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

Accommodate*

I don’t know. I don’t know of any research around this. But certainly in the schools that I work in the majority of parents would not be able to or willing to engage with this debate.

Elisheva I’m completely gobsmacked that you actually believe only a minority of parents care about what’s best for their children and would engage in this debate. You seriously need to broaden your horizons as you have a very blinkered, negative view of parenting. Maybe that’s all you’re seeing in your little world but I can assure you what you’re describing is the minority.

Elisheva I had an incling that you worked in education. In your opinion how can we better engage those parents? Improve education for those children? I am particularly interested in understanding your point of view as I have so far been completely baffled by why some teachers and head teachers are hesitant in allowing CSA starts for summerborns when the potential benefits to that child (and school in potentially higher grades/ more mature students) are clear. If it is out of concern for fairness for those that do not or cannot engage in the process of delaying then perhaps there is something that can be done to change that rather than abandoning the process entirely? Or would abandoning the summerborn delay process the only way to actually benefit those people that you speak of? And if so is that an ethically acceptable approach? Thoughts and ideas? It has been a quiet day in he office 🤔

I would much rather have a professional opinion than rely on a parent's view regarding whether their child is ready to start school. I imagine the people best placed to provide this opinion would be the child's current childcare providers, although I'm sure there are cases where other views would be needed.

I would be keen to avoid relying on parents as whilst I think the majority of parents would be sensible and reasonably objective, I do think that there is a sizeable minority that would be unwilling or incapable of doing this . This could be for loads of reasons including parents not being engaged or understanding the process or parents just having a warped view of their child or what "school ready" means. As an example of the former, I have a friend with a winter born child that insists that her DD should really be held back a year because she's a bit shy and hasn't made any good friends in nursery yet. Whilst I would accept that her DD is a bit behind socially, her DD is well within the range of normal for her age and is actually exceeding expectations in loads of areas. Her mum just can't see that her DD just might not be a social butterfly or may just be a late bloomer. Of course she doesn't have the option to delay her DD because of her birthday but if this was an option she absolutely would. It's worrying because I suspect that this girl is actually one of the more ready children in her academic year but unless the child was exceeding in every area then the mum would make the same decision to delay.

Conversely I also have a number of friends that have been shocked when a professional has pointed out that their child needs additional help with their speech. Quite a few are actually quite offended and openly challenge the professional's findings. From an outsider's point of view it is noticeably more difficult to understand these children than the average child so I tend to think the professional has got it right. It really made me realise how we can make allowances for our children that can cloud our judgement and make it difficult to see when there is a real issue.

Im not sure not making friends should be high on the criteria list either. But if the child is intimidated/cries/avoids other children say. If they were not even parallel playing. It could i assume be a sign of asd? I know of a girl like this, at a party didnt speak to or interact with any of the other children.
Some cases of asd apparently children dont display the behaviour at nursery/school.

I dont value nursery opinion more than my own. They didnt see me having to carry dc out of a shop the other day after a busy weekend etc.

• things like knowing if they will be able to pick up reading/writing isnt possible till they start learning it.

Possibly comparatively nursery isnt always stretching enough for them to be able to tell. As they are allowed to play only a little bit of stories etc.

You seriously need to broaden your horizons as you have a very blinkered, negative view of parenting. Maybe that’s all you’re seeing in your little world but I can assure you what you’re describing is the minority.
Really? Where are you getting your data sample of perfect parents from?
My colleagues and I work in over 40 different schools covering a wide area. Between 50 and 60% of the children in our schools are developmental delayed because they are socioeconomically disadvantaged. Some of them are 2 years behind where they should be. In one area only 10% of the population hold a qualification above GCSE level. Many of the parents cannot read. Their vocabulary is poor. Many of the children I work with have never been out of the city. They have not been to a farm, to the beach, to a forest. Their experience and world view is tiny. Many of the children I talk to do not know their own surname or when their birthday is.
What you claim is my ‘little world’ is the real world.

I would suggest you get out of the city once in a while to see how the rest of the country lives as it’s not all doom & gloom but it’s not ‘perfect’ either.

I have so far been completely baffled by why some teachers and head teachers are hesitant in allowing CSA starts for
I am not a teacher. But I think that schools look at the range they already have within a classroom. In areas with a varied intake the difference age wise is a year, but developmentally maybe much more. And that is not including the outliers, such as g&t or children with learning difficulties. They are already expected to meet the learning needs of all of those children.
Then the suggestion is made to increase the age range to 17 months, and that the oldest group of children in the class will also be the most socially advantaged. I can see that this would make many teachers despair.
The socioeconomic attainment gap is a real issue in this country. The Pupil Premium is supposed to be used to address some of the disadvantage, and there are other programs and initiatives to try and reduce the attainment gap.
For the Government to then introduce a policy which is known to exacerbate the problem seems somewhat counterintuitive.
I don’t know what the answer is. Clearly something has to be done to address the inequality faced by summer born children. But simply lifting a few out of the situation is going to do nothing to solve the overall problem.

