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..

I've only heard of redshirting in relationship to US college sport not professional sportsmen and woment Madrigals

Scarletsmummy every parent in Scotland can defer, not just those with jan and feb birthdays, so if parents didn't want their child to potentially be a year younger than the eldest in the class then there was no need for them to be.

I can't understand how you think that an inflexible system would be better .

See, the 'biggie' for me is that yes, of course you can now ask for your immature (and this is what it's about, immaturity, not age) DC to be deferred but throughout their compulsory state school career, there is currently nothing preventing the school putting your DC back into their correct class-for-age; the DC who starts school at 5- straight into Y1. The 12 year old who starts secondary- straight into Y8. Which is one reason I believe why parenst are 'scared' to do it.

Interesting about the Head who said he'd seen DC who should have been deferred but who weren't, go on to 'fail'; but never saw a deferred DC live to regret that deferral.

I 'get' the idea that deferment might cause an admin nightmare for school funding but let's face it, in the full and very evident knowledge that this current year's school-starting cohort was seriously large, a real 'bulge', did the Education Authorities plan ahead to house all these Reception DC? No they did not; hence portakabins lining school playgrounds the length of the country.

For the record, DS1 is the second smallest boy in Y10, DS2 is the smallest boy in Y8. Nothing 'hulking' there.

Can someone link to the evidence that 'debunks the myth' that Oxbridge holds a disproportionate number of autumn borns?

My final aside: re the late-August who is top of the year, yet the smallest, who should be put up a year....

I was put up a year, I started GS aged 10 (I am December born). It was all fine and dandy for 3 or so years; then it all came apart. My bestie was 14 months older than me (though could have been up to 23 months older!), the other girls were getting periods, into boys, make-up, dating etc etc. I genuinely believe that whilst I did "OK" educationally, I would have done much better had I been in my correct year. I had to stay at the GS for 6th form as the local Tech wouldn't take a 15 year old; I wouldn't have been allowed to handle my own uni grant at I would have been 17 (I took a gap year for that reason!). Interestingly the other 3 girls in my year who went up a year early with me (different primaries) all feel exactly the same as I do. It wasn't in our best interests.

I too was put up a year for secondary school.
It is why I am so viscerally opposed to children being educated in other than their calendar year group.

Differences in maturity / ability should be handled by pastoral and setting, NOT by sticking the child in a different year group.

I went to university at 16. There was no issue with handling my own grant etc (and none for the many other students at my Cambridge college who were under 18). Most of my family have been accelerated in school (including my own children) and all are happy they were.

I don't think children should routinely be placed out of year, either above or below, but the option should not be excluded in exceptional cases. 20 years ago children were moved up more often than they are now, in many cases probably unnecessarily. Nowadays it is far rarer to be moved up or down but when there is strong consensus from ed psychs, schools etc that this is the best choice for the child then it should not be impossible. However I would have a lot of reservations about allowing parents of 4 year olds to make the choice to hold a child back (or indeed accelerate them) without assessment by ed psychs etc as it seems a lot of parents of summer borns would hold them back without strong reasons to do so.

My son started school age 4 years and six days.
Another lad in his year has significant health issues. The school dealt with them. That is what inclusive schools do. His birthday happened to be December.

Madrigals we were in the same position 3 years ago with ds. But his school has been brilliant at supporting him and now for his Year 2 SATS he's predicted to get above age related expectations for Reading and Maths and very nearly meeting age related expectations for Writing too. He could barely speak when he started school and his confidence outside of family / v close friends was very low.
Socially I don't think deferring him would have been right at all.

Ime small children change so fast. Mine are all summer born and I had concerns in one way or another about all of them coping. But they all did.

Having said that, statistically summer borns as a group under perform compared with their older peers. I think more work is still needed to address this. Not sure deferring tackles it though - someone will always be younger no matter what you do.

shoe I firmly believe that one of the reasons that summer borns underperform is that they have lower expectations made of them. At DD2's school, they split the kids according to age for the first few years. It was assumed the autumn borns would be higher achieving, due to their age.

Tansie - I wouldn't want my DD2 to be moved up a year (except in terms of the work she was given). When she goes to secondary, the whole cohort are ' moved up a year' (superselective GS) and that's a much better solution. Pulling her out of class to be taught with the older kids for the academic subjects in previous years wasn't doing her any favours really. She needed a social peer group and an academic one, at her primary school she could have one or the other but not both. At the GS she will have both and hopefully it will work better. Maybe she will be at the bottom ability-wise, there. To match her age within the cohort. But the assumption that so many people have that if their kids find school difficult it must be because of their age is just wrongheaded. And it has a negative effect on the other summer borns - and can become a self fulfilling prophecy.

