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'm in Scotland and have a dd with a January birthday who was deferred. At 14 she is doing well at school but it was emotional and social aspects which led me to defer her. I definitely think it was right for her.

Ds is 11 and an October birthday. I worried about him but he's doing fab and about to go to High school. When he was due to start my SIL tried to get me to defer him for being too small. His height has never held him back.

I really think this depends on the child. My late May born child is one of the best readers in his class, he loves school and is doing exceptionally well

Most people seem to be ignoring what tiggytape has pointed out more than once, this isn't about children born in the summer being behind those born in the autumn because they are younger.

Deferral is for children who have significant additional needs and who are not just a few months behind their peers, children who may never actually catch up but an extra year means they are more able to cope with school.
It certainly isn't for children who would get into Oxbridge if only they had been in the year below at school.

I think the main problem in England at least is the weight of expectation brought down upon children who are objectively very young. Since when did most children of 4 need to learn how to read and write in sentences? They certainly didn't even 30 years ago. Children haven't changed that much in 30 years. The curriculum has though. That doesn't mean that a child aged 4 years and 1 day is ready to learn the things expected of them, it just means that they are deemed to be lower achieving right from the beginning of their schooling. I have two older children with summer birthdays (both July) and both struggled for at least the first 3 years of school. They are by no means stupid (both have very high IQs in fact) but they were emotionally immature and not ready for school at 4 years + 1 or 2 months.

Some children just aren't particularly bright and deferment does nothing to help them. It might give them a tempoary advantage in reception, but they will find themselves bottom of the class after a few terms as they simply don't have the capacity to learn.

I feel that deferal should be available where evidence from educational pychologist, teachers and health professoinals show that it will make a significant difference. There is no point in defering because a child has a significant special needs as those special needs will be with the child forever. Parents should not be allowed to choose deferal to avoid their child being bottom of the class. Prehaps there is a case for deferal if there is strong evidence the child will catch up with their peers.

"Deferral is for children who have significant additional needs and who are not just a few months behind their peers, children who may never actually catch up but an extra year means they are more able to cope with school."

In someways I think that children with major special needs benefit from an earlier start to education than a later start. They need a properly designed individual education plan with good support. The don't need to be languishing in part time nursery.

But, duchesse some kids have always been able to read, write, do maths etc at 4. In the black and white days of the 70s, nobody was surprised when a child could. I didn't start school till after Easter, because we had to move to get a place at a catholic primary, and we had to wait for a council transfer. I was still 4 when I started school though, being summer born! and nobody was phased that I could do all that stuff. I was just out in reception but sent to an older class to do appropriate level maths and reading/writing a few times a week. One of the girls who was in that older class has remained my best friend for my entire life even though she is 2 years older than me. In those days, there was that flexibility. These days, with the national curriculum, there is less flexibility even though we are always told that teachers can and do differentiate work - in my experience, they don't really, not at primary school, if they can possibly avoid it. Of my 3 DCs, it's the one born earliest in the year (may rather than summer) who has been the least academic. I don't assume that all summer borns will be super advanced, I don't assume all September borns will be, either. I think we would do better to differentiate work appropriately in proper age group classes, and not burden or benefit our kids with preconceptions. Or judgements made in haste when they are very young.

There is talk of the Scottish system changing & stopping the automatic right of January/February born children having the automatic right to defer. There is also a discretionary deferral system here, for August-December birthdays, but these are rare (apparently).

The council area where I live (Edinburgh) is pushing parents NOT to defer, and provides evidence that the later-born children catch up by P3. There is also a financial element I am sure, as the council does not wish to fund an extra year's education if they can possibly avoid it.

However, I firmly believe there should be a deferral system, not necessarily based on parent choice, but on nursery/medical/ opinion. I'm pretty sure a few parents deferred so that their child could be "top of the class" the next year .

Interestingly as a teacher the children I see who seem obvious candidates for deferred entry (2+ years behind in all areas of development) are the very ones parents fight the hardest to get into school full time from day one.