We have made the decision to send our son to school at CSA but have had a year of battles with it being such a postcode lottery with some schools saying yes and others no.

I too spoke to lots of people with older children and all those I spoke to said if they had their time again they wouldn’t have sent their summer born child at just turned 4.

I agree the main issue is that here in the UK we are putting them into full time education too young.

In argument with the people saying it is unfair, I disagree. The system is fair in that a child legally must attend school the term after they turn 5, this is for everyone so in theory the sept-dec child would start school in January, the Jan-March child would start school in April and the April-August child would start the following September. Where our system is wrong is that because school is offered to children the year they turn 4, most of us think this is when they have to start!

At the moment if we go by the rule that everyone has to start the term after they turn 5 there would be no argument, all summer born children would start the following September. This is fair because all children have started at age 5.

The current system is only failing summer born children by making it hard for parents to exercise their legal right to send them the term after they turn 5.

As for it being unfair on children who’s parents don’t research or understand the current system, then this is proof that this campaign is even more important than ever, to educate people and let them know their choices. Nursery leaders and schools should also be giving advice to parents and supporting summer born children who are not ready for school by educating the parents.

We need a system that is fair for all but at the end of the day the happiness and well being of these children is the most important thing.

Everyone starting at/near csa is what used to happen so summer borns got 2 terms less school than autumn borns. My First school was tiny - 2 classes in the whole school so this was less obviously missing out on yr as the intake group of 3 or 4 stayed together theoretically until the 2nd class (I think - was Milton Keynes in mid 80s so massive growth in school numbers meant new school was built - ended up as 3 form entry...)

Less school time for the youngest probably doesn't help given exams are held annually in summer!

If the general agreement is 4 and not many month is too young for school, change the cut off for everyone to 31 March.
I'm at a British School, not in the UK. Due to different academic policies round the world, kids are often placed out of year to suit their academic level at the joining point.
I can tell you now the 4 kids who will win all the medals at sports day (Y5 and it's still true) 1 is genuinely talented. The other 3 have been held back. They are 11, 12 and 12 months older than my son, who meets the summer born criteria above.
Whilst delaying may be academically right for the individual, the 18 month spread of physical and social (and hormonal) levels is not, imo, in the interests of the whole cohort.

@Helix1244
I don't think there is any suggestion that the girl had ASD or any other condition, just that she isn't as socially advanced as the other children hence her mum wanting to give her more time.

I agree that nursery don't always see the full picture when it comes to a child and there is a reason why a lot of parents joke that their children are relative angels at nursery/preschool. My DD is usually reasonably well behaved at preschool but the tiredness tends to build in the afternoon/evening and this can cause her behaviour to go down hill quite spectacularly. I think this is pretty normal amongst her peers and many of her friends will have naps at the weekend or some afternoons. Does this mean that they're not ready for school? If so, then the issue extends far beyond summer borns

@SunshineSpring
If the general agreement is 4 and not many month is too young for school, change the cut off for everyone to 31 March
The problem is that there is no such agreement and lots people believe that children should be five or older. It would make more sense to delay everyone by a year then at least everyone will be the same age.

I agree generally with your sentiment though that classes with wide age ranges lead to undesirable consequences.

@Emiliolewis20
The current system is only failing summer born children by making it hard for parents to exercise their legal right to send them the term after they turn 5
All non-delayed/deffered children start school at 4 so if your genuinely in favour of all parents being able to easily exercise their legal right to start their child at five then you would not support this new policy which only covers children born in the last third of the academic year. Why is it that a child born on 1st April should automatically get the option to delay their school start date by a year whilst the child born on 31st March must start that September? The policy makes absolutely no sense and is horribly unfair in its current form.

We need a system that is fair for all but at the end of the day the happiness and well being of these children is the most important thing
No, a policy like this should only be implemented if it is fair for all and supports the happiness and well being of all children.

I agree with everything you said bumpetybump. I do believe that something needs to be done and I genuinely feel sorry for parent of summerborn children who it seems have a horrible choice of sending their kids to school when they feel they are not ready or holding them back and running the risk of them forever being the weird kid in the class whose older than everyone else. The govt need to make a decisive decision that's fair for all children not just have a half policy like this that benefits the few who seem determined to change the goalposts in their child's favour to the detriment of other children...particularly those who are already hugely disadvantaged.

Also parents of summerborns, as is apparent here, are being judged for disadvantaging other kids if we delay. We’re stuck between a rock and a hard place at the moment.

