Guest post: “A later start can be the best thing for many children.”

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

My summer-born daughter Olivia is the oldest child in her school year.

Nearly four years ago I told Mumsnet all about our ‘fight’ to start her in reception at age five.

Olivia is now in Year 3 and enjoying school.

But other parents up and down the country are still fighting for the same right, with their children being made to start at age 4 or enter Year 1 at age 5.

This is despite assurances from the Schools Minister Nick Gibb in 2015, that ‘summer-born children can be admitted to the reception class at the age of five if it is in line with their parents’ wishes’, and the promise ‘to ensure that those children are able to remain with that cohort as they progress through school, including through to secondary school.’

A later start can be the best thing for many children. Olivia enjoyed her reception year, but the jump to Year 1 was a bit of a shock and she found some of Year 2 hard. I’m so glad she had that extra year of development behind her to face those challenges.

No one could pick Olivia out in a crowd; she fits in perfectly well with her class cohort and is thriving in Year 3.

Despite all the warnings that she’d be ‘on the wrong register’, be ‘the odd one out’ or ‘have to take her SATs a year early’, we haven’t encountered any problems along the way (although she did receive a birthday card with the wrong age on one year, but that’s about as tricky as it’s got!).

Olivia even thanks me for what I did.

I have always talked about it openly (and proudly) and explained my reasons to her. She tells me that she couldn’t imagine being in Year 4 right now. ‘I’m right where I belong, mummy,’ she says.

The truth is, Olivia knows more about the law than some staff who work in admission departments, and even some school heads. She often corrects adults who tell her she ‘should’ be in Year 4, saying, ‘I could be in Year 4, not should.’

Of course, every child is different. That’s why choice and flexibility is so important (but only if it’s fair for all). Some summer-born children will enjoy school from age four and do very well, while others won’t. Whatever choice parents make should be without judgement.

Every time I read about the summer-born issue it ends in confused debate, so I wanted to finish by debunking a few myths and ensuring everyone knows the facts.

What is the law? Do you know your rights?

The School Admissions Code requires councils to provide schooling for all children in the September following their fourth birthday, but a child does not reach compulsory school age until the term following their fifth birthday.

So, for a summer-born child (defined as born April 1st - August 31st), that’s a whole year later than when they could first enter school.

Here’s where it gets tricky. Summer-born children are still the only group of children who don’t have automatic right of access to reception at that point (compulsory school age); parents can only request that their child starts in reception.

Some admission authorities have a policy of automatically agreeing all requests while others will only consider requests if parents present very strong evidence of special educational needs or developmental delay.

It’s important to know that it’s your decision when your child starts school, whether prior to compulsory school age or at compulsory school age.

The admission authority for the school has to make a year group decision based on the best interests of your child at that point (i.e. compulsory school age). The discussion should not be about ‘school readiness’ or how they can meet your child’s needs at age four.

The question an admission authority must answer is: ‘What is in this child’s best interests at compulsory school age, reception or Year 1?’ It must then clearly explain the reasons for its decision.

Incredibly, it has been nearly four years since Nick Gibb’s assurances and promises, and in that time many children have been forced to miss reception or start school before their parents wanted them to.

There needs to be a consistent approach across the country, and soon.

For further information regarding the admission of summer-born children, please see the Summer Born Campaign website and join its Facebook group.

Rosie will be returning to the post on Wednesday 22nd May to answer some user questions

Oh I see, sorry. I was referring to the research about delaying entry.
I agree, the phonics screen data is pointless and adds nothing to the debate.

So what research are you referring to please? Does it conclusively show that delaying a summer born has no or a negative impact on their mental health and well being, enjoyment of learning as well as academic achievement? Very interested to read it if so as the only ones I have come across where the headlines are ‘no impact’ are (as Helix explains above) at best very limited and at worst misleading

Are you maybe referring to ones about delaying meaning starting later in the year. Because one article confusingly referred to it but i think meant it doesnt benefit if you choose to start after xmas/apr/go pt/or straight into yr 1. And yes these are all options which could be chosen for various reasons but unsurprisingly are (likely to be) putting the child in a worse position academically. They will have missed some of reception.
That is very different to doing the whole thing at 5+.
It is for flexibility (and legally) brcause they dont have to be there at all. Some kids will cope fine in cohort older but just cant do reception without naps or everyday.
And technically you cant start at CSA in yr 1 unless there is a space as they wont hold it past Apr despite your kid not having to go till Sept of yr 1.
For CSA in yr r you reapply anyway.

