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

@Elisheva and of course any tips in the research on how to overcome those detriments for my daughter since we have already delayed. Much appreciated

bumpity I think it was me who said ‘because they are 4, not 4.5’. It was an approximation only in response to something. But I have said in at least two other posts that I agree that other children are often not ready, eg a March child I know. Also that, as parent of an April born, I can see why someone would want to delay one. But other posters have said ‘only delay the July and August borns’ which I do not agree with. I personally think all children start too early! If summer-borns has the straight choice, because of the unfairness of their CSA age being in year 1, I think the policy should also be flexible enough to include other children who are not school ready. Even better, delay schooling for all children til 5! Year R is no longer year R. My (delayed) som was reading a level 4 read it yourself book to me last night. He couldn’t read in September. Year R is now phonics, diagraphs etc. And I also know March born year 1 kids who are struggling.

Elisheva can you provide an overview
So you haven’t actually read any of the current research around this subject. And yet you are confidently declaring that it is absolutely the right thing to do, there are no detriments to the practice and it in no way negatively affects other children.

@elisheva answering a question with another question? Are you unwilling or unable to give an overview it would be quite helpful if you could?

In answer to your question....because it is rude to ignore questions and only answer with other questions. I have read a lot of the research. It would be arrogant to declare that I have read ALL of it, hence my interest here

And you are falsely summarising conclusions (again). I have not ‘confidently declared’ there are no detrimental impacts or efffects on ‘others’. We discussed that in detail earlier. At this point I am only interested in learning more and not going back to a circular debate here. If you would be so kind as to answer my questions regarding those articles I might learn something?

Hang on I just realised it wasn’t a question you weren’t asking if I had read anything! You were telling me I havent?

I love the assumption that because I think information should be freely available I couldn’t possibly have read ANY current research on the topic?? It sums up your approach to the debate quite well. False assumptions and inaccurate extrapolations. Yet here I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, with a open (but tired) mind that those links might contain some information to actually help my child, and our children.

Elisheva isn't your recent assistant, mambazo - you can't just demand she produces research summaries for you.

And throughout this thread you keep positioning yourself as some sort of research expert, critiquing the methods and conclusions of all existing research and airily announcing the (madly impractical) research designs you think they should be using instead, but you keep then revealing that you know much less than you think you do.

@new account no demands just polite requests, she is citing articles in support of an interesting statement- that delay can have a long term detrimental effect on summer borns. I (and many) cannot access this information (at least not today). I think we could all benefit from the information I have asked for but ofcourse if Eliasheva is unwilling or unable to share that is their choice.

I think it is important to consider research design and conclusions critically (critical review). It is an important process to help identify reliable information and how far that information may or may not be extrapolated to other circumstances.

Does it matter how much i ‘know’ or ‘don’t know’? That is the whole point of research and this sort of discussion, to learn more. I haven’t claimed to know everything (quite the opposite) but I’ll entertain your assumption that ‘I know much less than I think I know’. And continue to try and improve my knowledge on this.

Ok lets take that 31 mar child.
They had 15-30h 4 terms preschool.
Compared to 3 for 1st apr
So minimum 14w but could as have previously said be fewer spread more which would possibly be better more days getting into routine and at our nursery there are few kids in so less busy etc over that 6w summer break.
They then go to school where yes they could start behind others. (But not all SB are delaying only 1-2% of which 75% are jul/Aug) So they will still have same age -march peers, They are month 7 of 12. So 5m kids younger than them.
They are 4.5yo starting school. Surrounded by 4-5yo.
They could are has already been said request exceptional circumstances and maybe be allowed to start at 5.5yo by a panel, or do pt or start later in the year. An average Mar born is clearly not at a huge disadvantage here. They will be at least 5.1yo when the eyfs is done.
Yes it is an arbitrary cut off (isnt it all) but it is not currently putting the Mar born in the bad position of an Aug born (as i say with funding they are slightly better than an Apr). Plus as others said they would even if all Apr-Aug delayed be 5m older doing the same curriculum.

If we find there are that many Sept-Mar not ready then i suggest you campaign for also raising school age or repeating.

@Emmapeeler
I just don't understand how you can support the summer born policy given what you've written in your last post. It sounds like you believe your son benefitted significantly from the policy but you also recognise that other children born before April would also benefit from being delayed too. How would you feel if your son was born a few months earlier, would you still support a policy that would automatically allow his slightly younger peers to delay whilst your son would not be extended the same rights? That is in effect what you are supporting.

It just seems a poor policy when viewed from all perspectives. If you think delaying is beneficial and doesn't detriment other children then why on earth would you impose some arbitrary cut-off of 1st April, that takes no cognisance of how ready or not an individual child might be? Stubbornly supporting the policy just in case an overhaul would roll back the summer born children's rights is incredibly selfish and unfair

If you think delaying is not in the interests of the summer born child and/or other children then the policy is clearly flawed.

Helix1244 your numbers aren’t quite right.
The March born will be 4.5 starting school surrounded by 4-5.5 year olds.
They are now 12 months behind the oldest child.
Exactly where the August birthdays are now.