I saw a meme about equality, equity and liberation and found it sort of relevant. My interpretation might be wrong but this is how I saw it. Currently the system is at the ‘equality’ stage, there are a few groups massively disadvantaged by this (summerborns being one). The summerborn policy does give a step up to the fence and is a step towards equity. Not everyone gets chooses or can get that step, some don’t need it they are already up at the fence and so giving them that step would defeat the object, but others do need a step. Another policy is required to specifically target those disadvantaged groups that don’t get the summerborn step and are still not up at the fence. OR to get to the ‘liberation’ element the whole system needs revising and the fence taking down. No assessments, no comparisons, learning through play, longer to be kids? I would love our government to work towards the liberation viewpoint. In the absence of that I support giving steps to disadvantaged groups that need it. I don’t think one policy on its own can give a single step to everyone can it? And because the summerborn policy doesn’t help everyone, (in the absence of a policy that does help everyone) I do not reject it, I just ask what else needs to be done? Lots of little steps required rather than a one step fits all approach? A step for summerborns that need it, a step for low socioeconomic groups that need it etc. If anyone in power comes across this thread perhaps they might lean towards taking the fence down and the liberation approach as it might be easier than lots of different sized steps :)

Bumpitybumper The policy makes sense because CSA is the term after a child turns 5 so an Autumn or Spring born starts reception in Jan or April however under the old legislation a summer born starting at CSA had to miss reception altogether and go straight into year 1. That’s what the summerborn campaign is about.

I would resolve this by:

Disadvantaged 2 year olds getting 6 hours properly funded high quality nursery provision from the term after their 2nd birthday.

All 3 year olds getting 12 hours properly funded high quality nursery provision from the term after their 3rd birthday.

All 4 year olds getting 15 hours properly funded high quality nursery provision from the term after their 4th birthday.

All children getting 25 hours properly funded high quality nursery provision from the term after their 5th birthday.

All children starting reception the term after their 6th birthday and moving up to formal education only when they are truely ready as determined by their teacher in collaboration with their parents.

@Sunshine6
The policy makes sense because CSA is the term after a child turns 5 so an Autumn or Spring born starts reception in Jan or April however under the old legislation a summer born starting at CSA had to miss reception altogether and go straight into year 1. That’s what the summerborn campaign is about
No I still don't think it makes sense. Why is it ok for a child that only reaches CSA when they are two thirds into the academic year to be refused any option of delaying entry whereas those born slightly afterwards have an automatic right to this irrespective of their school readiness or stage of development. If reaching CSA is the important thing here then why do we ignore the fact that no children will be of CSA when they start school?

What's good for the goose is good for the gander and I really struggle with a policy that tries to differentiate summer borns from their peers when many of the issues they face are similar. Why is a spring born recieving one term of education in reception after they reach CSA acceptable whereas a summer born missing out entirely is absolutely unacceptable? Yes the summer borns are arguably worse off but I don't know why you wouldn't address this issue for all children.

@Mambazo123
I think the problem with your analogy is that in an attempt to move towards a more equitable situation, we are actually making things worse for others and "lowering their step". I see it more like we are rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic or shuffling the playing cards in a rigged game, you will achieve a better/worse outcome for some children through implementing this policy but the problem won't be fundamentally fixed and we won't achieve true equity for everyone until the whole system has been revised.

Partially implementing an improved system can actually be worse than making no changes at all. There will be clear winners and losers from implementing this policy in isolation and it isn't necessarily a step in the right direction unless something else is implemented immediately afterwards to rectify these problems.

@bumpitybump I don’t think that it actually will lower anyone else’s position directly (that is yet to be seen/proven). And I would hope that steps would be made to encourage those that most need it to access a step. But if it does have a negative impact and we could err on the side of caution and proactively implement a policy for those that might not access a step, then everyone is winner. More life jackets on the titanic not take away the few that there are because not everyone can have one? Kicking the steps out from under summerborns is a very unethical approach to raising achievement in low socioeconomic groups in my opinion.

I think when you say another policy needs to be implemented to address the potential downfalls actually means we agree to some extent.

I think that is because SB is a larger category apr-aug vs jan-mar, sept-dec.
Mar born would have started in apr at preschool to have 1y5m at that level. So not far off 50% more than the SB. WIth say a dec born getting 1y8m at preschool. A 1.4 and 1.66 times more (ignoring the fact if people are working the Sept born will likely start at 1y exactly when the Aug is born.
So factually an average mar born is not disadvantaged as much currently as an April, in including by Gov policy. Despite what is being said.
The effect of this 'extra time' may be limited because the majority are already at preschool before these ages. If you want to claim they are as much in need?! you need to take away at least that extra term of preschool funding...
Or i propose we take away the extra terms the other Spring borns and winter borns get and the increase 30h for all. And use as funding for the summerborn disadvantage, maybe for ones who choose not to delay. So they instead are the only ones to get 30h?

And i would also fund summerborns a bit like pupil premium so they get interventions, or sports paid for etc. And i would set targets for school that would mean they have an incentive to work harder with the youngest.

I don’t think that it actually will lower anyone else’s position directly
If you have 30 children in a class and order them by age 1-30, then you take numbers 25-30 and put them at the front they will have the advantage of being first.
But numbers 20-25 will then be last.