Following Ed Balls webchat, thread for parents of summer born babies

[GeraldineMumsnet]

We said we'd start this thread, as so many of you expressed an opinion on the Ed Balls webchat thread about summer-born babies and starting school.

BTW, this is a recent thread in media requests on a linked topic.

Will nip over to webchat thread and link to this.

MNHQ

It is not difficult to adminiser at all. Why would it be?

In Scotland, the "cut-off" is beginning of March - so if you were a February baby, you would normally start the following year. But it is possible - albeit rare - to apply for early entry. Or am I getting it back to front (it's late ) Anyway - kids can apply to go to school who are younger than the norm, but they have to jump through hoops to do so and it is not common in Scoltand (for all the reasons already mentioned on this thread), as the flexibility is normally the other way, with people holding the younger kids back, so that instead of being the youngest in the year, they end up being the oldest - and in some cases, will be more than year older than other kids in the same class.

Notanotter - why is it difficult to administrate? You merely register your child in the January (or thereabouts - it varies betwen education departments) of the year you want your child to start school (which would be in the August of that year as there is only one intake).

In Scotland, the "cut-off" is beginning of March - so if you were a February baby, you would normally start the following year. But it is possible - albeit rare - to apply for early entry. Or am I getting it back to front (it's late ) Anyway - kids can apply to go to school who are younger than the norm, but they have to jump through hoops to do so and it is not common in Scoltand (for all the reasons already mentioned on this thread), as the flexibility is normally the other way, with people holding the younger kids back, so that instead of being the youngest in the year, they end up being the oldest - and in some cases, will be more than year older than other kids in the same class.

Notanotter - why is it difficult to administrate? You merely register your child in the January (or thereabouts - it varies betwen education departments) of the year you want your child to start school (which would be in the August of that year as there is only one intake).

It is a important topic, more so as the difference between what is law and what actually happens is so wide.
It is still law that you don't have to start your child in school until the term after their fifth birthday (as in Ireland) - unfortunately you try finding a school which will do this. You have to enter in reception, if you want a place.
Reception intake is September-only for an increasing number of places. That means that a summerborn child starts when they are only just 4 - although the legal starting date has not changed.

Someone mentioned being born in August and not feeling it handicapped them. The interesting, and not much used bit of research, about it is that although fewer summerborns go to Uni. Those that do, do better.

OK let's try again.

My son was non-verbal at 3.0 and had a receptive language delay. That means he didn't understand language beyond the 18 month level.

Quote from paediatrician: "I think it would be a really good idea if he started in reception a year later"

Quote from Council's special needs support teacher: "I think that deferring him a year is the best option."

Quote from excellent reception teacher:"Well whatever happens he quite obviously won't be ready for me in September 2009. Send him to me in September 2010"

Quote from speech therapist:"Being an August-born boy is already a double whammy, but being an August born boy with a language delay this severe would be a triple whammy".

Said boy is now developing fast and his language abilities should catch up with his contemporaries within the next year or so - in time for him to access the reception curriculum in 2010.

Notanotter, are you still saying that all of us are wrong and that we are somehow failing to instill a work ethic" in this child? And please don't say "oh special needs are different". My boy is just at the extreme end of the developmental spectrum, and lots of other kids, particularly boys, have similar problems albeit less severe. Plonk them in reception at 4.0 with these problems and they'll be put off for life.

PS should add that I am perhaps the only person in the UK who counts having kids in the Bradford LEA as her luckiest ever break in life bar none!

But thanks to Jim Rose, Bradford is now abandoning its enlightened policy (not helped by the retirement of the exec. member who had fought for it).

I managed to secure an exception for kids where the parents obtain a professional recmmendation to defer which was something I suppose.

dogonpoints - it's a logistical question.
All our local primary schools are hugely over-subscribed. It's a real issue here, as in other places, to get a reception place (or secondary place at 11, come to that). Siblings take priority, which can account for up to 50% of the available places, although a few years back in my closest school, 22 out of 30 places were taken up by siblings.
So there is fierce competition for the remaining places. Imagine the outcry (on MN if not everywhere else!) if some of those places became ring-fenced for children who'd already had their "turn" at the school place lottery and chosen to repeat/defer the year. The place they've left open in their original chohort would not be available to a younger child whose parents wanted to skip a year and accelerate them.

test

My DDs are both spring born, but I fail to see why we can't replicate the Scottish system to some extent, whereby children whose birthdays are say between May and August can choose to start in Reception and 4 and a bit, or Reception at 5 and a bit. As far as I can tell, no-one has given a coherent reason why a 5 yrs 3 months child starting Reception is somehow going to be disadvantaged later on (IIRC, Ed Balls just said "yes, we thought about deferring school entry into Yr R, but we didn't think it was a good idea", without giving more details).