Deferring entry means to

Sorry, posted too soon.
Deferring entry means to start school late, but still within the school year.
Delayed entry means to start the next academic year.
I linked to two research reports earlier in the thread.
The reason it doesn’t work is not because of the impact on individual children. Some children do benefit from being held back a year, although not all. It doesn’t work for some children, and disabled children and disadvantaged children are worse off if they stay at home for an extra year.
The issue is that although the child being held back a year may benefit the practice actively disadvantages other children. A parent fighting for the best for their own child is admirable, and if it were only their child that it affected then there wouldn’t be a problem. But if it is at the expense of other children, especially children who are already disadvantaged for one reason or another, then it is not a good thing.

Elisheva I am sorry I can only find one link to research (The 2013 IFS one) is there another one that you have posted that ‘proves’ there is no academic/emotional/social benefit of summer borns starting Reception at 5 instead of 4? You mention you posted 2 so I must have missed it (sorry it is a long thread). You seem very confident that research has ‘proven’ that delay does not benefit summerborns and I am trying to find the evidence to support that?? More research is required because anecdotally many parents (including myself) can and have seen huge benefits to their individual child’s emotional well being in not being forced into full time education early? Without the flexibility we would have been left with options that hugely disadvantage our children (part time/deferred or forced home ed). So if we agree that there could be a benefit to summerborns of delaying (you say above it may benefit the child being held back) then it would be immoral and highly unethical to deny that opportunity to them? I agree that more needs to be done for ALL children. You are incorrect to suggest that a delay means staying at home, disabled and disadvantaged and all summerborns can still get funded places at Nursery/playgroup’s with higher teacher to pupil ratios than schools and therefore could equally benefit from delay? That is not to say they would choose but choice is always a good thing isn’t it? In the same way that if we worked to find a way to help those other disadvantaged children (because summerborn is a disadvantage in its own right) then it would be immoral to deny them that benefit. I would aim for more flexibility for ALL children and parents And the summer born policy is a small step towards that. I see those extremely disadvantaged children you have in mind, I see that their parents might not choose to delay, I see that there are winterborns that could also benefit from delay. These issues also need addressing (in an ideal world with a later start for all). But as it stands in a sample of n=1 the summer born policy HAS enabled a shy withdrawn child time to grow in confidence enough that we can consider school at 5. I have no doubt that forcing her in at 4 would have put her off education/school for life. No amount of ‘teacher awareness’ would have helped her cope. Instead she was able to stay part time in a familiar very child led environment, has learnt how to make friends, no longer cries with separation from her parents and is keen and excited for school! How about instead of trying to deny opportunity to some (because you feel it is at the ‘expense’ of others) we work to give better opportunities for all??

As I said, no doubt the policy does benefit individual children.
But it is at the expense of other children. This is not something I ‘feel’or ‘think’, this is something that is proven, even Nick Gibb has acknowledged this.
Not all children have lovely, nurturing homes. Not all children have access to good quality childcare.
I know families where they are relieved when their child starts school because it means that they will get a free meal.
If you were campaigning for all children to start school later I would understand, but you are not. You are campaigning for your child to start school later - and you do not care if this has an impact on the other children in the class.

I’m sorry but I still can’t see where it is proven to be at the expense of others. Could you repost the link to this research please, as someone else mentioned it’s a very long thread. I’m genuinely interested.

Although we’re not yet campaigning for a change in the whole system, having some flexibility in schooling such as delayed entry for summerborns is a great start. Once this is more routinely done where appropriate and the benefits seen it will be easier to argue for more flexibility - such as repeating a year where necessary, flexi-schooling, less testing etc You’ve got to start somewhere and there’s plenty of evidence about the benefit of delaying summerborns so it makes sense to be the first step.

It is routinely done in America and other countries which is where most of the research comes from, and they have discovered that, at a population level, it does more harm than good.
I will find the research links.