Children don't actually have to start school untill the term after they are 5. That has always been the case. So if your child was 4 in August they wouldn't have to start school until the following September.

Any UK statistics about summer borns will include a large cohort that started school in January not September ie had a term less schooling. That no longer happens, except at the parents' option. I believe we are yet to see what difference this makes.

Trixy- my point is someone will always have to be the youngest! We were in the position that we couldn't defer because if we ever moved back to NI, we couldn't defer so my daughter would have essentially missed a year of education. I honestly think it is really wrong for parents to be able to choose for their child to be fifteen months older than some of the others. How is it remotely fair on the youngest in the class?

www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/9897841/Summer-born-pupils-missing-out-on-Oxbridge-places.html

OP, this article talks about a difference but certainly doesn't say that 70% of entrants are born Sep-Dec.

And this is a fair point:

"However, in all this it is very important to note that for both universities a similar pattern - weighted towards birthdays earlier in the September-August academic year - applies to all applicants, not just those who were accepted."

The way to fix this is teaching and expectation, not deferral - every group will have an age range however it's set. The fact all pupils now start in September is a good idea, I think.

The youngest-in-class disadvantage exists everywhere, regardless of variations in intake-date (look at American-Finnish-Japanese etc.) research. The only question is how we manage the disadvantage and balance other priorities.

But that was your choice to make your daughter the youngest! You had the option, you chose not to use it.

The option to allow for the individual child's needs is one of the great things about the Scottish system in my opinion and that of most people I have spoken to including the three head teachers I spoke to when deciding whether to defer my DS. I'm so glad I wasn't forced to send him age 4.

My DH suffered with being one of the youngest in his class - he would have been better if he'd been held back a year. Difference is, he was born in Australia and it's ever so easy to defer starting school here! Children have to be in full time education by the time they are 6, and they can start school aged 4 but they have to be turning 5 within 5 months of starting school.
The school year here starts end of Jan/beginning of Feb - DH was born end of May - and the cut off is July 31st. DH would have done far better if he'd been already 5 when he started school; he wouldn't have struggled so much to be middle-of-the-road. :(

A friend whose child was born 1st August had to wait until he was actually 5 (well, 5.6) to start school - but it helped him because he was in no way emotionally ready for school the previous year.

DS1 was just 5 when he started - 5.2 to be precise and it was right for him; but we know a couple of children of very similar age who were held back for a year because they just weren't ready and that's been better for them.

Thumbwitch why didn't your DH's parents defer him starting by a year?

I don't know, Holiday. I wasn't there.

Trixy- anyone that I have known to do it has done it not as a necessity but because they can. Apart from one child who didn't have English as a first language, the rest were all absolutely fine with no additional learning needs. Why should my daughter and the four or five other young children be penalised in this situation? And constantly be aware that they aren't in the top group or as good at PE as the even physically much bigger 6.5 year olds? It's totally divisive. Great for those that defer not for the rest.

So instead you want other children to be forced to go to school when they're not ready . Is that any fairer?

The fairest thing is for every child to be able to go when they are ready IMO.

So then, bright small young kids who are academically ready for school will be completely intimidate socially by less bright but bigger kids whose parents have decided that they don't care about the impact on other kids, their child is all that matters. Right.

There are some September born girls in DD2's year who are bottom table and fiercely resent someone who looks like she should be in y5 or even Y4 being on the top table. They bully her mercilessly. You want there to be even older kids in her class/year doing the same thing? Or you want her held back because other kids aren't academic? And you think that's fair? Incidentally, DD2's SEN mean that she has more challenges than most kids as it is. I don't want her having any more, thanks.

But they were just as ready as my daughter and the other younger children were! In my experience in an independent school, it is not about the child being ready but about the parents own insecurities and wanting their child to be top of the class. It creates a complete mess further down the system for parents who don't want to defer, as nursery staff know what the bar is going to be set at in P1 with large numbers of deferred but academically able children in the class, followed by a lot of resentment from parents of the younger children when the children then do start school.

I've seen many many threads on here with parents worried that their child isn't ready for school, because they're smaller than their peers and wishing they could defer them. And every time I read them I'm thankful I live where they allow for individual children's needs when it comes to starting school.

My DS does not dominate the other kids in his class either physically or socially, he fits in height wise. It was absolutely the right thing to do.

I think deferral should only be allowed where there is a statement of additional needs. It simply isn't fair on the rest of the class- that's the bottom line.