Reading this thread makes me very happy to be living in Scotland , where the system seems so much better, in several ways. I have November and late Jan boys, due to start school 2010 and 2011, and it is very good to know that I can defer them both for a year if I feel that they are not ready for p1. Even if they start 'on time', they will still be older than the youngest starters in England, because of the March cut-off.

Without wishing in any way to start off a discussion of the merits or otherwise of a Steiner education, the starting age does seem to be one area where they have got things right. We have friends whose daughter turned 7 in the summer and is just starting in the first class in a Steiner school now. She could have started last year (which of course would be very late by English standards at over 6), but the school and parents had many discussions about what was right for her^ and decided to start her this year. She seems happy, bright and raring to go.

Finally, as a cynic, I have my doubts about the government's motivations for pushing children into school at 4. Is it because it benefits the child, or is it because it frees up the parents to go back to work? I wonder. In all these debates, I have seen no defence of the reasons for putting children into school at such an early age. What are the perceived benefits? Children that age don't need to be able to read or write, they don't need to be sitting in a classroom all day (quite the contrary, IMO). So why do we do it?

midnight - re your last paragraph. Yes the anomalous 4.0 start date happened because women were going back into the workplace earlier but there was inadequate pre-school provision. Calling it cynical is maybe a bit harsh - apparently it was the parents who were pushing for earlier starts as we seem conned into an "earlier is better" mentality for some reaon. It wasn't teacher-led.

Clam - Bradford council did get irritated when they thought some parents were deliberately deferring in order to "try again" at their preferred school. I had to turn up at an exec. council meeting 18 months ago to persuade them that genuine people like me needed them to keep the system in place. I, by the way, never applied for a school place in 2009 - I ripped up the form when it came through the door . But most parents honestly wouldn't know what to do at that point - it's potentially 22 months before the school start date if you think about it.

Clam again - not sure if you've understood the Bradford system. They don't ring-fence anything. Usual sibling and geography rules apply.

So I'll be applying in November to my oversubscribed school for my deferred son to start reception at 5.0. There's no guarantee he'll get in though he should do as he has a sibling there. I haven't kept a theoretical place from last year.

Bramshott. You've summed it all up.

In fact what EB said was "Jim did look at that option [delaying start to Yr R] but he advised us that it wouldn't be a good way to support their learning and progress."

We need more information I think. In what way would it not be a good way to support their learning and progress for a child just turned 5 to start in Year R, and how would it better support their learning and progress to catapult them straight into Year 1?

Who has said anything about ring fencing? You simply apply a year later - and go into the same lottery farce process as everyone else with regards to which school you get into.

Bramshoot - honestly I think it's Jim Rose's fault not EB's. EB's only fault is not taking Jim Rose to task over this. And EB isn't doing that because he isn't getting enough pressure on him from us; and he isn't getting enough pressure from us because we don't form a natural lobbying community.

google Sir Jim Rose report Primary School system. It came out in December 2008. Will link if you get stuck.

Here is the evidence which the Government commissioned then asked Jim Rose to consider.

Read the summer-born section.

www.ifs.org.uk/docs/bornmattersreport.pdf

Here is the education sector's reaction to Jim Rose's report. Hope it still works.

www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storycode=6007190

redirectingat.com/?id=470X756&url=h ttp%3A%2F%2Fwww.tes.co.uk%2Farticle.aspx%3Fstorycode%3D6007213

www.tes.co.uk/article.aspx?storyco de=6007232

prettybird you can't do that however as legally a child goes into the class appropriate for its age. So if you apply when they're already 5 for the next year they would be put into Y1

Interesting debate as always (have a sept and an august born). Missed Ed Balls: what is the plan, if any to deal with this?

ah sorry prettybird see you were talking about applynig the scottish system

~This page has the links to Jim Rose's actual reports:

www.dcsf.gov.uk/primarycurriculumreview/

lingle

anyway

what 'harmed' or maybe 'hindered' my ds more than anything was a staggered entry

he was forced to go in january when 24 of 30 childrren had started in september

he was quiet and slow of the mark - a meek and non sporting type . Going into a class where all the other children knew the ropes was awful for him and just made him quieter and more reserved

i think he caught up academically by year 2 but socially it took until secondary school

notanotther. Your ds' experience illustrates why I find the current English system so crazy. Why further disadvantage a child you is already going to be one of the youngest by either only giving them one term of reception or none at all and forcing them to join the older, more confident - and more ready to learn - children, who have already established bonds aomgst thems elves and got used to the learning environment?

Crazy.

the report does recommend part-time being available but a. I bet it won't happen and b. it is not enough.

Madness to only delay the start; only sane thing is to defer the start (ie reception at age 5 plus)

I bet nothing happens . But I do think we should cook up a MN campaign on this cos it is a mahoosive issue.

It's interesting that all of the Scottish (or Scotland-based) MNers seem to think the Scottish system for entry is good. I haven't seen any negative comments about it, here, or on other threads.