Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Original poster

Sending summer Born Kids to School A Year Later?

36 replies

mumtochloe · 22/10/2004 10:29

Can anyone help me with my dilemma?

DD was born on the 28th August and will therefore be the youngest in her school year. She has been to an open day at the school she is supposed to be going to in September but all the kids seemed a lot bigger and more advanced than her and I am worried she will be at a disadvantage if she goes this year.

Has anyone sent thier kids to school a year later? Do you think this will be better for her or worse in relation to socialising etc? Can anyone give me some advice on this as the application pack needs to be in soon and I am panicking a bit!

Thank you

OP posts:
Yorkiegirl · 22/10/2004 10:34

Message withdrawn

Frenchgirl · 22/10/2004 10:34

hi mumtochloe, my dd is a July birthday and started reception in Sept 2003, with full days (8.30am to 4pm) every day. I had the same worries as you! But she coped very well. the first 2 weeks were hard as she cried when I left her there and then the third week she had met a girl she got on with and was always happy to go to school. She ended up top of her class and got the achievement award! So age isn't everything. Did she enjoy the open day? Will she do half days first? Does she like nursery and what would she do if she didn't go to reception?

hmb · 22/10/2004 10:39

YOu can, but make sure that the school will not then 'Skip' Y6 and send you child from Y5 to secondary school in Y7, which could be catastophic for some kids.

frogs · 22/10/2004 10:40

In my experience schools in England (believe Scotland may be different) are very reluctant to place children 'out of year', ie. in a year group other than the one they 'belong' to chronologically. Although you don't have to send children to school in Reception, if you do wait till after their 5th birthday they would be put straight into Year 1, assuming the school still has places available.

I suspect this is to do with admin issues around funding and league tables, rather than child welfare -- some children would clearly be better off in the year group below, but schools seem reluctant to acknowledge this. Without wishing to depress you, a friend of mine applied to 'back-class' her twins who were born in late August three months premature(!!) and her application was turned down.

Private schools might be more flexible.

Having said that, I have two summer-born children who are doing extremely well in their respective classes, both socially and academically, and who would have been climbing the walls if they'd had to wait an extra year. So don't assume she will be at a disadvantage. You could always apply for her to do shorter days at the outset.

hth

LIZS · 22/10/2004 11:34

Yorkiegirl, I thought it was legally the term after they turn 5 in England.

mum to chloe, we are in similar position as our dd is just a day older than yours and very petite for her age with it. We have just applied for Reception places because intellectually she will be ready if not socially. However she'd only go part time for 1st 2 terms in the LEA schools.

The problem with not applying now is that you risk there not being a place at year 1 in Sept 2006 in the school of your choice. If you apply now for next Sept you could think about her readiness nearer the time and then have the opportunity to discuss with the school whose place you have by then accepted whether she could defer for a term or two or even a full year without forfeiting her place. They do develop greatly between the ages of 3 and 4 though so she may surprise you when the time comes.

Good luck

Chandra · 22/10/2004 12:29

I have the same dilemma, I would like DS to start school one year later to give him some time to catch up with the language a little better (we don't speak English at home). So I will pay so much attention to this thread...

LIZS · 22/10/2004 12:42

btw the policy varies from area to area, school to school and may depend on how popular a particular school is and whether they are under direct LEA control or can set their own criteria. You may find that some schools would simply be more accommodating about your eventual choice for dd than others.

For example, our nephew was in a nursery attached to an oversubscribed, opted-out C of E school and didn't move into Reception until last Easter when rising 5 - he was a July birthday - and is now in year 1. Friends' ds also 5 in July, didn't start school until Easter and then only part time. It is a small village school with mixed age classes and low enrollment.

codswallop · 22/10/2004 12:43

go half time or even better acc to ds1s deputy ( and former early tears county advsiro) do one day on and one day off - he reckons that is better
Do not let ehe school t ell you hey weil give hte plcae away
that is crap

Dingle · 22/10/2004 12:44

My ds was 5 on 30th Aug,the youngest in his Y1 class. He started Reception full time in January. I have just posted on another thread, that he is coping very well, and certainly not at the bottom of his class. However he does tend to get very tired and emotional as the day progresses, he can snap at the silliest of things.
A friend who's dd also had a late b'day looked into holding her back so she didn't start until the September after her 5th b'day, but firstly they wouldn't necessarily hold a place,and secondly her dd would have gone straight into Y1.The way I saw it was - you are told it's such a huge jump from R into Y1 anyway, I thought my ds would cope better to do things earlier, but at least not have to be shoved in at the deep end.

