Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

Education

Join the discussion on our Education forum.

Flip

1 2

Original poster

summer borns may start school later

42 replies

snorkle · 10/01/2008 21:11

There was apparently some suggestion yesterday that the govenment might allow summer-born children to start school later or maybe defer entry by a year.

article here

I know it's an issue that comes up on here quite regularly. In my opinion the flexibility would be a good thing - bring us more into line with the Scots.

OP posts:

gigglewitch · 10/01/2008 21:18

I think they should start when they are 5, the term in which their birthday falls. This was the system once upon a time in our patch, and i think it is one where all children get the best for their development. Having said that, how would they go about moving on in academic years from there in? would they move to the next class at different times? It would make teaching (more of) a flippin nightmare!!!

In my DCs' school, they have mixed classes covering two year groups in different ratios and combinations throughout foundation and key stage 1, so the children get to work at their own level anyway.

drivinmecrazy · 10/01/2008 21:19

My DD2 was born August 25th, so although she is only 2 1/2 will be starting school in 18 months. As I understand it, as things stand, at the moment if i chose for her to start a year later, she will go straight into year 1 rather than reception. Have i got this wrong?

ChasingSquirrels · 10/01/2008 21:21

Haven't read the article yet, but this is what used to happen (and still does in some places) under the 3 intakes a year. I am a May birthday and started the Easter just before I was 5. Off to read artice.

southeastastra · 10/01/2008 21:22

yes i agree. my ds(6) is a july baby. even though he started early i feel he has been pushed too much and compared with others in the year. it's only after he started in year 2 in september that i've noticed he's picking everything up ok.

he's just taken his own time. being pushed has just stressed me and him out. if that makes sense!

ChasingSquirrels · 10/01/2008 21:23

well, article isn't suggesting anything that can't be done now anyway, you don't have to send a summer born child until the Sep just after they are 5 - when they would go straight into year 1 (what class they start in isn't mentioned in the article).

Nottonightjosephine · 10/01/2008 21:29

Here in Leicestershire there are still schools which have January intake for the younger children. DS1 (Aug 21st) joined at this point, but I'm not convinced it made an awful lot of difference. He was still very aware of being the youngest. It's only now, half way through year 2 (he's 7 this August) that it's settling. He's had a hard a couple of years where he doesn't get why he can't grasp concepts that come a bit easier to the older ones. (not helped by the fact he's a big lad who looks older than most boys in his class)
DS2 is an October baby and absolutely breezing through reception. I personally think they don't need to start formal education until they're six..

drivinmecrazy · 10/01/2008 21:29

I can't see the benefit of DD missing reception year, won't she still be behind in year 1?? In My daughters school they all start in september, with eldest starting full time the rest only mornings. Easter tern next oldest start full time til finally summer term they are all full time, but even in year 2 there is a HUGE difference between my DD (Dec baby) and her friend, a July baby. If I had thought about it I would have planned by second baby better. Did I say 'planned'?? I had planned to have only one child

Hulababy · 10/01/2008 21:31

But for some children this won't suit either. Under the current state system, we have a two tier systme here, DD wouldn't have started until january - but she was ready definitely by the September. Her nursery definitely felt so, as did we. What would have been the benefit of keeping he rout of school for 3 months longer? DD actually started in the September, under the private system, and thrived from day 1 - loving every second. Yet there are girls in DD's class who are a fair bit older who actually might have benefited from starting later - who were't as ready.

If they really do want to make changes maybe it should be on as needs basis, not just an age basis. All children develop at different rates. This isn't taken into account at all under the current school system.

paulayatesbiggestfan · 10/01/2008 21:33

ds is late august - he HAD to start in january
it did his confidence no good at all and i regret allowing the local authority to dictate to me
due a baby in july and would NOT be happy with this ruling
imo they do cath up but takes a few years

Original poster

snorkle · 10/01/2008 21:36

I have to say that while it doesn't explicitly state it I took the article to mean that if summer-borns deferred by a whole year they would start in the year below (ie reception of the younger year). I can't see how it would help much otherwise either.

OP posts:

Original poster

snorkle · 10/01/2008 21:39

hula, the article did talk about choice and flexibility, so I don't think they would be forcing a later start just having it as an option. It could have the benefit that schools be obliged to hold a place for a child starting later which at the moment they don't have to.

OP posts:

Hulababy · 10/01/2008 21:42

So long as choice is there I think it is a good idea

However in the current two tier system there is no choice. DD would have had no choice but to start in the January, 3 months after all her nursery friends (who all happened to be slightly older). This would have really not impressed my DD!

ChasingSquirrels · 10/01/2008 21:43

good point on holding places, my friend sent her mid-august born ds when he was just 4 because the school was so oversubscribed that he wouldn't have got a place for entry into yr 1 at just turned 5. She didn't want to send him, but felt that doing so outweighed the considerable disadvantages of having him in a more distant school for the whole of primary.

gigglewitch · 10/01/2008 21:43

good post hulababy!!

