo boys which caused it's own problems)
If they can choose, is it best to leave it up to parents, or can the schools have a say? What if a child starts and is clearly not up to it? What about other things? Music/Sports/Socially/other things: do they get effected by being with children more than a year older/younger?
Would that also mean that if you moved areas with a child in year 4, you could then demand a place at a school for any of years 3,4 or 5? Or do you stick with the year you are start with?

Other issues that need consideration is age. I was at a school which had a few children out of year. For example I had a friend who was good at tennis. She played friendly matches for the school. But she couldn't play league matches because they were for under 15s (or whatever) and she was the year above. They were played during games lessons so she couldn't just play for the year above. There are other things similar-maths challenge for example, or when I was at primary there was an interprimary quiz, which again had an age limit on.

It's not as simple as all that.

Definitely not as simple as that. My Autumn born ds2 was bored witless when he started school, he would have been better had he been a summer born... I was summer born and the youngest in my year and didn't feel it was remotely a disadvantage when it came to getting into Oxford. My spring born ds1 was very advanced academically when he started school, but was not physically, socially or emotionally ready for the school environment. Personally, I think starting school at age 4 is a fairly bad idea for all children (including those who are ready for school but have to spend a year in a class with a large group of children who are not yet ready), not just for summer born children.

I think you need to get a grip Tansie. Perhaps you ds isn't as academic as you want him to be and you just need to face that fact. Your ds is 13 years old! When are you going to stop blaming the age factor and school entry for being the reason your ds hasn't achieved what you want him to achieve academically?

I support the deferral option but I think there comes a point when you need to be constructive in the way you support your dc. Continually blaming the school entry age is not the way to go when a dc is 13 years old.

L2s in KS1 SATS and L4s with the odd L5 at KS2 SATS is absolutely fine, surely?

I have summer born (end of June/July) dcs and yes I can see for one of them it might have been better if he'd not been one of the youngest in the class - but interestingly he is now closing the gap with his older classmates - and at the end of the day someone is always going to have to be the youngest, wherever you draw that line.

It's all rubbish tbh. Yes I think all kids should start at 5-6 rather than 4, but time of year really doesn't make that much difference.

Ds1 is June born
Ds2 born following August

If anything ds2 has always been ahead of ds1 for his age. I'm a July birthday, so is db. Dh is August. All three of us excelled at Cambridge despite others obv being months older.

If your child starts school say in sept 2014 they may be a few months behind. However after a few years they have all been taught the same thing at same time so no advantage. If say in sept 2018 they all start learning French the older ones will have no advantage, if they all start division in maths they all start same day

Like I said above my two are 14 months apart. As an example we recently got snakes and ladders. Neither had played before and both taught at same time how to play. They now play at Same level despite over a years gap . Ds1 had no advantage being older as they learnt together. Same with school

My ds is a July baby and has never struggled at school. He has an older sister and was desperate to go to school as soon as they would have him (and I was desperate for him
to go as he obv needed structure and a learning environment). He would have been bored to death if he wS one of the oldest in the year. The only disadvantage is sport because he is physically smaller than the older ones which makes a difference.

Tansie are you suggesting that all G&T children are September/October/November born? If that is the case my DSs school must buck the trend as does my DS.

A point to note is that age standardised scores are often given for academically selective schools so younger children are not disadvantaged. However, I've never heard of a situation whereby once in the school the DCs are then moved up or down a year depending on age. Some how the younger children seem to cope and produce outstanding results. I don't think you can safely assume that those who get the lowest results are all July/August/ very early September born.

What would be interesting is what the Universities would think when/if you DCs apply. I think they would be curious as to why they were a year below other children of the same age applying. When I was at school the only children that were moved down a year (which was very rare) were those who were struggling academically by quite a significant margin.

DS is late august and is high up in his cohort of 300
I'd have been GUTTED if he'd been held back a year : he'd have been bored out of his mind and we'd have had HUGE behaviour problems
(of the type that I often observe among children with birthdays in the first week of September)

TalkinPeace not all summer born children will be held back. The effort is to put choice into the mix. Some children are socially and emotionally immature and need this time. Others, would do just fine. My daughters were 11 weeks premature with complications born at the end of August. I fought and won a delay to their schooling - this took 10 months and a lot of time and effort. The hope that others do not have to do what we had to do to win a delay. A delay is not for everyone, but for some it is the right thing to do.

We spent their first 3 years in hospitals and due to ill health could not socialize as most children. I have an older son so I do know the difference...and yes, we read to them every day and did all the things we were told to do. They just weren't ready. They will start in September and it has been an amazing year. We have had a period of time without illness, have got to send them to nursery, to have one of them start to talk, to see them become little people without the pressure of dealing with school and all that goes with that.

My hope is that others will not have to go through what we had to. It is now a postcode lottery and the DfE needs to step up and clarify this issue.

They have always had this right. My august born ds1 started school the following year so he was 5+ 1 week when he joined reception.
There were others the same age who'd gone the previous year.
He is 23 this August though, so obviously things willhave changed over this time. However, it has certainly been done before, infact OP, during the 20th Century.

"July and August babies will not be allowed to stay back a year unless they have exceptional additional needs that can only be met in that way."

Sounds like a good change but should apply to May+June birthdays, too (since preemie babies do survive from 24 weeks sometimes).

What if in future deferring entry by one year gave a 70% greater chance of admission to Oxbridge. How can that possibly be fair, to be handicapped by choices your parents made when you were 4?

I know we can't eliminate most unfair things in life, but this is one inequity that could be prevented.

I'm strongly in favour of delayed entry for kids with relevant SN or premature birth, but not as a widely available option. DS is very immature with June birthday, might have benefited from later entry; still don't like it as a broad option.