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

How do you thinm it hinders?

Madsometimes, I am one of those parents.

My Ds turned 5 in Aug, he started reception at an independent school in Sept.

Both my local maintained mainstream schools turned him down, claiming they were full - which they most certainly were not - as it would be completely unsuitable for him to be with peers rather than ability equivalent cohorts (he does have SEN).

We are now committed to keeping him in the private sector for his whole education as my LEA has a policy of replacing child into peer group, thereby missing out a whole years education.

This is a message for Linglette....

Linglette, I'd love to talk to you privately. Would you be able to CAT me or change your email preferences so I can send a private message to you?

Thanks

you can email [email protected]

So long as you don't turn out to be another friend from my home town

Could children not start school based on their due-date, and not their birthday.

I cannot see how a child born very prematurely can possibly keep up. It is cruel.

Some of the posts above make me feel very sad, especially as the problems could be resolved so cheaply. E.g. let children start a year later but go into reception.

Good luck to all of you with premature children. You've had many struggles and I hope that you have the fight left in you to sort this issue out.

Sorry, I haven't read the whole thread (will read it all when I have a bit more time) but am jumping in here because I really want to find out about this whole thing- and I also would love to participate in any campaign / petition (whatever) we MNers choose to start on this subject.

I recently found out about this whole summer-born thing- I have a 14 month old DS born in august-, and that they HAVE to go to school at 4 (because that's the reality isn't it, it's not as if keeping them at home until 5 solves the problem). I'm originally from Greece where year 1 starts when children are between 6-7, and up til then it's just nursery. And that works well! (and seems to be the system in most other countries). So I was shocked when I found out that here in the UK they send children to school so early- and I think 5 years for year 1 is far too early. It's not about academic development so much, it's mostly about emotional / developmental maturity.

In any case, I'm sure all this must have been discussed in this thread...so I will stop here, but would love to participate in any petition going. Any links to something like that?

Just skimming through the recent bits of the thread. Jajas, your story is so very very sad. It's preposterous that this kind of thing is allowed to happen nowadays! . There's simply NO conceivable educational reason why this should have happened to your twins. I would think it's basically a case where you could even sue the council & could easily win the case...

I also think there must be a case to mount.

Someone with a legal background will hit this problem and decide not to let it go away......

Linglette - I think the issue of premature children has already been to court and lost

. any idea on what basis?

Can't remember the detail - but can remember beign very on behalf of the child/children (could have been twins) involved.

IIRC, the case was lost on the basis that while schools/LEAs have discretion to allow children to defer entry "properly" (ie join the cohort a year below them), if they choose not to do, they cannot be forced into it

Like most people, I read Jaja's post and thought how unfairly her boys had been treated. It is a seriously unfair system.

However, its worth considering the government's point of view on this. Reading between the lines on Ed Balls statement and from what I've learnt from Mumsnet's education threads over the years, I've deduduced the following:

Governments see state education as a tool for improving social mobility by increasing opportunities for our most disadvantaged children.

So, for example, this impacts the policy for school starting age. Whilst, for most children from families with good parenting skills, delaying the start of formal education (year 1) to say age 6 -7, would do no harm and might actually be benefical, it would seriously harm those children from the most deprived background.

The 'optional delayed start' for immature summer born children would likewise, be good for the childrem of parents who understand the benefits. However, it will disadvantage those children whose parents don't understand or care. So, a 'deprived' summer born child could end 15 months younger than the oldest child in class. As I believe happens in some parts of the US.

This doesn't excuse the lame 'Sir Jim Rose' (and to be frank Ed Balls) reponse to this problem, and I think the idea of a campaign is a good one!! Just because there are no easy answers to this, doesn't mean we should let the government get away with it.

Jackstarbright. I think what you say makes sense up to a point- about social mobility. There are many ways around this though. This would be a good reason to give free nursery places for more hours & then delay year 1 until 6-7 years of age. Or even nursery (at age 4-5) could perhaps be made compulsory. Or there could be 2 years of compulsory reception. The point is for children to not go into academic work as early as 5 years old. I think the UK is a glaring exception in the age children start school. There is no excuse for this & no good educational or social reason. Children in most countries (eg other European countries, including Scandinavia which has very good provisions to ensure social mobility) start school later. Children that are disadvantaged need much much more than just going to school earlier! That won't solve their problems, in fact, it'll create additional problems, as these children too will be disadvantaged by such a ridiculously early starting school age.

Maria,

I am in total agreement with you. My post was an attempt to explain what I see has the government's reasoning - but I certainly do not agree with it. There has to be better ways of helping disadvantaged children - without penalising the less mature summer borns. I like your two years of reception idea. For example (adapting a bit) in a 3 form entry school I'd see it working like this.

All children start reception in the September after they turn 4. But they are put into classes by age (roughly Autumn, Winter and Summer born). The Autumn born class do 1 year of reception as now. The springs - 4 terms and the summer's 5 terms. Each child moving to year 1 work when they are at least 5 and 7 months (roughly the current average age for starting year 1). All classes would have a 4 month age spead which should narrow the ability range and the risk of children being 'left behind' or not not stretched.

At some point (year 3/4?) the classes could be mixed up (or not). But the point is by then gaps should have closed and appropriate early years teaching will have given all the children a solid start. I can't see this idea costing any more money.

There are lots of good (and probably better) ideas out there. Which is why I found the Jim Rose report such a disappointment.

Hmmm,

couldn't we educate those parents who do care and make nursery compulsory from an appropriate age for the children of those who don't?

By the way MUMSNETHQ - can you bat this thread back to Ed Balls? I think it has lots of interesting stuff in it and would like to get a response from him. Or Jim Rose.

We should start a petition- you know the ones that get sent to number 10? Has something like that been done? I bet with all the MNetters behind it (plus their networks) it would be huge.

sorry to be cheeky - promise will be signing.

I don't know how this type of petition is drafted, but would love to give it a go. Anyone else interested in joining efforts with me in order to produce a first draft? And also: what should our aim be? Generally later age of school entry? Or just possibility of deferral for a year?

Hi Maria,

A couple of links worth looking at. One about what's planned in Wales, where they intend to move to a play based curriculum for 3-7 year olds. here.

Welsh Mumsnetters - what do you think about this???

Also a new report on primary education is about to be published. here Not clear if it covers the summer born issue.

Einstein wrote: "It's a wonder our children survive our formal education system". I agree, it's full on way too early. When are we going to wake up and realise that a one-size-fits-all education system is doing more harm than good to so many of our children ... especially the younger ones. Makes me &

MNHQ have notified Ed Balls' people about the thread again I think, and are awaiting further developments about getting Rose on. Or summat very similar to this . It was a while ago that I reported the thread so they would pick it up again...

The disadvantages of being a summer born child was discussed this morning's Woman's Hour. Any comments or personal experiences can be posted here. Jane Garvey said they would discuss it again later this week.

Btw - As well as school achievement, the piece covered mental health, SEN and premier league football potential!! Could be distressing for some!!

The advantages for summer born children are that they get better birthday parties.

My entire family is summer born and - as well as being high achieving (bucking the trend!) - we have great birthday parties!