Dear Mr Balls,
Thank you very much for taking the time to reply and to say that you are asking for our views.
I note all your points and acknowledge the positive aspects, particularly the changes to the Year 1 curriculum. As a very frustrated campaigner on this issue(albeit one who has succeeded in her fight for her own son)I would like to make the following comments to you on the point that "we are not proposing allowing those children starting school after they turn five to start in reception rather than year 1."
You said: "The evidence we have suggests it is better for children to start school earlier rather than later". I have found no evidence that August born children benefit from starting school at 4.0 rather than 5.0. I see statistical evidence in the "When you are born matters" report that starting at 4.0 may be better than starting in April at 4.9 for most children. The reason that starting in April is bad is that the children have to play catch-up. How much bigger a game of catch-up would they have to play, however, if you forced them straight from nursery into Year 1? It simply defies common sense to suggest that a child could simply slot into Year 1. I see NO evidence that it is better to start reception at 4.0 than 5.0. But comparisons to our neighbours in Scotland suggest that their children do not suffer at all from a potentially later start. Where is the clamour from Scots to more to the English system? There is none. But spend a little time on this board and you will see many English parents longing for the Scottish system.
Please remember that Sir Jim Rose simply made an a priori assumption that all children were in school at 4 years +. He never even considered any evidence for or against allowing year deferral for reception. That is just not good enough. These are very vulnerable children. I consider that he entirely failed to meet your brief and should be invited to reconsider.
Mr Balls, if I managed to get my speech therapist, nursery manager, consultant paediatrician and school headmistress to write to you confirming their opinions that, as a result of Bradford Council having allowing him to defer by a year (i)my child's needs are being better met and (ii)the cost of meeting my child's needs is now likely to be much lower (as the need for a Statement has been removed), would that help you persuade Jim Rose to do the job he was asked to do? This is not a rhetorical flourish. I do not mean it aggressively. This is something I am prepared to do, even at the cost of the confidentiality of my child's medical records.
As for SEN, "The additional help he needs" is, in my son's case, extremely simple - it is to be with the right cohort. Very, very, cheap, very effective and yet transformative of his life chances. He has started his second nursery year this month and already I see him blossoming, but would we have dared to let him blossom at 4 only to crush him by placing him in Year 1 at 5 against the advice of all the health professionals? I don't know.
I appreciate your concern about immature children whose parents don't defer. I share it, frankly. There is enormous peer pressure on parents not to defer, so only highly educated parents here in Bradford choose deferral. If parents were educated as to the fact that starting later (as on the continent and in Scotland) does not detract from end achievements provided the child gets to "start from the beginning", then more parents would defer. It could become the norm to allow parents choice not just in "where" their child goes to school, but also "when".
Mr Balls, I suspect there is a legal case to be made against the effective forced 4.0 school starting age. I would have gone to the courts if I'd been forced to. If a child is entitled to a free education starting at 5 years, how can it be lawful to deny that child entry into the year group in which he or she will be taught to read or write? It is effectively denying the child an education.
Enough from me, Mr Balls, but will you please read the letter below? It's from a headmaster in the Bradford area, reacting with horror to Bradford LEA's proposals to change its policy to remove the option to year-defer reception entry, a policy-change that you are now threatening to simply impose:
" I am writing to raise an objection in the strongest possible terms, to the proposals to discourage, and indeed prevent deferred entry for summer born children from 2010.
In this climate of "Every Child Matters" and "Personalising Learning", it seems that these agendas and principles do not matter if the needs of a very small number of very young and vulnerable children might cause a little increase in administration. The only impact of deferring entry is the addition of a note on the pupil census to explain why there appear to be additional children in infant class.
In my many years as a teacher and a head, I have always tried to make decisions in the best interests of individual children. Summer born children, particularly those with mid to late August birthdays, are at a distinct disadvantage in our educational system, particularly as children in this country start formal school far too early at the age of 4+ in any case. As a reception class teacher and for many years as a Head Teacher, I have encouraged parents to make their own decision based upon their superior knowledge of their children, and I have always undertaken to support them fully in that decision.
Young children who are forced into formal education too soon suffer from lack of confidence and self-esteem, and this impacts on their personal well-being as well as progress and attainment. For many children, the impact stays with them until GCSE and later life. Conversely, those who defer entry come to school confident and mature. They do well both personally and academically. Surely this should be the priority!
We are not talking about huge numbers of children. I currently have 2 children in my 2-form entry school whose entry was deferred by agreement to meet their needs. A further child will enter in September 2008. All the children concerned remain in good quality nursery settings, accessing appropriate provision and environment until the term after they are 5, which is, after all, their legal entitlement. They remain with their admission cohort throughout the school and leave with them in Y6.
........
The proposals outlined clearly remove the option of deferred entry from parents, as you quite rightly point out that Year 1 classes will be full. To suggest or require that children should be placed directly into Y1 and miss the last year of the foundation stage is outrageous. Anyone with any understanding of the needs of young children should know this.
I note that a study reported nationally this morning has highlighted the issue of admission age in England, and found that English children do not benefit from starting school so young. Having recently visited schools in Europe and experienced the success and confidence of hcildren who start school at 6 or 7 years old, folowing universal Kindergarten provision, I would go further and say that our current system disadvantages even 5 year old children. To impose formal schooling on children who have just had their 4th birthday is cruel and inappropriate.
I would like to have sight of the rationale that led to this proposal. As it is, I cannot identify one advantage of this proposal to children. If every child really does matter to Bradford, then this proposal should be rejected."
I am happy to write to you directly giving my full name and address.