Just to clarify bumpyity my April child was not delayed, it was my August one. A few months would have made all the difference for my August child. But I know children born in March for whom I think delaying would have been good. I think what I said in my post is that I support he right of summer born children to start at CSA in reception (unlike those previous), AND that I think there should be flexibility for those born before then. I also think that 5 should be the school start age.

I recognise the concerns people have about disadvantaging other children. The summer born policy is not perfect, but in my view it is better than a standard school start at 4. My son would have turned 4 the previous week and was not emotionally ready. I absolutely recognise that children born earlier than my son may have significant other reasons for delaying a school start. I have said several times that I think 5 should be the school start age. For me it was not about my son being the youngest but that I think 4 is too young to start school (in our educational system).

I think in summary, I agree with many of the view about but I still support the summer born policy because it is a start. You ask why the arbitrary cut off date of 31 March, but at least it isn’t everyone born after that date who will be in the year below, unlike those born on 31 August. That really is an arbitrary date, surely? I can’t understand why those claiming the (not perfect) policy is unfair on those born in March can’t also see how an arbitrary cut off date is even more unfair on a late August child.

Also, we MC parents didn’t write the policy. I didn’t even consider at the time that it might be unfair on other children, it was just a policy offered to me, apparently designed to remove existing inequality (the already existing postcode lottery) and I opted to go for it. It has been beneficial to my son, born days before 31 August, so for me to now not be in favour of it (while recognising it could be improved) would be pretty hypocritical wouldn’t it?

Also, I actually appreciate the lengths people have taken to demonstrate that the policy is not perfect. Thank you. It raised issues I was not previously aware of. Because I am just a parent of a child.

This is i think 2018 eyfs data.
The months are
Winter
Spring jan-apr
Summer may-aug

As you can see spring still firmly in the middle despite these changes since 2014.
As we presume this is age and they will age 3+ months over the summer, possibly the spring woukd hit the same as winter of 80% or so. But leaving SB at 71%
It is mainly writing holding back children but once into yr 1 they do a lot more practice.

@Emmapeeler
I think in summary, I agree with many of the view about but I still support the summer born policy because it is a start
It isn't a start though is it? It's not the beginning of an overarching programme of change that will make things better and fairer for all. I don't blame any parent of a summer born that chooses to delay their summer born under this policy as you may well believe that this is the best option available to your child. What I don't support is anybody that claims that this policy is flawed but better than nothing or a step in the right direction because:

A) there is serious doubts over whether the policy is an improvement when looked at holistically
B) there are no plans to extend or build on this policy

You ask why the arbitrary cut off date of 31 March, but at least it isn’t everyone born after that date who will be in the year below, unlike those born on 31 August
The end effect is the same though isn't it? If parents of a child born 1st April chooses to excercise their automatic right to delay their child then that child starts school a year later than a child born on 31st March. It's an arbitrary cut-off that means children born a day apart will be in two different academic years irrespective of the children's actual readiness or stage of development. It is an incredible privilege to be afforded choice and I really struggle to see how anyone can justify how this should be extended to some and not all children.

I know you support more flexibility and a later CSA, but this policy delivers neither of these things for most parents and by allowing some flexibility for a chosen few it actually creates a whole host of other problems for children that might be struggling already and don't have to the option to delay.

It is a start, actually. It is a step towards the flexibility that exists in most education systems, where children are looked at according to their needs and not simply and strictly their birth dates.

Policy makers will be able to look at the evidence (when there is a big enough and statistically significant enough pool to do so) as children move through the education system and proper conclusions will be able to be drawn about its effect in this country on the children effected, and not just academically, but on their mental health too. These will be able to be used to impact government policy and decisions, in a way that retaining our strict birth date related focus would not.

The fact that the government has no current plans to do anything else (especially whilst all energies are going on Brexit) doesn't prove your or any other point! This policy has barely taken hold. Its effects aren't yet known by any stretch and can't yet be built upon.

The head of a very deprived primary local to me feels incredibly strongly that delaying summer borns in certain circumstances is a very good thing. As I said previously, she's initiating and supporting it for disadvantaged children that need it.

Do you have some expert knowledge on the benefits and funding system that the rest of us don't or are you just presuming that the only families that have access to 30 hours are those with an earner? Because that's simply wrong. Lots of disadvantaged families, those with caring responsibilities, on statutory sick pay, etc, have the right to the 30 hours. This is simply not a policy that will only benefit the better off, even if initially it was only the most knowledgeable that took advantage of it.

@Helix1244
Ok lets take that 31 mar child
They had 15-30h 4 terms preschool
Compared to 3 for 1st apr

So the 31st March (spring born) child would be entitled to either 780 or 1560 free hours depending on if they were entitled to 15 or 30 free hours per week. The 1st April (summer born) child would get either 585 or 1170 free hours again depending on if they were entitled to 15 or 30 free hours per week. It's clear the biggest differentiater when looking at funded time in preschool isn't when a child was born but how many funded hours a child is entitled to each week

If your argument is based on the amount of funded time a child spends in preschool then actually all children that are only entitled to 15 funded hours (including winter borns) are the ones that should be allowed to delay as they receive significantly less funded hours than any child that receives 30 funded hours (including summer borns!).

