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

The research has to be taken from other countries, the policy has not been in effect for long enough here to gather enough information.
I deliberately cited research summeries otherwise the list would have been very long - the primary sources are listed in the references of the relevent articles.

It seems like the ones against delaying are obsessed with the age differences
I think you are confusing a few different issues: school starting age, school readiness and the summer born effect.
The summer born effect is not to do with whether the child is ready to start school, it is to do with the Relative Age Effect, the effect caused by being the youngest in that group. Therefore it is all about the age differences.

But my child is June born so not the youngest. I didn’t delay him because of his age it was due to him not being ready as our education system now expects far more from them than they ever did before. Summerborns having that option to delay means my son wasn’t forced into progressing faster than he was ready for. No one will convince me I should not have done that for his benefit. He’s not ‘super mature’ because he’s 10 weeks older than the eldest in his class. He’s exactly where he should be.

@Elisheva thank you for your well reasoned and informative posts.

I just don't understand why parents that are advocates for this policy can't get their head around how this will actually increase disadvantage for some groups of children and give summer borns an unfair academic advantage.

Having pondered further I would be in favour of a policy that allowed delayed entry if it could be confirmed by a professional that a child was not ready for school and if that child's academic grades were age adjusted. I would make all children born at any point of the year eligible as I genuinely think other issues such as the sex of the child and their home life could affect school readiness far more than age.

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

I agree.

Nick Gibb seemed (in 2015) to also think it was about school readiness (and inconsistent admissions policies across the LAs).

*He was concerned that some parents felt “forced to send their child to school before they are ready and before they are required to do so, or else miss out on their reception year at school”.

He was also worried about stories of some children being admitted outside of the normal age group but then later being required to miss a year and move up against their wishes*

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?

I agree.

I agree Bumpitybumper. I would be fine with an older child in the class who had been assessed as not ready by a professional. My DS was in a class with a boy 16 months older who was very young for his age, and would have been very unlikely to have been ready the year before. He was not a problem and fitted in well. It was the middle class, socially mature deferred children who made the age range a problem.

You cannot compare with US re early years, they start later so it is not about school readiness there. They are not writing and starting to read at 4.0yo! Starting earlier would exaggerate the sbility of the eldest to get ahead.

Yes there are several issues
4.0 is too young
Therefore the difference 48-60m is huge
More children are born sept/oct
Some children are born into the wrong cohort
Others have other issues
Development can be delayed (by years?) so meaning the eldest could be delayed and still ok but an average aug struggle
We have changed the curriculum
Reception is no longer mainly play
Pushing kids at 4.0 when they arent ready is unfair and it is not even developmentally appropriate to be writing that young.
I would be happy with age adjustment to results and think this would help with setting kids so that youngest have a shot at top sets.

I can see that removing a child from their place has an effect.

• but noone has an automatic right to be eldest just by being born 1st sept.
• other countries manage to let kids repeat years and whilst a kid might be behind academically they may be ahead socially

If the sept/oct spike is xmas maybe move the cut off. Maybe so most are in the middle so less effort for each end to maintain the average.

The effect is at national level some schools et will help kids to achieve/may not set/give extra help.

Yes 30h for all but obviously the current 30h from 3+ will have made SB effect worse as some kids with have had 5 terms of 30h now vs maybe 3 of 30h.

From following the campaign you just cannot leave the power in the hands of HT as many are for but some are against but have no reason for it. (Probably as it is kind of saying 'you cant cope with this child at 4', so the school says they can. They can differentiate lol. Well who wants their bright child to be differentiated for just because of their birthdate. And how does than help them or the others as it is not highlighting ability.

There will be people delaying their Apr borns (but honestly unless we are expecting every single child to line up by age in every subject it doesnt mean that much).

The use of all the data to predict stuff now isnt good news for late developers or youngest.

These issues exist because we are trying to categories by age. The brightest toddlers are not necessarily the brightest adults.