Not all children have lovely, nurturing homes. Not all children have access to good quality childcare.
I know families where they are relieved when their child starts school because it means that they will get a free meal.

If you were campaigning for all children to start school later I would understand, but you are not. You are campaigning for your child to start school later - and you do not care if this has an impact on the other children in the class.

Your two paragraphs contradict each other. I am sadly quite aware that starting school can be overwhelmingly positive thing when it comes to children from poor, neglectful and chaotic homes. Hence the two year old Govt funding for nurseries and preschools also.

So why, in your eyes, would it be better to campaign for later school starts for all, when staying at home longer is not necessarily in the child’s best interests?

I’m also still not clear how the presence of an out of cohort child (especially one who has SEN or developmental delays and is “younger” than their calendar age) is damaging for their classmates. Genuinely can’t follow that line of thought.

So you agree the policy does benefit some children, it has had a huge benefit to many yes. If there is conclusive significant data that my child delaying will negatively impact the achievement and emotional well being of another child, and forcing my child into education early will negatively impact my child emotionally and academically we are in the ethical dilemma whereby a decision either way disadvantages someone and so in a position where the whole system needs to change? I am skepticial that that evidence is there (my child is not exceptional but in my opinion being 5 instead of 4 will benefit her classmates in many ways..more research required on this...) Where there is evidence suggesting a detrimental impact iwhat factors are causing this detriment and how can we address those? Option to delay for all is perhaps the answer? Or more awareness and support and equal opportunity for additionally disadvantaged children to delay? As the poster above has stated the summer born policy is a step in the right direction dealing with a huge portion of those affected by a system that has NO flexibility to one that allows some? I do not believe that depriving opportunity to disadvantaged summerborns is the answer to raising achievement in the most deprived?!

www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r80.pdf (page 71)

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED574365.pdf (page 27)

www.dur.ac.uk/research/news/thoughtleadership/?itemno=23069 “Researchers have found that [the problem]cannot be solved by delaying entry to kindergarten, or making pupils repeat a year.”

www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Education/evidence-check-forum/summer-born-children.pdf

“If pupils from disadvantaged backgrounds are less likely to delay entry to primary school, then the already large attainment gap between disadvantaged pupils and their peers will widen, undermining one of the government’s key commitments.”
www.headteacher-update.com/best-practice-article/summer-born-pupils-whats-the-evidence/109276/

Where I'm from in Canada, children start school the year they turn 5. That means when they start in Sept, almost all the children will be 5 already, and the ones born in Sept-Dec (like me) will shortly be turning 5.

My friend back in Canada and I had baby girls within a week of each other, but mine will be starting school a year earlier here in England.

Someone always has to be the youngest, but I suppose if you had a school with multiple classes for each year you could divide the classes by birthdate. Say you had two classes, one could be children with earlier birthdays and the second could be the children with later birthdays. Presumably the older class would always have better results, but I don't know how much that matters.

As it happens I went to a very small school, and so we always had two year groups in one class, and so an age range of 2 years. As a child I did not really notice it (and always did well academically and socially even when the youngest of the 2 years) but I wonder how the teachers saw it.

Thank you for taking the time to share those. However I would argue that the research you’ve sited actually states that delaying summerborn entry is ‘ineffective’ I don’t see where it states it’s proven as “doing more harm than good”.

“We argue that policy intervention to overcome the disadvantage of being born later in the academic year is justified, for two reasons. First, these differences arise purely as a result of the organisation of the educational system: there is nothing fundamentally different about August-born children; somebody has to be the youngest in each academic cohort, and in England it happens to be those born in August. Our view is that this policy ‘accident’ should not be allowed to affect negatively those born towards the end of the (arbitrarily defined) academic year. Second, despite the fact that we find little evidence of significant differences persisting into adulthood, being born at the end of the academic year seems to have a detrimental effect on children’s well-being: for example, they have lower self-confidence and are more likely to engage in risky behaviours at younger ages. There is also a danger that some young people will drop out of school or not receive the support that they need whilst they are at school, simply because of the month in which they were born. Policymakers should do as much as they can to remedy these inequities.”

