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

@Helix1244
I'm not sure I follow your post however I think you have presumed that time in preschool is linked to school readiness and that there is a strong relationship between when a child is eligible for free hours and when they start preschool?

To be honest I'm not convinced by any of the above, but even assuming you're right, your calculations of how much longer a march born would have Vs an April born are inaccurate as you have not discounted the Easter and summer holidays. Realistically March born children would not have started preschool until the very end of April this year (or start of May), there would be a week of half term and then a 6/7 week summer holiday period. Overall the summer term at my DD's school consists of 12 weeks actually at school if you discount the holiday. I think it's really unhelpful to say that equates to 5 months at school and pretty misleading. Is 12 weeks additional time at preschool enough to be sure that spring borns will be ready for school when so many protest that summer borns certainly aren't? If it is then I would be happy for the government to extend funding to all summer borns so they too were eligible to that extra term of preschool but I'm not sure that's what you were getting at!

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
Add to this the fact that there is a strong correlation between age and academic achievement and key academic assessments (11+, GCSEs) are norm referenced then numbers 20-25 will be directly impacted.

Norm referencing means that children are in effect assessed in comparison to their cohort and raising the number of older children in that cohort who are statistically more likely to do well academically will mean that grade boundaries will rise. This could lead to children getting a B instead of an A and therefore missing their college course entry requirements or losing out on other opportunities. This isn't a victimless policy by any stretch of the imagination!

Yes i had already considered and discounted that about the holidays because
1 if parents work kids may well be full time so 5 months possibly spreading funding
2 i assumed a boost by starting that would continue over the break, friendships, socialising, doing school prep, sitting for stories.

I agree about the shuffling. However at individual level you cant assume an Apr born would be where they should be in the pack or that you would move them to September +5.
An actual class cannot be lined up 'ability' by age alone. (Otherwise no Aug born would exceed in SATs etc.)

Im not sure preschool= school readiness but they do work on it. Some do writing and phonics. I dont really agree with 'school readiness' exactly because if they cant do a coat it's not the end of the world doesnt cause harm or lasting damage.

I think the issue for many summerborns is developmental, so not interested in learning, numbers, writing, sitting and listening. Or being behind with speech.
I cant see how my dc would be by jan when they would be a mar born school starting age.

It may have an interesting effect on sport like football. As delayed SB would play against younger dc in class but have to go up to compete. Im not sure if the confidence gained from being biggest/strongest would be enough. I assume not as Sept borns are almost the same and will then play as oldest. It may actually be worse as they would have no practice with their 'football cohort' to improve against and be in a worse position to if they were left in cohort.

Any child could already be out of cohort taking gcses (retakes/adult learning, private school out of cohort) so these will affect the scales already.

Elisheva I probably should have phrased it differently, I mean their position in life? Their absolute attainment scores/ emotional well-being/life outlook/mental health. Things that matter in real life etc rather than as some arbitrary ‘order’ comparison to others. I appreciate that if comparisons of kids are made and kids are put in some sort of order (especially if only looking at academic attainment) then it would be in nobody’s interest to help anyone? I also appreciate that their might be an impact on self esteem of ‘everyone else is better than me’ implicit in comparisons/school life. That is inherently wrong! It is creates an approach that would prohibit helping anyone and would mean we would should stop helping the poorest/summerborns/disabled because in doing so you might move them up the order?? Rather than think of an arbitrary order why not think of the effects on individual children and how we can help them move from point A to B relative to their own journey instead of relative to others?

@Helix1244
I'm sorry but I think the whole premise that most children wait until free hours kick in to go to preschool is flawed, but trying to extend this already flawed argument so that 13 weeks of funded (15 or 30 hours) time at preschool can ever equate to a 5 month advantage is farcical.

1 if parents work kids may well be full time so 5 months possibly spreading funding
Most preschools aren't open in the school holidays so parents won't have this option. Even if you could do this, stretching your funding just means a child spends less funded hours in preschool in any given week so it still doesn't equate to a five month advantage. The amount of funded hours remains 13 weeks of 15 or 30 hours. Outside of this entitlement the parent has to fund additional hours in exactly the same way you would fund any child including summer borns.