Anyone else read this thread and want to abandon ship out of our horrific competitive comparative school system entirely, our poor kids!! Thankfully I have only encountered positivity regarding our decision to delay in real life, from friends, professionals, strangers. Perhaps that is because for us it was about starting age and school readiness rather than a malicious attempt at trying to keep the poor poor and the 'others' down. It is obvious for anyone that has met our child that this decision has been positive and life changing! We are not a published paper, we are not 'research' we are people that have been given an opportunity that some here would rather we wouldn't have had? This thread has been quite enlightening :( Bumpitybumper you are right, we need to find a way that allows parents the flexibility and choice of delay but that appeases the parents that believe we only do it for an academic advantage. And Elisheva is right the policy doesn't address the relative age effect for all, there will always be a 'youngest' that will potentially not thrive in our education system. An imperfect solution (in the absence of a perfect one) is better than no solution and I would be more than happy to see age adjusted scores on tests if my child was still allowed to delay because her academic achievement was the least of my concerns. I would be more than happy to support a campaign to raise esteem and achievement in the most disadvantaged if they are unable or unlikely to benefit from the summerborn policy. I am more than happy to shout from the rooftops about the benefits of delaying school so that fewer parents are put off by the stigma and myths surrounding delayed entry. Thank you for the discussion and links....still ploughing through those articles and not found anything that has changed my mind that giving parents the choice of delaying summerborns is a good thing. But the I will probably always be pro choice :)

I would be more than happy to see age adjusted scores on tests if my child was still allowed to delay because her academic achievement was the least of my concerns

Ditto. And agree with the rest of your post!

Perhaps that is because for us it was about starting age and school readiness rather than a malicious attempt at trying to keep the poor poor and the 'others' down.

Absolutely no one aims to do this when they buy privilege for their children, whether with private schools, tutors or paying for an extra year of nursery for them. Everyone has a good reason why it should be their child that gets this extra step-up - why they had no choice, in fact. That's why policy shouldn't encourage such inequality.

Indeed, and if it is about school starting age then it should be raised for all, and if it is about school readiness then it should not be limited to summer born children.

I agree @NewAccount270219. I don't think that anyone has really suggested that people want to use this policy with the intent to suppress the poor or the other children in the delayed children's cohort, but the reality is that this is a natural by-product of this policy without other checks and measures being enforced too.

As mentioned upthread I am absolutely against implementing this policy in isolation but that doesn't mean that I think that there doesn't need to be reform to the system and more ability to cater for those children that will struggle with school due to a lack of maturity. I just think randomly declaring that a third of any academic year should have the automatic right to delay starting school without any evidence that this is actually necessary for the individual child is bonkers.

Yaay we agree (I think) so the policy to allow delay of summer borns isn’t the problem, the principle of allowing parental choice and flexibility is a good thing. It is the fact that it doesn’t include all children and isn’t equally accessible (some places it is easy to delay other it isn’t, some parents choose delay some don’t). So how can those separate issues be addressed for greater equality 🤔

I do agree but I don’t know the answer, the policy is there to address the already existing inequality that exists in the arbitrary dates etc meaning that currently summerborns are disadvantaged in policy? It is a policy to address inequality but doesn’t quite get there as there entirely?

That doesn’t make sense, sorry I don’t know how to edit it now! 🤷‍♀️ I meant it is a policy to address the inherent inequality that has come about as a result of our arbitrary school dates and increased pressure on 4year olds (all but especially the very young) but in compensating for that inequality other inequalities are not addressed 🤷‍♀️

@Mambazo123
I'm not sure we are in complete agreement as I would like the system to incorporate a professional assessment of the child to make sure delaying was necessary and age adjustment of academic (and ideally sporting results but know that would be harder to implement) so that the increase in age range within a class doesn't penalise the younger children.

I think this could lead to a system where all children that aren't ready for school could have the opportunity to delay/defer but also all the children that remain in their academic year won't be disadvantaged by the system either.

buy privilege for their children

My son isn’t privileged. He’s on the waiting list for an ASD diagnosis.

So as much as it pains me to read the sneering, the accusations of cheating my way to an academic advantage, the damage I’m going to cause to his classmates 12m+ months older... to my mind I’m just choosing the least-worst option.

