Deferring a May born child

[Kingfisher4]

I have a daughter born 29th May. She is currently 3, due to start school next year.

I am currently thinking about deferring her, but only if she is able to start in reception the following year.

Would most people think that is crazy? She is not developmentally behind as such, although she is not fully toilet trained yet. I have been trying for months, but she still has more than one accident a day.

My reasoning is more based on how I feel about the education system in general. I don't mind reception as it's still very play based, but I hate the idea of 5 year olds going into key stage 1 and starting formal education so young. I have 3 older sons, none of them summer born, so have never been able to make this decision.

I really haven't misunderstood.

I know exactly how it works and stand by what I said.

You are perfectly entitled to offer an opinion, but I don't have to agree with your opinion.

You are factually incorrect, so in this case whether or not you agree is moot.

Nothing I said was meant to embarrass you personally - a lot of LAs and admission officers do not understand the policy and so these mistakes are made pretty frequently. But mistakes they still are.

You're not wrong to point to out to parents the considerations that may arise later in the child's education, that's definitely something to reflect on - but simply being summer born IS a justifiable reason, and the parents do NOT have to "put in a lot work, do their research and provide supporting evidence" - being summer born is enough and "It should be rare for an authority to refuse a parent’s request".

An admission authority may not decide that a child should start school before compulsory school age - that is the parent’s decision.

So I ask again: what reasons did you give that it's in the child's best interests to miss out reception? Did you have a lot of gifted and talented children applying?

Summer born delays are not the norm - as evidenced here most people with summer borns do not delay their children, and I imagine that will remain so going forward for a number of years. But it is not the LAs job to police that, and certainly not their job to apply that personal feelings when making a decision about admission.

The nursery funding thing is interesting though. But again, not a reason for individual parents to send their child to school when they're not ready just to try and personally uphold the gap in the government budget.

from my personal experience the process is a default no and I was even told that by the Head of SEND services in my LA. This is an illegal stance it goes against Every Child Matters legislation and the 2014 Child Act. How do I know this? Well partly due to the fact I have 20 years experience in education, also because I hired a solicitor who wrote the 2014 Child Act! Las deliberately make the system obtuse, so it’s difficult to apply for a deferral and without perseverance the chances of getting a true deferral by which they begin primary in reception and not year 1 is slim.

I fought hard to get my child’s deferral. He has a developmental age of two, non verbal and autism in all 7 areas of development. He is summer born. Every professional (ed phys, area nursery SENCO, head of primary, SALT, parents, Neurologist, community paediatrician) all strongly supported defferal and the LA still rejected. Why? Budget. It costs to give him an extra year of education. Is that legal? No. Which is why they had to back down when I threatened a judicial review.

LAs in my opinion are not best suited to make these decisions (which are closed door decisions) as in my experience ignore all supporting evidence.

the system is broken because it’s so under funded. My son deserves an education that suits his needs and forcing a two year old to attend school with no verbal communication, incontinent is just brutal.

this thread has shown me how uncaring people are. I wonder how you would respond if your child had the difficulties mine will face for their entire life and the judgement call you would make. Sadly the governments aim is to reduce funding by 5 billion for Disabilities. When you start with an aim like that the system produced will not sufficiently improve the lives of the people it serves.

this thread has shown me how uncaring people are. I wonder how you would respond if your child had the difficulties mine will face for their entire life and the judgement call you would make.

I am sorry for the situation you are in. People on the thread are responding specifically to OP, who seems to have no concrete reason to seek a deferral. I would not assume that any of these posters are or would be uncaring about your situation.

This.

@lovemetomybones
the people you are calling uncaring, are advocating for children like your son.
Not one person on this thread has said that the deferral system shouldn’t be there for the children like yours who need it.
most are saying it isn’t a good idea for a child with no developmental delay at all, nor SEN, and a May birthday to defer. Because then it becomes more children, more money and thus less for your son because children who didn’t need it have taken it!

You keep saying this, but actually several people have said that it shouldn't be allowed at all.

Many of us who have kids that were delayed a year, actually agree that there's no need to do it here (I would've defer under the OPs circumstances and said so), but the sweeping generalisations, and scaremongering are actually pretty unpleasant for those of us that deferred for good reasons and have responded here.

