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..

It's just some random person's university essay but it articulates fairly well the problems that redshirting can create (and why the pressures exist to cause it).

You don't get to put off starting school for a year as shockers and somebody else said, if you go down this route your child will miss out on reception year and get placed straight into Yr1.

Reception year is quite important imo and they start the building blocks of phonics, handwriting, reading etc and then up the pace in Yr1. My DS really struggled with the transition to Yr1 and only now is starting to thrive as Yr1 comes to a close despite being an autumn child. I do shudder thinking how he'd have coped if he'd never done his reception year and been put straight into that Yr1 environment. My DD is a late May baby but i'll still have her starting school when she's just over 4 for the above reasons

Madrigals, if all three of those have to agree then the system is not "fully flexible" - it sounds like a good system though.

I live in Scotland and my daughter is the youngest in the class. I have to say that I HATE the deferral system. There is an age gap of FIFTEEN months between the youngest and oldest in the other P1 class in her year, and ten months in her class. Someone will always have to be the youngest and at the moment my daughter is coping fine, however I know others are not doing so well as they are trying to keep up with children so much older than them.

Sorry 12 months in my daughters class.

Tansie, You just described my son, even now in year 10, I would love to defer him a year.

My July born daughter (now in y4) started reception in January as she was the last intake of children in the system where they had a September and a January intake. The younger children integrated into the class really well and by the end of the year I wouldn't have known which children had done an extra term (and were 10 months older than my daughter). I think it's unfair to assume that all the autumn born kids will thrive and the summer born kids struggle. In dd2's class a girl born on August 28th is one of the brightest kids in the class, yet people would assume she is not ready for school.

"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 am in scotland. i deferred my son's shool entry, he was 5 and a half when he started. He is older than some of the children in his class by more than a year. There were 3 children in his year who were deferred. I personally know a couple of Mums who didn't defer and wish they had. Often that realisation doesm't come until going to secondary unfortunately.

Yes, but the mums who wished they had deferred often do so because they are comparing their children against those who were! That's the problem with it. I have no doubt that it is beneficial for those who are deferred, but what about those at the other end of the age range? As I said someone alway will have to be the youngest, and by deferring all you are doing is moving the problem to somebody else's child.

DD2 is late August born. She is academically the top child in her year (Y6). Has been since the day she started school. Yet until they know her, people (badly briefed supply teachers) always assume that because she's so tiny (she is smaller than some of the Y4s) she must be struggling and sitting on the top table either for a joke or because she is super naughty. She would have done better being put UP a year (she was being taught with Y6s for maths and literacy when she was in Y4) than being deferred. She will be going to a school in September which does all GCSEs in Y10. So she'll be 14 when she sits them (and possibly 14 when she gets the results too, depending on what day of the week her birthday falls that year) - as was DD1. It was fine.

Both my DDs have SEN - dyspraxia - so I am more than aware of how difficult school can be when you are facing challenges - but to force them to defer a year for nothing other than the date of their birth and to ASSUME they need the artificial help of being kept down a year so they can look clever is just insulting really.

Talkin - many kids may be hulking teens in Y10. DD1 wasn't though! And DD2 would have to grow some between now and then (and I don't expect it at all). DS on the other hand is a hulking teen in Y9. :(

clux I agree- not all children are the same. Some younger children are more than ready, others may not be. It depends on the emotional, social and intellectual development which varies amongs children.

Here in Scotland of those children in tghe younger 2 months eligible for deferement 47% of the children were deferred. The most common resaons given bu the parents were the children were "not ready" or "too young".
That still means half of those younger children do go to school in this younger group.

In Scotland we have a 28th Feb cut off Birthday wise. Jan /Feb children are granted extra pre-school nursery if deferred, but all children born between Sept- Feb are automatically eligible for deferement. My son is a Nov birthday and I deferred. Sept- Dec children may not get the funding for a second year at nursey if LA deems them ready for school.
You can get around this by sending them only for one year pre-school as I did.

Our headteacher made the process very easy for us.
He told me " I have never seen deferement ever being the wrong decision- but I have seen non- deferement being the wrong decision"

Sorry, but I havent read the whole thread. We live in the Netherlands, and children MAY start school on their 4th birthday, but not compulsory until 5. Every child starts on their fourth birthday usually, regardless of when it is during the term. this is the 0 group. The kids Are collected and start in Group 1 in September. The first two years are mixed. There are no formal lessons, just social skills and number and letter recognition. Real lessons begin at 6 years. also from what I gather (not at that stage yet) there are differenr high schools for different types of education and children are. placed based on ability, not in competition with other children, meaning you get he education that suits you best. That might be one of the reasons that dutch children are some of the happiest in the word (according to the UN or some other such organisation).

scralett- but children vary- that's the point. Some younger children are more than ready for school and sail away, but others don't. I have seen some non- deferred children do brilliantly at school, coping well with academically and emotionally, but some at that age are not ready for school.
You had a choice, and you made the right decision for your child. Deferement just gives some flexibility into the system. Children mature at different rates.Don't you think an element of choice is a good thing?
A choice that you did exercise.

Has anyone pointed the advantage in sport of being older.

This has been proved, American teams are mostly made up of Autumn born players. The older ones appear best, so they get picked for teams and get the extra training, by the time younger ones catch up the teams and skilled players are all in place so they miss out.

scarlett- remember too that of all the children who fall into the youngest two months only 47% are deferred- wich means 53% are not- so that's hardly shifting the problem onto the next youngest child. Not all parents want deferement.

Makemineapintofrioja that's roughly the same as in England - children MAY start school at age 4 but compulsory education (doesn't have to be in school) starts from term after 5th birthday.

doziedoozie the "redshirting" term comes from sport and interestingly the evidence is that the effect does not seem to exist for football, volleyball, and basketball or any women’s sports.

It is shifting the problem onto younger children if 25% off the class (as in our situation) have been deferred. They are way way ahead of where the youngest are. I personally don't let it bother me as I know that they are much older and if were anywhere else in the UK they would be in P2, but I know some of the children do find it hard as the teacher is setting work beyond many just turned five year olds. For example, we have a weekly spelling test, I am not sure those in reception in England of the same age are doing that. As I say it is fine for those that have turned six, not so much for those just five. And while it is easy to say the teacher should differentiate the work, is it fair to stigmatise the younger ones for not being able to do the same as the six and a half year olds?

In the circles in which I move, redshirt has an entirely different meaning.

Do you think it means "cannon fodder", Herc?

I know what it means. And cannons aren't really a big feature. Unless they are laser ones.

Although I do have some sympathy for John Locke's summation of the syndrome 'sounds like a piss poor captain to me'.