I already said I would agree with age adjustments for academic work, sports too although not entirely sure how that can work?? In fact why don’t they just do that already for all children regardless of the summerborn policy to create equality? I also wouldn’t be averse to a professional assessment (I would call it professional support though) to determine if delay would be in her best interest or if it would be better off for her to start early and just cope but in practice this would have to be done at age 3 (when it is very difficult to assess children in any way) and would have required prolonged observation and interaction by said professional over a period of time and so is probably impractical? And which professional would you choose? Teachers, doctors, ed psych? They often have different opinions too so we could just trust the parents to do what is best for their kids and have the age adjustment to scores deal with the inequality in case you are worried some are cheating the system?

or paying for an extra year of nursery for them

We just used our 15 hours free funding. The new 30 hours free funding is the same as a school week.

As for being socially mature, well yes, he was when he went at five but he wasn’t at 4 years 7 days, that was he point.

I agree that school age should be raised for ALL because it is painfully obvious that so many are not ready at four. It is the system that is at fault, not the middle class parents trying to change it. Changing the school start age is not going to happen with this spag obsessed government, so they are just fighting for the only option on the table: choice, for all (and not by postcode).

They often have different opinions too so we could just trust the parents to do what is best for their kids quite.

@Haworthia
Of course you are and I don't think anyone is blaming parents for choosing the option that is best for their child. The debate is more about what the policy should be that would dictate what the options available to each parent are.

They often have different opinions too so we could just trust the parents to do what is best for their kids
Nooooo. You are a good parent. You are educated, informed and considerate. You care deeply for your child and want the very best for them, and you are prepared to fight for them. You will care for them and support them, and move heaven and earth to make sure that you have done all you can for them.
You are in the minority.

Can you really argue seriously that it’s the minority of parents who would fight for the best for their kid? Really? Surely it’s a minority who are unable to or unwilling to.

Haworthia exactly my eldest really struggled. Probably adhd/asd. And i think came close to exclusion. For violent behaviour. They just got too tired with coping with all the older bigger dc. Too many kids close together, (not enough supervision and other kids bad behaviour), we had some come and collect them. This almost stopped into yr 1.
How could i risk putting dc2 into this?? They have some spd traits and similar maybe worse than dc1.
Also the issues with dc1 though improved have seemingly had permanently affects on the friendships because they are seen as badly behaved. It doesnt matter to them that he was young or that it is a lot better.
Academically he is very bright and in some things probably top anyway.

Honestly the stress was unbelievable.

But i dont believe a professional would have agreed they needed to delay. It would all havr been about how bright they are!
With dc2 again technically ready but would not cope with the days/pressure.

All kids can already apply to delay based on sen/medical needs etc but it might go to panel.
In terms of readiness though, although a sept could be not ready technically you are ignoring all our arguments about why they have an advantage.
5 vs 4.
In theory working towards a curriculum suited to 4 yo. And they would have been working towards exactly this curriculum in preschool for a whole year ((albeit different in terms of maths/writing/etc but on average they should have been capable of it that year.)
So repeating it basically.
And 5 terms of preschool at maybe 30h vs 3 terms. (And i wonder if the way it is scheduled the preparing for school part maybe mar-jul will be done twice, once at 3.6-3.9yo.
Then going to school against children a year younger.
So they already have a 12m leeway on development.
An Aug 31 would have 0. And the reverse of all the benefits of the sept. If the delayed they get 12m of leeway so same as sept but would have 6 terms of preschool.
A mar would have 5 months leeway not be youngest etc 4 terms of preschool, not be youngest at preschool generally or school. 4.5yo for a 4yo curriculum.

That is a lovely compliment but that comment was with regard to parent or professional making a decision on whether or not delay would be in a child’s best interests Elisheva? If we do leave the decisions solely to professionals to remove any parental bias does it become more fair? Is that actually achievable or possible to implement? Sorry if I missed that point. Or is the point that in offering choice we cannot ever accodate everyone?