2 i assumed a boost by starting that would continue over the break, friendships, socialising, doing school prep, sitting for stories
That's a huge assumption to make and undermines your argument that preschool makes any real difference if the fact the child isn't actually attending preschool over an extended period of time over the summer holidays has no impact at all.

I think the biggest issue I have with this line of argument is that there is a massive variation in funded hours that far exceeds when in the year a child was born. For example as a family with a SAHM my child is only entitled to 15 hours of funded hours a week, should she automatically be allowed to delay going to school on the basis that she has spent less time at preschool than her peers?

@bumpitybumper the same applies to your post to, if we only consider grades/relative achievement then NO policy is victimless because there will always be an ‘order’ that in helping one will change the relative position of others. Helping the poorest and most in need will move the order around and therefore would not be a victimless approach either?? I’m sure there is a name for wanting to keep people in their arbitrarily defined order in society??

Mambazo123 yes I agree there is a word and it’s come to my mind a few times reading some of the things on here!

@Mambazo123
I would rather the whole system was revised to factor in age adjustment and professional assessments etc rather than just impose this policy that simply shifts the problem elsewhere and exacerbates inequality in certain cases.

I accept it is hard to implement a completely fair system, but I don't think this should mean that everyone has to accept that implementing the SB policy in isolation is a good thing. Sure it looks good for the government and appease parents of summer borns but is it actually making the overall picture any better? I don't think it is and allowing the government to get away with such a shoddy and ill thought out policy in an attempt to tick the equality box is a complete scandal.

@bumpitybump see I thought the summerborn policy was to help disadvantaged summerborns? (Not appease parents although I can see how making those amendments to the policy would appease parents of non summerborns). It has and will change the big picture for many many children (as I have said it has been life changing for our daughter). With your ordering of children approach any policy or benefit to any disadvantaged group will ‘shift the problem’. And with regards to exaggerating inequality the evidence on this is yet to be seen, requires evaluating and yes measures putting in place to address it if required. I do not think that supporting the summerborn policy in principle negates any of the amendments that you have suggested. I do think that in not supporting, or actively campaigning against it, that we wouldn’t magically end up with an overall better system for all. It would just get thrown out and all progress is lost. But maybe you have more faith in our government than I do to completely revise our education system. I hope for our children’s sake that you are right!

some arbitrary ‘order’ comparison to other children
It is not an arbitrary order. The summerborn effect is a relative effect. The disadvantage is caused by the fact that summer born children are the youngest in that group. In countries where the school year runs from Jan-Dec it is the autumn-born effect.

They already exclude out of cohort from some school data so i guess they could exclude it from setting the grades if they dont already.
So that would remove the effect of moving everyone's gcse grades down.
So you might just be left with the effect within a class of a child feeling worse compared to others. (Making little difference if it's one child). And also it seems the standards vary dramatically between schools. So a child could move from top to bottom. With one where they all read fluently in reception.
And with probably 11/12 kids feeling they are not as good.

@Elisheva I started replying and realised I am just repeating what has already been said several times so instead...refer to previous comments. I’m not sure I am going to be the one to convince you to look beyond ordering and comparing children as a method of evaluation (where in my opinion there will always be winners and losers) and instead to look at individuals relative to themselves in given scenarios (where in my opinion there are only winners) 🤷‍♀️

@mambazo123 I’m not sure you quite understand what a relative effect means. Or why you think that I am the one ordering and comparing children.
It is necessary to compare children, everything is standardised based on averages. It is how targets are set and how we ensure that children are where they should be. It is how we identify if children are struggling or exceptional. It is how we judge whether schools are being effective, and how we judge our educational system against other countries.

If all of the summer born children were in a class together then the summer born disadvantage would not exist. It is only because we are comparing the summer born children with the older children that the need for this policy has arisen. If we did not compare children then the summer born children would not need to have their school start delayed.