“As age at test is the key driver of differences in educational attainment between those born at the start and end of the academic year, age-adjusting national achievement test scores is a simple and straightforward way of ensuring that those born towards the end of the academic year are not disadvantaged by taking the tests younger.” BUT THIS IS NOT BEING DONE so why shouldn’t parents of summerborns do the only thing in their power at present and fight to delay their child’s reception start.

“However, the extent to which age-adjustment of national achievement test scores would help to address some or all of the differences in other outcomes that we observe is less clear.” So age adjustment may not be the answer either....

“Summer-born pupils are less likely to be resilient than their autumn- born counterparts. The comparative poor performance of summer- born children is a consistent finding throughout the research literature.
There have been suggestions that parents of summer-born children should be able to choose the year of schooling they enter, but this approach is LIKELY to be to the detriment of more disadvantaged pupils: parents unable to afford an additional year of childcare may choose to send their children to school early and those from more affluent backgrounds may be more likely to delay the first year of school.” So I would argue that 30 hours funding should be provided to all (not just working parents as 15 hours may not be enough). 30 hours early year funding is pretty much the same as school hours so where’s the advantage to wealthier parents of delaying compared those who are disadvantaged when the hours the child is at nursery, or school are the same?

“This could then exacerbate the problem as instead of a class of pupils with up to 12 months difference in age, the age range could increase to 15 months. In addition, this approach still leaves some children the youngest in the year; and therefore, more targeted support for pupils young for their year may make more sense.” - But in the research you’ve sited they advise that grouping pupils by attainment and ability is detrimental also - so how can they target the youngest with additional support without unecessarily damaging their esteem/ self belief etc

The parliament link you supplied said it’s ‘ineffective’ not that it’s proven to disadvantage others. Also bearing in mind this is comparing to other countries and isn’t research based on our education system.

I’m also still not clear how the presence of an out of cohort child (especially one who has SEN or developmental delays and is “younger” than their calendar age) is damaging for their classmates. Genuinely can’t follow that line of thought.

I genuinely can't see how you can think it's damaging for a summer born to be in a class with children up to 12 months older, but not see why it's therefore worse for them to be in a class with children up to 17 months older.

I see your point that it would be less of an issue if that significantly older child had issues that made them 'seem younger', but ensuring that it was those children, and only those children, who deferred would require giving final say to someone other than the parents - so, the exact opposite of what the summerborn campaign wants.

I think the idea that no parent would delay just to advantage their already-fine child if given the option is laughably naive.

Elisheva I don’t see any data in there that proves that delaying a summer born has negatively impacted another child? I actually don’t see much (brief scan will review again later) primary data at all? Only extrapolated conclusions on small samples and opinions? You are clearly well read on the subject and I appreciate the information but please remember to critically review the sources of information and data before making statements about research ‘proving’ one thing or another. It isn’t helpful. Isnt it worrying that politician make decisions on such poor information?? And they then suggest alternative ‘solutions’ (eg the teacher awareness) that are even less grounded in evidence/research??

There have been suggestions that parents of summer-born children should be able to choose the year of schooling they enter, but this approach is LIKELY to be to the detriment of more disadvantaged pupils: parents unable to afford an additional year of childcare may choose to send their children to school early and those from more affluent backgrounds may be more likely to delay the first year of school.” So I would argue that 30 hours funding should be provided to all (not just working parents as 15 hours may not be enough). 30 hours early year funding is pretty much the same as school hours so where’s the advantage to wealthier parents of delaying compared those who are disadvantaged when the hours the child is at nursery, or school are the same?

Firstly, you're arguing for two combined policies, which is fine, but means you can't support a campaign for just one half of that (automatic right to deferral but not 30 hours funding), as you acknowledge that one policy without the other would disadvantage some children.

Secondly, in practice very few nurseries offer the hours with no 'topping up' payments for meals, materials, etc (since they're allowed to, and it's not financially viable for them otherwise). Schools do not charge for these things. Keeping a child in nursery rather than sending them to school is very unlikely to be cost neutral.

I think it’s laughable to assume that a parent would delay their child from starting school if they were for example May or June born and clearly in their opinion ‘ready’ for school. Children who are sufficiently mature and thirsty to learn are I expect much more likely to get bored in an early years setting which is likely to lead to more challenging behaviour and acting out. Parents generally do what’s in the child’s best interests & that is often to not delay them. I know a number of parents who have considered delaying their August born children but have chosen not to because they believe they are sufficiently ready and they are worried about them becoming bored if they keep them for an extra year at nursery.