So minimum 14w but could as have previously said be fewer spread more which would possibly be better more days getting into routine and at our nursery there are few kids in so less busy etc over that 6w summer break
Again, spreading funded hours doesn't increase your entitlement but simply spreads the hours you are entitled to more thinly. For those entitled to less funded hours then their entitlement certainly doesn't stretch far at all when you try and also cover holidays (works out just over 10 hours a weeks, less than two full days!). Not to mention lots of preschools aren't open during school holidays and getting a place at a preschool to start at the beginning of the summer term can be really difficult as the preschools can't accommodate a big influx of children without increasing staff etc. It is far more common in my Dd's preschool for spring and summer born children to wait until September to join.

They then go to school where yes they could start behind others. (But not all SB are delaying only 1-2% of which 75% are jul/Aug) So they will still have same age -march peers, They are month 7 of 12. So 5m kids younger than them
A child born on 31st March is for all intents and purposes is born 8 months into the academic year. If the summer born policy is publicised and promoted as the OP of this thread would then it is highly likely that more summer borns would be delayed. This would mean that the 31st March child would slip down in the age order of a class and most importantly, it is likely that the more ready and able summer borns will be the ones that start on time meaning that an average or below average March born may well now sit bottom of the class.

They are 4.5yo starting school. Surrounded by 4-5yo
Correction, the March born will be 4.4 years old starting in a class of 4.0-5.4 year olds where the composition of the class could be skewed towards older children if the summer born policy is better publicised and gains popularity.

They could are has already been said request exceptional circumstances and maybe be allowed to start at 5.5yo by a panel, or do pt or start later in the year
All of these options existed for summer borns with the exception that summer borns would have missed a term of reception Vs spring borns. Funnily enough, parents of summer borns didn't think this was good enough so why is it good enough for spring borns?

An average Mar born is clearly not at a huge disadvantage here
I disagree and I am flabbergasted that you can write that with any sincerity.

If we find there are that many Sept-Mar not ready then i suggest you campaign for also raising school age or repeating
Or we could just repeal this ridiculous policy and implement a more comprehensive, fair approach for all.

@livetodream
It is a start, actually. It is a step towards the flexibility that exists in most education systems, where children are looked at according to their needs and not simply and strictly their birth dates
No it's not a "start" when there aren't any plans to build upon this policy. You have made a massive and completely unsubstantiated assumption that this acts as some kind of pilot study where the data can be used to implement improvements for all, but there is absolutely no evidence that this will be the case.

I would have a lot more sympathy for your view that this takes the emphasis away from age if there wasn't an automatic right extended to some and refused to others based solely on their date of birth. This absolutely entrenches the idea that summer born children are fundamentally different because of their age.

Or we could just repeal this ridiculous policy and implement a more comprehensive, fair approach for all.
Hear hear.

A child born on 31st March is for all intents and purposes is born 8 months into the academic year
Correction to my earlier post, I meant a child born 31st March is born 7 months into the academic year

Or we could just repeal this ridiculous policy and implement a more comprehensive, fair approach for all

I am ready to support a campaign for all children to start school at 5 and make reception play based once again. If there is one and I don’t know about it, I apologise. I literally just saw this on the news in 2015 and thought ‘great’. I would have had no problems about my child being the youngest, had he been able to start at 5. But in my view, a four year old should not be learning about digraphs.

I just resent all this MC parent bashing about literally everything. I deliberately sent my child to a community school, non religious, non private, and I worked in minimum wage admin job for five years while he was little. And yet I am being accused of buying privilege. I am not the person who wrote the policy and then left it to the LAs to create a postcode lottery. From what I have seen, most parents of summer borns would support all children being able to start the September they were five, by four, if that were the fairest option on the table. It isn’t at the moment. How do we make it one?

Five, not four*

Actually, you're the one that's making not only unsubstantiated assumptions but utterly pedantic ones at that.... Are you seriously suggesting that it is not valid to say that a step in the direction of flexibility is 'a start'.

And what on earth has a pilot study got to do with it? Of course this policy is not a pilot study, but it WILL provide EVIDENCE on which those who make decisions, and researchers with an interest, can form conclusions. And IF - not beyond the bounds of possibility- we get a government in the near future that is committed to improving our flawed early years system, and may consider more flexibility, the evidence about the effects of this policy will be a very useful tool. Call it what you want, it will create a base of evidence about the effects of flexibility of school starting ages.

And the 'disadvantaged' that could never benefit from this policy? Please explain who these children are.

I think most parents of summer borns would support all children being able to start the September they were five, by four, if that were the fairest option on the table
I would support this option but it would not eliminate the summerborn effect, which is mainly a combination of the relative age effect and absolute age on testing.

That was to bumpitybumper- sorry I don't know how to 'tag' people.