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..

Jw - no child has to start school until the term after 5th birthday. You just say you don't want them to ..

I think for some people there can be massive benefits to waiting that extra year.

My DNephew and DNiece were born in July, same time of year and same genes but my nephew is far more academic than my niece, who struggles. She would have definitely benefitted from waiting another year as she has the capacity and want to learn, she's just always playing catch up.

Mum - I'm not 'suggesting' anything! I am however stating that if one of my DSs in particular was in Y7, not 8, his ability and achievement would see him in the top or next-to-top set in most subjects and would have the added bonus of the feel-good factor that would bring..

I wish, wish there had been the possibility of holding my sons back a year at 4; not yours, talkin, nor yours, artandco, mine. It would have benefited my DC no end.

I must add though that though I haven't assumed that it'd be the young-in-year who'd all definitely be the ones who'd benefit from being held back alone; I also haven't made an assumptions that September borns are troublemakers ...

I haven't suggested DC are moved up or down a year, 'once in school'. I was merely asking what others had heard about this proposal which came to my attention yesterday.

I haven't suggested, and nor has 'the policy'- that all DC should be held back a year otherwise all that would happen is that everyone would be doing the same stuff 'a year later' thus the less mature and/or younger ones would still be 'competing' with DC maybe up to 11 3/4 months older than themselves, at 4.

I haven't 'made any assumptions' whatsoever!

It all boils down to the fact that the inflexible one-size-fits-all school starting age in the UK has had the effect of disadvantaging some DC as evidenced by the fact Oxbridge contains a disproportionate number of autumn born DC.

In saying that unis might 'look down' on DC who started a year later; seeing as now no allowance is made for age-in-year in GCSE or A level results, i.e. the assumption is made that by the age of 15-16, age bias has been ironed out, why would they suddenly care if the applying DC was 18 or 19? (Or more likely, still very much 18 as they turn 19 in August??).

My DS1 is, as we speak finishing a GCSE exam in chemistry. He's 14.

I would hope that new legislation will come along that recognises that at the end of the day, you want an education system that meets the needs of its pupils, which might include allowing DC a few months more maturity in order to be able to make better use of education.

May isnt that young though, july or august yes

It could also be that being the youngest and being pushed more from a young age helps you achieve more. If Tansie's son had been in the year below maybe he would have just been average for that class. He wouldn't necessarily be top of the class because he would only have been taught the same as everyone else. He wouldn't know what he knows now AND be in a lower year.

You do not have to send your child to school until he/she is 5, but when you do, he/she will be put into the already established class that they would have joined at 4, rather than being kept back a year.

It is very unusual for a child to be held back in this country.

This is what we were told by our LA when we considered deferring DD's place until her 5th birthday.

May isn't particularly young though - I'd describe Sep - Nov as old, Dec to May as mid year and June - August as young. (I have an end May boy.)

Yes - your son would be doing better if he was in Y7 - but he'd be doing even better if he was in Y2 - why not just keep him back until then? Also he wouldn't be doing as well as you'd think as he'd have had a year less in education.

There will always be an eldest in a class and always be a youngest. If parents had a completely free choice then you'd get parents of older and older children holding back in the hope of giving their child an advantage.

If being the eldest really does impact Oxbridge likelihood (and I'm an End August Oxbridge graduate) then all that means is their will be loads more kids with pushy middle class parents there - and quite frankly there are more than enough of them already.

FWIW I have found being the youngest a distinct advantage in my adult life. Had I been a few days younger I would have had to pay tuition fees - instead I got a grant. And, once graduated I had an extra year to build my career in before I got to 29 and started wanting children.

There is a report by the IFS that details a large scale study into this issue. If anyone is interested in reading this rather than the usual Mumsnet anecdotes please google.

It is always worth challenging your Local Authority if you wish your child to start reception at age 5. Plenty of people have done this successfully, although it has taken some serious balls in some cases. Hampshire is the LA that appear to be the most flexible. This was driven by a court case that found in favour of the parent.