You are clearly well read on the subject and I appreciate the information but please remember to critically review the sources of information and data before making statements about research ‘proving’ one thing or another. It isn’t helpful.

Maybe you should do more than a 'brief scan' yourself before getting on your high horse about other people's research skills.

The summaries of the available evidence she links to were prepared by experts paid to go through the available research. No one is claiming the research is perfect, but that doesn't mean we can conclude that the opposite must be true!

Unrelatedly, your use of question marks is absolutely infuriating.

I think it’s laughable to assume that a parent would delay their child from starting school if they were for example May or June born and clearly in their opinion ‘ready’ for school.

Posters on this thread have all agreed that some people try to conceive a September baby because they want the advantages that come with being older. They don't seem to worry, 'but what if they're bored towards the end of nursery?'. I think it's incredibly naive to think that people wouldn't seek that advantage in other ways if they could.

DS is July born, but too little to have any idea how he'll be at 3/4 yet. But will I consider delaying him if I consider it unnecessary but to his ultimate advantage? Yes. If someone's child is going to benefit from being the oldest why wouldn't I want it to be mine, the child I care most about? I don't think that policy should be set up to allow that essentially selfish view, but I refuse to believe that I'm unique in being a parent who would choose to advantage my own child.

I think its great that this is allowed. In my area its so easy as well, you don't have a fight on your hands like other area's! My daughter is 3rd August and I very nearly deferred but actuallly glad I didn't as she is thriving in reception. I am now due another in July and am so glad I have the option of sending him later I feel it necessary!

Perhaps LisaSimpsonbff should take a leaf out of your book!

Maybe you should do more than a 'brief scan' yourself before getting on your high horse about other people's research skills.

I fully intend to thank you, no high horse I genuinely appreciate being directed to the information. Having read in detail on the subject I have come across no robust evidence (hence the criticism of the research)?? Open to being directed to some and will correct if upon closer inspection I find some robust information within those links

The summaries of the available evidence she links to were prepared by experts paid to go through the available research.
The scientific literature prepared and synthesised by experts is riddled with debate critique and bias, just because they are ‘experts’ doesn’t mean there is no room for debate?!?

No one is claiming the research is perfect
When you make a statement that ‘research proves’ something, you are almost always incorrect. It is very hard to prove anything but evidence can suggest one way or another. In this case the research (that I have come across) is so weak that it warrants much more work before even suggestions can be made?

but that doesn't mean we can conclude that the opposite must be true! I agree, I do not conclude the opposite, I think more needs to be done for all children.

Unrelatedly, your use of question marks is absolutely infuriating.* ok, sorry my question marks offend you?!?

Just opening the research links to read (they appear to be several years old?)

I would agree that delaying school start for ALL children would be even better.

For example, I did not delay my child because of this: their motivation is understandable and clear: if their child was allowed to wait another year they would benefit from becoming the oldest in the class rather than the youngest

I delayed him because he wasn’t emotionally ready for school at four. He was ready at five. I don’t care if he is he oldest or youngest. If every child could delay, so much the better!

Parents could campaign for all children to start later. But I don’t see that happening, which is maybe why they are campaigning to have the choice instead.

Nowhere in those links do I see it said that it’s proven to be actively disadvantaging other children? There’s a lot of ‘possibly’ ‘likely’ but not ‘proven’ They are not recent research, some are based on other countries which obviously don’t have the same educational system and they are mainly about academic attainment not about the behaviour and social effects starting school has on a child. Mental health issues in children are massively increasing so ensuring a child is secure and happy and able to cope when they start school is the most important thing not whether they are going to be a top reader, best at sports etc. It seems like the ones against delaying are obsessed with the age differences and being competitive about it as if it’s all about gaining an advantage to be top of the class when in fact most of us just want our children to walk in to school by themselves, no tears, no anxiety, understand what they have to do and how to behave in class, be independent etc. More children starting school like this where the adult child ratio is massively different to preschool can only help the teacher and the other children.