summer borns may start school later

[snorkle]

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.

Oddly enough, I'm sure some schools up here used to have more than one intake in a year - in my primary school there were 4 classes in my year, and 2 of them had started a term before the other 2. I think the older classes had started at Easter, and us young ones (I'm an October birthday) started in the August.

But it was an exceptionally big year group so they may have made some different arrangements than usual... It made no difference to us, since there were 60 or so newbies in one go.

snorkle - that's interesting. I'm sure flexibility has to be the key - dd would have hated not starting in September. I am an August baby as well, and I started reception in January, and I do remember being bored rigid during the 'reading' teaching as I could already read (my mum used to be a uni lecturer, and when she was at work she used to take me in the buggy, and the professor would look after me and he decided to teach me to read), but enjoying the playing (I remember the sticklebricks particularly!).

When ds1 started I would have been happy for him not to start, but to wait a term, but looking at his class, there are a few who started later, and they have not caught up yet (they are now Y2) so I'm glad he started in September.

Interesting about the improvement to self esteem - I could believe that.

I do wonder about not teaching reading/writing formally until age 6. Partly because of the development of fine motor skills - I think girls have a head start on the boys generally speaking, and that would give the boys a chance to catch up. They could spend the whole of reception playing snakes and ladders, and making sure they can count to 10, teaching them how to really 'play'.

dd1 is August born 7 year old in Y3. She would have benefitted from starting school when she was five, not four. However, I would not have been happy about her being put straight into a year 1 class. She enjoyed reception learning through play and the teacher let her go at her own pace. However, in year one she cried every day because she thought the work was too hard. At five, she was ready for learning through play, not formal education (she's not particularly mature). By year two, she had caught up but she did have to work very hard to do so. Even now she complains about the work being hard.

dd2 is a July born, and is about to start reception. I think things will be easier for her because she is more mature. My children's school is stopping the Jan intake after this year because the summer children were struggling in year one.

I can't see flexibility being introduced in primaries, because class sizes cannot go above 30. Schools cannot move children up or down years if each class is full up.

it is only ks1 (the old infants - rec, yrs 1 & 2) which have the 30 limit, not all of the primaary years. And this would only be an issue with oversubscribed school annway, lots of schools have a couple (or more) spare places in each year.

I have two summer born boys, ds1 is end of July and ds2 end of August. Whilst I would agree that more flexibilty would be good, mys ds1 was more than ready to start the Jan after he was four and would actually have been better off starting in the September when he was 4.2. But I appreciate that not all children are ready and it remains to be seen whether ds2 will be the same.

drivinmecrazy currently your child has to start school in the term in which they have their 5th birthday. So your DD2 would start in Reception after Easter (do one term and then break for summer holiday, go back to Year 1).

The article (skim read so may have missed something) is only stating what, technically, you can do now, assuming your school isn't oversubscribed. I had heard that the point of the new policy is that schools will be funded for all the children for the WHOLE YEAR even if they don't start until after Easter? Which will appeal to schools because it means they'll get all the money but for part of the year they'll have less children present?

they have to be in education from the term after their 5th birthday - not the term they turn 5 in. The problem with this is going straight into yr1 and missing rec, both in terms of the work they have missed and the peer groups etc - although plenty of kids move schools and cope with this.

Chasing Squirrels - I just read 'term in which they turn 5' in my LEA bumpf for this years intake?

dd2 augast baby has struggled with school since starting in sept
i would have love to had waited til next year. but start her at reception as wouldnt see the point of starting her in year 1 as surely she would be even more behind her peers?

I think the education act actually says from their 5th birthday and this is enacted to be the term after they turn 5 from what I recall, most LEA's say the intake before their 5th (be that Sep if single intake or later if multiple intakes), but they aren't legally required to be in education then.
Although, as always on MN - there will be someone along who knows more!

I managed to get school to agree to ds3 starting late, he's a late July baby and also has SN. Even with the SN I had to sort out so much paperwork and arguments with the LEA and school that it drove me to distraction- the agreement we came to was he started this week part time afternoons, after half term some mornings, and then from Easter full time. He will progress year wise nomally, but of course the SN may mean transfer at some stage.

I hope this proposed change gives parents the ability to choose alternatives in situations sucha s mine. Its pathetic that it ook such a fight, it really is. A aprent who didnt care wouldn't be arsed, so it must be obvious that I have ds3's interests at heart. Indeed, he is quite happy at school in the PM's which is great, buta lso exceedingly tired (poor language skills so comuniating takes it out of him) and so we are glad we took the decision.

I didn't want DS3 to progress straight into Yr1, he needed the Reception input.

Legally its term after they turn 5- the LEA can offer what they want BUT can't actually over ride that.

Individual schools vary though, eg CofE schools can often refuse applications on that basis- even after we had LEA approval we ahd to take the school Governors on to get his place saved.

When my dd started full time the school had 3 intakes, Sept, Jan and April. Her birthday is in May so she started in April. She did one term in reception and then went into yr 1. She had no problem doing this and was well ready for school. DS1 was just 5 when he started full time as he's a Jan 1st birthday. He had 2 terms in reception. He is in yr 2 now and I would say is just becoming ready for formal learning. By the time ds2 was ready to start full time the school had changed to 2 intakes so although his birthday is end of August he started in January. The school are very aware of how young he is though and even now in yr 1 take account of his age and let him go at his own pace. He is learning and progressing but he probably not as far ahead as other children in his class. He is doing well though considering the fact that if he had been born a week later he would be still in reception. The reason schools that did 3 intakes have changed to 2 intakes is that the schools get money per child and they do not get money any more for any children that start in April.

I agree with maryz, there does need to be some flexibilty but it can get ridiculous.
I spent part of my childhood in the USA where formal education doesn't start until the child is about 7, I moved over there in year 1 having been at quite an academic prep school since a month after my 3rd birthday. Obviously I could read, write, divide etc but the class I should have been in (kindergarten 5-6) was for children who were still completely illiterate most having never been to school before. After 1 week I was moved up to 2nd grade which was the equivalent of year 3. In that class I was the youngest at 6 and there were children who were 9, because if your birthday was mid may - end of august you could start a year later and if it was sept - dec. you could start a year early so all classes had 18months or so difference between children

yes MaryZ I agree that this is a problem in Ireland. I grew up in Cork and my best friend still lives there. She had concerns about one of her boys who had become friends with children 20 months older and although her DS was fine academically she worried about his emotional and social maturity in comparison to his friends. On the other hand I live in Northern ireland where the system is more strict than in the rest of the UK. If you are 4 before the 2nd July you have to go to school the following September. There is no scope to wait anothre year nor is there a January intake. My Dts were a month premature and were born in June hence in theory they are younger than some of the children in the class below them . DT2 struggles but Dt1 is tearing ahead and tbh by being in the year below it would have held him back. However it would have been great for Dt2. I think it would be a good idea to have the flexibility just for summer borns so that parents could have the choice to send them or not. However I think there should be the flexibility to wait another entire year for those children . I dont think there is much point in allowing children to start later if they still have to end up in the year they would have been in if they had started earlier. To allow summer born children only to wait another year would not result in a great deal of variety of ages in the class because they would be close in age to children in both years

I think the Scottish system sounds good where you have limited flexibility over a 4 month window. That wouldn't make a big difference in the spread of abilities, especially as the more able would tend to start early and the less able drop back a year, potentially reducing the overall spread (though there'd always be exceptionsof course)