@Mambazo123
With your ordering of children approach any policy or benefit to any disadvantaged group will ‘shift the problem’
It's not my approach, it's the approach that has been adopted for many academic assessments in this country. This is what I mean about the summer born policy being an incomplete change. if the method of assessment was also altered to reflect how year groups could now contain children of a wider range of ages then I would be more supportive. Age adjusting, not norm referencing etc could all help but the government isn't interested in any of that because nobody is shouting loudly enough about it.

I still don't understand how this policy can be seen as "progress" in the grand scheme of things. In itself it won't deliver improvements to the overall picture nor is it part of a programme of reform that would ultimately deliver benefit to all. It's just a change that will create a different set of winners and losers and will remove focus from the real underlying issues.

No as has already been said some children are also not ready for the environment at 4. They cannot sit still. Even relative to their own age group, exacerbated by starting too young at 4yo.
I dont feel you understand development. Those that are 'top' at 4 are not necessarily the brightest. And those with 'delays' can catch up. Some kids are still not speaking in sentences (that is 2.5years later than some others). How at that time does sending them into a classroom help them or classmates? It might affect socialising and confidence.
They might not speak properly till 5 which for a September would be fine and a bit of struggle for March but 3m too late for an Aug eyfs assessment.

It's probable that a 12m gap is just too much and then you add in normal developmental variation.

as has already been said some children are also not ready for the environment at 4
True. And yet it is only the summer borns who are being allowed to delay until they are ready.

And yet it is only the summer borns who are being allowed to delay until they are ready.

Because they are the ones being asked to start school at 4. (Not 4.5).

Hi everyone, looking forward to joining you at 7pm and responding to any questions you've asked. See you in a bit

Um April borns are pretty much 4.5. Why not let August borns delay and July in exceptional circumstances. Then u won't have such massive age ranges in a class but can still avoid children starting at 4 and a few days.

Because they are the ones being asked to start school at 4. (Not 4.5)
Today I saw a year R girl who is around the 36 month mark according to the EYFS framework. February birthday so no option to delay until she was ‘ready’.

Again refer to previous comments on all of the above points (being school ready/policy being progress/making comparisons/ignoring all of the benefits to individuals.) Actually do you now what perhaps you are right. Let’s remove all interventions that do not give a step up to everyone, let us keep everyone in the pigeon hole that they were born in. Let’s not try to help them reach their full potential because in doing so they might overtake someone else and make them feel bad. After all reaching ones potential doesn’t matter unless it is better than someone else’s potential. Success can’t be measured unless against someone else can it? I learnt to drive but that is irrelevant unless I drive better than everyone else. So let’s sabotague everyone else instead of striving for the best for all? Let’s only focus on academic attainment in literacy and maths and only place value on that in making a decision on what is best for our children. Because physical/mental health/the arts etc really mean nothing next to a phonics score do they? Let us force jack the immature summerborn into full time education so that he becomes disengaged, demotivated, probably a bit of depression for good measure, because although we know we could help him with a delay for them it won’t help Johnny down the road whose only got one leg. So until we find the right step (or prosthetic) for Johnny down the road let’s not help either. No action is better for them both because johnny won’t see Jack doing well and feel worse for only having one leg. (Sarcasam throughout for anyone that missed it, it sounds ridiculous because it is!)

My April born was 4 years 4 months when she started. She had only just got potty training due to a bowel issue. I wouldn’t have delayed her starting school but can see how another parent might.

My own view is that I agree with the pps, all children should start school at 5. This was after all when children started as recently ago as the seventies

But what can be done about this? A new campaign? Who is going to agree with that?

Elshiva I agree (I think) that all children should start later. I know a Y1 March child in a similar position.

I do think that children should start school later.
But, as was said earlier, starting all children later does not remove the summer born effect. Even if they all start at 7 the summer born children will still be at a disadvantage.

Thank you so much to everyone who has shared their stories, I’m pleased this post has helped so many of you. It always creates an interesting ‘debate’ too.

I will go through the thread and answer as many questions as I can.