Lotsof, where is that talk coming from? It's fairly recently (within the last couple of years or so) that the guidelines issued by each council in Scotland was re issued (or restated?) making it clearer, in plainer language that parents do not have to start their DC at p1 until the August start date after they turn 5. It is worded quite differently (although the rules are exactly the same) than what it was when my older DC were at school.

And mid aug - feb deferrals are NOT. Discretionary, it is entirely down to parental choice. No child has to start p1 until the august start date after they turn 5.

The confusion arrises because nurseries/schools/councils can refuse to fund an extra year in (voluntary) preschool. You have the option to not take up the place, pay for it if they have room, or make your own childcare arrangements.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-edinburgh-east-fife-13453240

"Interestingly as a teacher the children I see who seem obvious candidates for deferred entry (2+ years behind in all areas of development) are the very ones parents fight the hardest to get into school full time from day one."

Surely a child who is 2+ years behind needs to be an educational setting of some description rather than languishing at home learning nothing. In England there is funding for some two year olds to have a place at pre school because its recongised that good pre school learning might help to close the gap.

I feel the issue with developmentally delayed children is making sure that they have an appriopiate curriculum rather than pushing them to do a curriculum that is beyond them. Good differentiation in the early years enables August born children to get the skills that they need.

I believe that really advanced september/ October born children should be allowed to start school early. (Just like private schools) The financial cost of allowing a tiny percentage of children to defer could be offset against by allowing a few children to start early.

RawCoconut: my understanding of the terminology used (by our local council-funded nursery) was "automatic" deferrals for Jan & Feb & "discretionary" deferrals for Aug-Dec.

Perhaps it's just Edinburgh where they're trying to reduce the deferral rate? I understand the rates here are higher. There have been numerous articles in the local press & parent roadshows aimed at reducing this. The head of the educational psychology department has been vocal about this publicly & is perhaps the reason behind the drive.

Yes, I could have kept my DS back irrespective. However he would not have been able to attend his existing nursery as they do not accept self-funding & his funding would have not been provided by the council. So my only options would have been to keep him at home myself (not exactly educational!) or self-fund a private nursery at the cost of £50 daily (not an option financially whilst I was on maternity leave). He was 3 months premature & needed time to catch up.

Mrz, I remember reading that article at the time (I'm further north than Edinburgh), and reading the studies the council was using as "evidence"... The deferred kids they are talking about were deferred not by parental choice, but because of disability and learning difficulties.

I thought it was absolute scaremongering trying to suggest to the parents of Edinburgh that their children would drop out of school and under-perform if they delayed entry to p1 until the actual legally required start time (if you choose school education at all). The kids in that study sadly had serious reasons for their inability to engage with education. They would have done even worse "in year".

Really tired - I thin you meant to say that good differentiation in EYFS allows children who are behind to attain the skills they need. August born children are not predestined to be among those who are behind or need additional help. And September born children are not predestined to be super advanced.

Lotsof, if you read the rules each council have to publish on school entry you see it is parental choice. Yes, absolutely councils/nurseries for reasons of funding are putting pressure on parents to get their kids into school a year before they are actually required to be there!

We have made our decision, and DS will be starting a private provider nursery soon, but we are lucky we can afford that choice.

I should also have said that the so-called "discretionary" deferral was a real process, and we were repeatedly told by the nursery manager & school head teacher that we would be unsuccessful as the council rejected almost all of these.

"Luckily" I had lots of evidence to support my DS's case, from his nursery, our GP & various healthcare professionals involved in his care. He was granted the funding & did not have to go to appeal.

It would have been awful for him to go to school - he only toilet-trained properly around his 5th birthday, attended SALT & dietitians for poor growth & eating issues, has only just outgrown reflux. This last year at nursery has allowed him to toilet train, eat normally, speak within normal parameters for his age etc.

But you do not need to enrol your child in p1 until the august start date after they turn 5!

That deferral process was about the funding of an extra year nursery ... That is at their discretion, very true.

Very glad it worked out in your favore regarding the funding.