" top or next-to-top set in most subjects and would have the added bonus of the feel-good factor that would bring.."

Not if all the June, July and august birthdays in his year had stayed down with him. And what about the "feel bad" factor for those children he was now with who were 12 or more months younger?

You have always been able to defer starting school until the term after their 5th birthday. For August born DS this would have deferred his start for a year. The thing is, he then would have fitted back in with his cohort in year 1 having missed reception.

All this fuss about school age start
FFS
other countries start kids in structured nursery MUCH earlier than the UK, they just do not call it school.
There will ALWAYS be the youngest in a year group
and parents are sometimes the WORST judge of their child's potential

by year 10 they are ALL hulking teens

I live in Scotland & was able to defer my DS, born prematurely & who made it into a school year he should never be in.

Yes, we could have kept him back till he was 5, however our local authority would not have provided funding for this additional year ie the 12.5 hours funding would have been denied & we would have had to pay for private nursery at the cost of £50 per day.

So we applied, provided evidence & were awarded another year's funding.

It would have been unfair all round for him, his teacher , fellow pupils & us if he'd had to go.

I'm so glad he was able to stay back - he has really flourished. & is now on a level playing field with his peers.

My DS is August born. We really, really struggled for the first few months. He is finally settled, but he is much younger than his peers and it is really noticeable at this age he's very sensitive and sometimes gets upset by the older ones and he tries to prove himself AT 4! It drives me crazy. He was too young. He's in the bottom set for reading and writing. He has done extremely well with his reading and writing since starting so I have no worries yet he compares himself to his class mates.

They should never start school at 4!! When we looked around the school DS had just turned 3 he still had a dummy FFS. He was definitely not ready.

No you heard wrongly ... parents of children born between April and August can request that their child starts school a year later.

www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/elements/2013/09/youngest-kid-smartest-kid.html

www.slate.com/articles/double_x/the_kids/2013/09/academic_redshirting_what_does_the_research_say_about_delaying_kindergarten.html

"In 2006, researchers at the University of Texas at Austin and the University of Southern California analyzed national data collected over many years from 15,000 26-year-olds. They compared what became of kids who had been redshirted to what became of kids who had been young for their class but not redshirted. They found that the redshirted kids performed worse on 10th-grade tests, were twice as likely to drop out of school, and were less likely to graduate from college; the only advantage to redshirting was that redshirted kids were marginally more likely to play varsity sports in high school."

madrigals
so, move the cutoff, make a different group do worse
and OPs oxbridge stats were comprehensively debunked

The IFS report, as mentioned earlier, is very much worth a read. It is reality, a very robust study (wish I could link).

I'm not due the US examples are applicable as they don't start so young.

It is not just about academic outcomes too.

One study found that August born children are far more likely to b misdiagnosed with a mental illness, or need a SEN statement. Teachers are not able, in those cases, to differentiate immaturity from a SEN. Imagine how that for tails a teenage existence in terms of self esteem.

This is not just about reading and writing!

I'm so glad I live in Scotland. Deferring was definitely the right decision for my DS. DD however is more than ready to go to school. She would have been fine a year ago. It's great to have that flexibility to allow for individual children's needs.

Marking spot.

"One study found that August born children are far more likely to b misdiagnosed with a mental illness, or need a SEN statement."

I guess that could change into June children then (shrug). At least for the middle class kids who are aware of the risks. There's nothing special about August, someone will always be the youngest. June children can have that honour for a while.

What about parents who don't realise the disadvantages of starting when not ready? What about parents who rely on school as a form of childcare so need the child to go, or parents who want to see less of their children (obviously last case suggests bigger problems than school start age, but also presents a double whammy of disadvantages). The supposed flexibility-on-request skews things in favour of parents who can afford and accommodate a late-starting child.

I know a lot of people who got to redshirt their kids (normal here, even for kids with birthdays only 2 days after the official cut off -- that's AFTER not before). I don't like at all the social inequities the so-called flexibility creates. There's also reasonable research to show that it doesn't achieve half the benefits it's supposed to.