@Somuchgoo I think on any MN thread, even if a poster is speaking more generally, they are broadly doing so in response to the contents of the OP. I very much doubt they would go onto a thread of a parent in more difficult circs and say the exact same thing.

@arethereanyleftatallthe experience of defferal is not a parental choice based system! The LA has to be in agreement otherwise the deferral will mean they start in year 1 not reception. It’s an incredibly difficult process to navigate. As usual when it comes to need a battle. As for summer born babies, studies claim it is beneficial for them to be deferred. So it isn’t a waste of money! The studies become mixed when children aren’t summer born or with SEN need.

Summer born children are a cohort that have shown positive outcomes from delayed starts. A study “Summer-born struggle: The effect of school starting age on health, education, and work” found that a higher school starting age (SSA) is associated with better educational outcomes, less likelihood of being diagnosed with behavioural problems or speech impediments in the early years, and persisting benefits throughout schooling. studies observe that younger children in a class (i.e. those born in the summer) are more likely to show lower language skills, more behaviour difficulties, etc., when compared to older classmates. One such study in Surrey with >7,000 reception children found that youngest children in the school year are almost twice as likely to have both language difficulties and behaviour problems relative to older ones.

@lovemetomybones leaving aside specific circumstances of prematurity, illness etc and speaking generally in respect of that study - I assume the advantage in the study relates to that of Sep-Dec born kids over Apr-Aug born (say).

If most or all summer born children deferred, presumably that group would then have the advantage over the "new youngest" Jan -Mar cohort.

If the argument is 4 is too young, then the gov should change to a May - April year group starting September. No one younger than 4.5 and no one more than a year apart.

if the argument is the youngest performs the worst, then deferring is an incredibly dim system which simply shifts the youngest birth month and makes the age gap worse.

I agree with you there. Perhaps everyone needs to start a year later. We do start very young in the UK.

There is a huge difference though between (a) those parents who just don't want their child to be the youngest, (b) those that are very borderline like late August babies, that really are just very young (c) those with certain disabilities, illnesses, etc, who have zero choice.

I'd personally be in favour of restricting it to July and August for deferrals on principle, and earlier summer borns need justification on specific reasons.

Again, your 'no one more than a year apart' - does that include or exclude kids with disabilities? Shouldn't there be some flexibility?

I'd rather have a system where achild born in March at 24 weeks gestation, and associated problems could be deferred rather than a child born in April, perhaps that had been due in March, with no apparent problems. Thats the level of nuance we actually need.

Teamed with making it so Reception was part of preschool rather than school.

My Dd is 31 August, it’s never been an issue! She’s always kept up fine and is doing well at grammar school.

Absolutely flexibility for disabilities/premature - dealt with on a case by case exceptional circumstances basis.

my objection to the current system is solely to the pushy elbowed parents of May borns.

I'm not sure a May born child is classed as ''summer born'' are they?
I see Summer born as June, July and August, May to me is late Spring.

In the legislation it's from the 1st of April.

Seems crazy to me; that covers 5 months of the year! Over 40% of children, potentially.

To make a slightly out of left field point...

One way to look at this is whether the advantages of being the oldest in the class (e.g. better grades, confidence) outweigh the probably 5-figure financial cost of delaying their school entry by a year. In other words, if you saved up the money you save on nursery fees for the extra year, and give it to them as a house deposit, could that put them in a better position?

Using some example figures let's say after 30h funding, you have nursery costs of £1k per month, or £12k per year. I'm in London and pay more than this ;)

If you invested that for 14 years earning 7% after inflation, you'd have over £30k to give to DC in cash when they finish school

Not bad going! Perhaps that's the difference between having to work Tesco shifts at uni vs not? A house deposit early on instead of struggling in rented until their 30s?

For a May born no. I have a June born who was no where near the youngest in his class, and while it did take him a little time to be ready to want to learn, they go slow and by year 1 he had caught up, year 2 he hit greater depth and he's now thriving in grammar school.
Conversely my September born was so bored that last year at nursery and went to school already knowing how to read (she wanted to learn). It turns out she does have quite significant SEN, but her struggles mostly aren't academic and being the oldest doesn't really offset that. What I would say is in the early year the social and emotional maturity gap between the oldest and the youngest is massive, so a child potentially 4 months older than the next oldest may not be at the same stage.