I have DS2 who has sept birthday and would have been raring to go (personality thing) pretty much from the minute he was 3. The fact that he didnt start the school nursery class till the week before his 4th b/day meant that i found him a fantastic nursery/preschool and he just soaked up everything they had to offer. it really did him good to be the oldest in the year, and seeing this advantage i'd want all children to experience it so positively IYSWIM!! so if they can come up with a system that doesnt just delay the 'disadvantage' then it would make starting school a good experience for many more children.

AMumInScotland · 10/01/2008 21:48

I'd hope that they're thinking about something like what we have up here, which allows the parents to decide whether to send them at 4.6 or leave it till 5.6. We don't have reception here, so whichever age they start they begin in P1 with the other newbies.

gigglewitch · 10/01/2008 21:49

that sounds like a good reason for us all to move north of the border....

suedonim · 10/01/2008 23:38

They should just change the date at which a child is eligble for school from Sept to 28th Feb. Then no child would be less than 4.5yrs old when they begin school.

AMumInScotland · 11/01/2008 09:26

I get the feeling the English education system has been looking at the Scottish one for inspiration.... As well as this, there's the split of A levels into AS and A2 (Scotland always had Highers and then CSYS/ now Advanced Highers). And the concept of "testing when ready" instead of SATs at a standard age...

colditz · 11/01/2008 09:28

The government generally talks about choice and flexibility when they are about to take something away from us. Watch to see what happens....

tortoiseSHELL · 11/01/2008 09:35

I sometimes think they should all start later tbh. Then it wouldn't be so noticeable which were summer babies. The problem with delaying starting is that those already advantaged by having a September-December birthday will have had an extra 3months to a year teaching, and will be light years ahead.

Dd is an August child, and if she hadn't been able to start school last September (she is in reception) both she and I would have gone mad. She was bored at playgroup, and really needed the challenge of school. As it is, she is in the top group for reading and maths, and coping fantastically well socially, so any blanket rule would have disadvantaged her. Her behaviour has improved tremendously. The key is that every child is different. Ds1 is a June boy, and he didn't struggle, but definitely found things harder than dd - relating to the other children etc.

peanutbutterkid · 11/01/2008 09:40

I have really mixed feelings about this; my youngest, a summer-born boy is due to start this coming September. Older siblings have autumn birthdays and they were obviously SOooooo MUCH more ready for school (more mature and capable in almost every way) than DS2 will be.

BUT, ds2 is extremely keen about school, he wants to go now. I know that he will be able to handle half-days from September-December, being objective about it. Whether he'll learn anything academic b4 his 5th birthday is another question!

As for logistics, a lot of Reception is just teaching them about the school culture, expectations, ethos and rules. To have to rehash all that at the start of each term would be a waste of resources. Plus social circles get well-established early on and even if it's a whole group of newbies, the newbies are still at a disadvantage when it comes to finding their way in.

Original poster

snorkle · 11/01/2008 09:58

tortoishell I think some studies have shown that summerborns do better on average starting a little later even though they then get less schooling. I suspect it's because they are seen and see themselves as a slightly different cohort to the rest so self esteem is improved. If they are starting a whole year late then they should be in the year below imo. Unless we moved to a much later starting age I think the differences would still be there, but a more flexible approach for the youngest might mean that the more confident and 'ready' ones would start at the usual time and be the youngest and hopefully do fine but the ones that weren't ready could go into the year below and be the oldest instead. Of course there would still be some children for whom the wrong decision was made, but with nursery advice etc hopefully not too many.

OP posts:

Original poster

snorkle · 11/01/2008 10:02

colditz - so cynical but so true!

OP posts:

coppertop · 11/01/2008 10:04

If there had been a real choice available at the time, I would probably have opted for ds1 to start school later. When he started in Reception he had only been out of nappies for literally a couple of weeks, and had only started talking the year before (he has autism).

He's now in Yr3 and is finding his school work very easy. If he'd stayed back a year he would be in Yr2 now and completely bored. What would be helpful is if the system as a whole was more flexible. Some children could really benefit from staying back a year at other points in their school life. Others could benefit from being moved up.

AMumInScotland · 11/01/2008 10:17

I think the practicalities of new children starting each term would be really hard to sort out, unless you were going to have a complete class start each time. And that would only work if the birthdays were very evenly spread and the number of classes worked out just right.

I don't think that ever happens up here any more - they all start in August. The choice is basically if your child is not yet 5 in August you don't have to send them till the next August if you don't want to, but so long as they'll be 5 by end of February they can start if you do want.

So it's not the most flexible system for the start date - this August or next August are the only choices, and only if their birthday is between August and February - but it does at least mean the parents get to choose, and the child starts at the bginning either way.

Flip

1 2