secur · 22/10/2004 12:48

Message withdrawn

cupcakes · 22/10/2004 12:54

My ds's birthday is in June so he is not as young in the year as your dd. He started school this September, part time. Prior to this he had spent one year doing three mornings a week at playschool - I purposely hadn't sent him to the nursery at our school as he would have been required to do 5 sessions which I thought was too much for him. I was worried about him starting school and if I had had the choice I would have kept him back till January. As it was he started then with his friends and has been doing really well. So far my worries seem completely unfounded. In fact he has far exceeded my expectations of him. He was always quite quiet but now he loves to sing and dance and has gained so much confidence. He has started drawing pictures with people in which older children in his class have been doing for years. I don't know what it is about the school environment which is so much better for him than playgroup but I am so glad he is there. As yet I have seen no disadvantge to his being younger than most.

hmb · 22/10/2004 13:14

You don't have to send them to school at all, ever, but you do have to show that they are getting a reasonable education. Mumsnetters who home ed would be able to fill you in on the details.

codswallop · 22/10/2004 13:15

and home knotted swimming costumes!

hmb · 22/10/2004 13:16

You are a naughty little cod!

foxinsocks · 22/10/2004 13:27

mumtochloe, I too have an August child (due to start reception in January, currently in the nursery class).

First of all before you decide to hold her back a year, find out what their policy is with respect to summer-born children. Many schools don't make the younger children do full days until the summer term (ours doesn't) so my dd will still be doing half days up till May.

Although there are many children in her class who are more socially and emotionally advanced, there are also plenty of summer born children who are in the same boat and you'll probably find that dd will make friends with those children.

And lastly, don't forget that the teachers are used to dealing with the wide variety in age and maturity and certainly will make allowances for the younger ones in their earliest years.

secur · 22/10/2004 14:22

Message withdrawn

pixiefish · 22/10/2004 14:29

It's horrid for them isn't it- I think we send kids to school far too young.
My brother was a summer baby and started school in the 'proper year' but by the middle of his time at primary it was relised that he wasn't coping and he was kept back a year, I think this was mostly because he was so young in his year.
Anyway he was separated from his friends and some kids even laughed at him.
Personally I think it would have been kinder to have started him a year later- no one would have known any different then would they!
would phone the school to talk to them about it if I were you but IMO it's far kinder to start them a year later rather than keep them back later on HTH

Skate · 22/10/2004 14:29

Reading this with interest as ds3 is Aug 29th baby. For some reason it concerns me more because he's a boy and I always hear that boys struggle more than girls??

Anyone think that has anything to do with it?

I've got a while yet as he's only 8 weeks old but still interested to hear all your opinions on this.

pixiefish · 22/10/2004 14:35

There's a proven divide between girls and boys in schools with many schools working hard to try and address this issue. I do believe that girls do better than boys in school because of the nature of our education system- can't really go into the details as it would take forever.
here's an interesting site
some statistics

hmb · 22/10/2004 14:37

I have heared of some schools (mixed) teching boys and girls seperatly in scineces to help the boys to 'catch up' and to help the girls over they disinclination to do physics. Not sure what the results have been and if they are above 'placebo ' of any novel intervention

popsycal · 22/10/2004 14:38

ds is an august birthday so although just turned 2, will go to school in less than two years

quite scary when I look at children turning 3 now and the gulf that exists between them and ds

there is some evidence that as a cohort, the 'younger' end of a school year group don't do as well academically as the older end (woul dhave to dig around to find where i got this from though) be to be honest, I think it is specific to the individual. If your child doesn't seem ready, then chat to the school to get further input.

Unless something drastic turns up with ds in the next 2 years, he will go to school as planned in sept 2006 - just turned 4.

Skate · 22/10/2004 14:41

Thanks Pixiefish - I'll def look at that later.

roisin · 22/10/2004 16:06

My boys are both summer birthdays. I think they do certainly struggle a bit socially, when they are with girls who are up to 11 months older. But both of them are very academic, and would have been climbing the walls at every stage if they were in a younger year group iyswim.

roisin · 22/10/2004 16:07

DS1 actually started school straight into yr1, which was probably a good thing for him. Unfortunately it wasn't an option for ds2.

pixiefish · 22/10/2004 16:12

hmb- we did that at our school. For 2 GCSE year groups in a particular set- we split the girls and boys and the girls had a female teacher and the boys male. It enabled us to appropriate the literature that we did with them. The girls did a lot better than previous years mixed sets but there was no real difference in the boys. We also found that if the male teacher was off ill and the class had a female teacher covering then the boys were very hard work. I've had an all boy class (bottom set) and they were very hard work- lots of hormones and showing off- IMO they'd have been better off with a male teacher...

Swipe left for the next trending thread