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 website asserts that:
“The authors clearly state that their findings do not directly address flexibility in school starting age; yet they confidentlyassert that such flexibility is unnecessary.”

What the report actually says is:
“While our findings do not directly address the issue of whether parents should be allowed to delay (rather than defer) their child’s entry to school, we would argue against introducing such a policy…”

@Elisheva

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/604978/0209_CarolineSharp_et_al_RelativeAgeReviewRevised.pdf

“The evidence does not support the effectiveness of the following policies as a response to relative age effects:
deferred entry to school (relatively younger children starting school a year later)
retention (requiring children to repeat a year after they have started school).
The evidence suggests that the Government’s attention should be focused on ensuring appropriate and positive experiences for relatively younger children in the primary school and also on the process for identifying children with special educational needs so that differences in children’s birth dates do not become a source of continuing disadvantage for children and young people.”

I've said in another post - what the SB campaign is 'fighting' for is not going to solve every educational issue - it won't solve the relative age effect (but it will help many of our younger children - and not at a detriment to others - it can only help others in the classroom). Whilst this report states that children deferring won't change the relative age effect (of course it won't), but that's not what we are campaigning for. The report is actually in our favour - (some) younger children struggle more - if a parent knows their child will, then a CSAge start in reception can only help.

Thank you so much for all your comments and questions. I think I have answered all the questions that were put forward. I'll keep checking back in tonight and would like to quickly finish with a summary below.

Have a great evening everyone. Goodbye for now.

@Elisheva
That literature review states:
‘The research team found that much of the literature identified in the keyword searches was not directly relevant to the review because it focused on the effect of the school starting age, rather than on a child’s age relative to other students in the year group.’
The summerborn issue today in 2019 is a combination of school starting age and relative age. So a huge amount of research was dismissed here in that 2009 report that could be relevant to the summerborn issue. That is fine because the 2009 review focuses only on the relative age effect. In 2009 the number of delayed summerborns represented in that international report would be a very small group on which to extrapolate those conclusions onto today’s summerborn policy. That is not about the summerborn policy. This is only about relative age in an international context.

it will help many of our younger children - and not at a detriment to others - it can only help others in the classroom
Of course it will be to the detriment of others.
I am now very confused about the summerborn campaign. If it’s not to counter the summerborn effect then what is it for?

@Elisheva these two read the same to me. In other words, we didnt actually collect any data on this but we argue against it anyway

The website asserts that:
“The authors clearly state that their findings do not directly address flexibility in school starting age; yet they confidentlyassert that such flexibility is unnecessary.”

What the report actually says is:
“While our findings do not directly address the issue of whether parents should be allowed to delay (rather than defer) their child’s entry to school, we would argue against introducing such a policy…

I think you have a very narrow view of ‘the summer born effect’ you have taken that 2009 literature review and only considered the summer born effect to ONLY be the ‘relative age effect’. That is not ONLY what the summerborn campaign and policy is about today.

More up to date review of research:
Delaying starts by a year or more incurs significant costs and the evidence of its effect is mostly neutral or negative
www.parliament.uk/documents/commons-committees/Education/evidence-check-forum/summer-born-children.pdf

Mentioned earlier by Snazzygoldfish but ignored.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tes.com/news/early-schooling-helps-narrow-boys-disadvantage-gap%3famp

The TES article was looking at deferral (not CSA starts wasn’t it? So if disadvantaged boys miss a term or two or Reception they are more disadvantaged? More reason to support CSA start?

The Crawford 2013 study is also comparing deferral isn’t it? Rather than delay?

The Crawford 2013 article is the only relevant more up to date one in that parliamentary review? Again in that parliamentary review there is a conclusion for which I cannot find any data to support?

The thing is, my child would actually benefit indirectly from this but I could never support it given how much it would further disadvantage the exceptionally deprived young children I have worked with over the years. There has to be a better way the supports all children, especially the most deprived in our society.

I can’t find the NfER citation to follow up the primary data but this conclusion matches that of the 2009 review you posted that ONLY looked at relative age effects (not school starting age issues associated with being summer born and no direct analysis or comparisons of summer born CSA starts)
Delayed admissions – NfER (2009) concluded “The practices of deferring entry for children not considered to be ‘ready’ for school or requiring children to repeat a year are not recommended for addressing relative age effects”, and the 2009 independent review of the primary curriculum.

I know so many people are really passionate about this issue and that’s great. I love to see people get passionate about issues that affect our children. Thank you for being kind to each other throughout.

A summer born child starting school at compulsory school age will not have a detrimental effect on children younger than them. Those children being ‘more ready’ for the classroom will not negatively effect or change how a younger child feels or thinks. What it will mean is that summer born child will be more developmentally ready; so they are less likely to need support in the classroom, less likely to be diagnosed with SEN and will take up less teacher time.

The campaign has one aim; that summer born children have fair and equal access to reception at compulsory school age.

The campaign doesn’t need a change in primary legislation; the flexibility ALREADY exists for our summer born children, it just needs to be fair for all.

I can never understand why people don’t agree with the campaign. Surely no one can agree that forcing a child to miss their reception year can be in their best interests. That’s the issue here.

All of the (thousands of) parents I’ve talked to over the years don’t choose to do this for academic reasons, or to gain any sort of ‘advantage’, it’s not a competition, we just want what we feel is in the best interests of our child within the current law we have.

Many of us campaign for other issues too; like a later school starting age for all, a more play based early years etc.

It’s important to note that it is already a parent’s decision as to WHEN their child starts school; either prior to compulsory school age or at compulsory school age. This is not the issue that is being debated, the law already exists for parents to make this choice.

Summer born children are the ONLY group of children who cannot automatically access reception at compulsory school age…unless you live in one of the lucky postcodes that automatically allows this. Where you live should not determine a child’s right to a full education. The campaign wants to ensure that no child should be forced to miss a year (any year) of school, purely for starting at CSAge.

[quote Elisheva]Mentioned earlier by Snazzygoldfish but ignored.
www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.tes.com/news/early-schooling-helps-narrow-boys-disadvantage-gap%3famp[/quote]

Not ignored, just had to dash off for a bit.

[quote Elisheva]More up to date review of research:
Delaying starts by a year or more incurs significant costs and the evidence of its effect is mostly neutral or negative

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

This research supports our campaign. If missing just one term of reception can be found to be detrimental, missing the whole of reception would be extremely detrimental and never in a child’s best interests.

I absolutely agree that the summer born children should not be made to go into year 1 if they delay their entry to school, or be made to skip a year later on.
I cannot agree that having a children who are 17 months older in the classroom will not negatively impact the (now) youngest children.

@Snazzygoldfish

The thing is, my child would actually benefit indirectly from this but I could never support it given how much it would further disadvantage the exceptionally deprived young children I have worked with over the years. There has to be a better way the supports all children, especially the most deprived in our society.

A summer born child starting school in reception rather than year one can’t disadvantage other children. There is no proof of this. There has been no research tracking children who have started school at CSAge.

A child starting school at CSAge doesn’t change how another child performs. They will both have the same amount of school teaching. It may (or may not) mean that the summer born child who has ‘delayed’ school achieves a better academic grade than the younger child, but this doesn’t negatively effect that child, it doesn’t change them.

There also isn’t any research on the detrimental effects to a child (and those around them) who has been forced to miss reception and entered school in year one. Imagine the extra support that child would need.

@Elisheva

I absolutely agree that the summer born children should not be made to go into year 1 if they delay their entry to school, or be made to skip a year later on. I cannot agree that having a children who are 17 months older in the classroom will not negatively impact the (now) youngest children.

But so many classrooms work with mixed year groups. I’ve worked in 14 schools in my town (just this year) who have mixed year classes and none of the teachers say this effects the children negatively.

Most of the best European schools have mixed age classes.

The difference with a mixed year group is that the two year groups will be (should be) following different curriculums. I would be interested to know how the age related effect presents in mixed year classes.
Anyway, they can have a negative effect on students cognitive abilities www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00313831.2011.554692

@Elisheva
‘I absolutely agree that the summer born children should not be made to go into year 1 if they delay their entry to school, or be made to skip a year later on.’

So you actually agree with fundamental principle of summerborn campaign 😁

I can’t access that full article, only the abstract, from the Swedish study. So it is difficult to identify whether extrapolations from that study are likely to be representative of the potential impact of a delayed summer borns being present in some classes in the Uk. From the abstract I would say no it isn’t but is there a link to the full article somewhere please? I see they look only at ‘cognitive score’ (not sure how they measure that?) And in mixed cohorts of grade ‘4-6’ (I imagine quite a large group). That is not evidence to suggest that ‘they’ (CSA start summerborns) will have a negative effect on other students cognitive abilities.

I too would be interested in any current research that actually looks at the direct impact of delayed summer borns on both their own achievement/well-being/social and emotional skills AND those other children in THEIR adopted cohort. Because as Rosie has said I can see there are likely to be benefits to the class in a child being present that is emotionally ready (rather than possibly immature and disruptive). A comparative study of those children and their classmates where they requested CSA starts and we’re declined (as some LAs make it very difficult) versus those that requested and allowed (within more permissive LAs) might go some way towards looking at those impacts. I’m surprised nobody has done this or if they have they are keeping it quiet please share if you find it.

That study is about the impact of mixed age classes.
I’m not sure what research to offer as you will not accept research done in other countries and the policy hasn’t been in effect for long enough in England for any research to have been completed.