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

What i dont like is that you are against some summerborns delaying as it 'might' make your mar youngest. So you acknowledge beibg youngest is part of the issue yet you are offended that it could make yours closer to a cut off!t

Both too young and youngest are part of the issue. This solution allows a gradual on each end.

The reason it is not purely change the start date is because some are ready/costs etc

I dont think my eyfs data came out very well it was
Winter 79%
Spring jan-apr 71
Summer may-aug 60%

Considering this is 2018 after policy changed 2014 still a significant difference spring to summer. They are not currently close to being disadvantaged by summerborns.
Noting that the % incl Apr.
You have jumped to the end of the slippery slope and assumed all will delay.
Not all necessarily will because largely by gcse it catches up.
Also to note some of us have had summerborns go through in cohort and seen them struggle. We now know fully the expectations for 5.0yo at the end. What yr 1 and sats are like etc.

If i could chose a birthdate for them i would actually chose jan/feb or so. As socially i think that would be best. Stretching to either end.

If children in the UK started school at 7 just like they do in countries that have better educational outcomes, the summerborn effect would be massively introduced. That's what I would like. Meanwhile, we're stuck with a flawed system. And thank God it gives me the option of not starting my nowhere-near-ready child at just 4-I will never apologise for taking that option to anyone. The summer born policy is also flawed but it does deal to a degree with what is to me, the most significant problem - the early school starting age.

And I have no concerns whatsoever that my younger, non summer born child, will be disadvantaged by having more older children in her class, if this policy takes effect. Because she'll be over 4.5 when she starts which gives her a whole extra 6 months of maturity and confidence to cope with the demands of school.

• reduced not introduced!!

@livetodream
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'
Could you specify what assumptions I've made? I have just stated the fact that this policy isn't part of a wider programme of change designed to deliver more flexibility and choice to the school system. It therefore isn't necessarily a "step" towards anything but it is instead a stand-alone policy, the data from which may or may not be used by future governments to shape policy. The current summer born policy doesn't seem to have been informed by any studies or data so I am personally very sceptical that future policy will be devised in this manner but one can live in hope I suppose...

Call it what you want, it will create a base of evidence about the effects of flexibility of school starting ages
At what cost though? Should we be subjecting all our children to this policy just so we can get data that will tell us whether flexible start dates are a good idea. That is precisely why pilots etc are carried out. Seems a big gamble to take for something that hasn't been proven to be a good thing for everyone.

And the 'disadvantaged' that could never benefit from this policy? Please explain who these children are
Can you please explain how a winter or spring born child who is struggling with school readiness will gain any benefit from this policy? The potential disadvantages to these children have been outlined several times on this thread.

@Helix1244
What i dont like is that you are against some summerborns delaying as it 'might' make your mar youngest. So you acknowledge beibg youngest is part of the issue yet you are offended that it could make yours closer to a cut off
I have two "summer" born children who actually fall the other side of the cut-off and would be eligible to delay under the policy. Doesn't mean I think it's a fair or sensible policy....

Both too young and youngest are part of the issue. This solution allows a gradual on each end
It could make the youngest even younger compared to their oldest classmates so exacerbates that issue. The concept of youngest is relative and adding a child potentially 17 months older isn't going to help.

The idea of being simply too young is more valid but I think that goes far beyond chronological age and extends into maturity. That's why the 1st April cut-off is potentially every bit as arbitrary and ridiculous as the September start date.

Regarding the EYFS data then I would be more interested to see the month by month data and how well delayed children perform. Say for example that the age: achievement relationship remained constant then delayed summer borns could outperform the winter borns in their new academic year by some way widening the inequality between the top performers and the spring/non- delayed summer borns.

Sure- your assumption that something can't be a start if its
a) not part of a wider programme
b) not seen as a start by those that introduced it.

and now you've added 'if its not informed by data' to that.

A 'start' doesn't require any of this to be perceived as such.
Its a step in the right direction towards flexibility and away from rigidity.
The government introduced it because it is pro parental choice, I'll wager. You don't have to agree with the principles held by this current government ( I certainly don't) to like any of their policies, regardless of whether that is for different reasons that the government's.

You may well be right, and future governments may not look to improve early years and early school education. But you may just as likely be wrong, particularly if we get a government of a different persuasion in the near future. It doesn't matter what the current or previous intentions are.

Everyone here seems to agree that proper reform is needed- and with that, more flexibility? That's why this is 'a step' towards a better situation in my view.

I completely agree with you that this policy cannot be justified on the basis of data creation. Our children aren't guinea pigs. But I don't see it as such a big gamble, given how normal flexibility based on school readiness is in most of the world. I think rigidity is a worse problem. And, as I said in my other post, anything that allows children to start school at later than 4 has great benefits right there.

`Aaah I misunderstood you about the disadvantaged - I thought you - and others, were talking about those summerborns who couldn't possibly benefit from this policy, as only middle class children of mums with pushy elbows could. Because virtually all can.
As to the autumn and winter summer borns, I also have one of them. She's to young to say whether she will be school ready but, lets presume she won't be. Yet I'll have no choice but to send her to school. Well, she'll be 4.5 by then and much better able to cope with the demands of school than a just turned 4 year old (as I said in my previous post). And I personally think the 'potential disadvantages' to her are not worth the paper they are written on. They don't concern me in the slightest. And, relative to the potential advantages for summer borns they completely pale in comparison. She won't gain a benefit, no, but others will gain a big one, and that's good enough for me not to virulently criticise it like some of you on here.

and by 'a big advantage' I mean to their wellbeing and happiness, confidence and resilience. That's what I see as important.

@livetodream
Its a step in the right direction towards flexibility and away from rigidity
In your opinion. I actually think it's quite the opposite. I think it's been introduced by a government looking to appease summer born parents who have become increasingly concerned (quite rightly in my opinion) with the gulf in attainment between winter and summer born children. This is a symptom of a system that is not fit for purpose, but the government has implemented a band aid solution that has no aspirations to make things fairer or fix the underlying issues. Looking at the responses on this thread the government has achieved its aim as understandably parents of summer borns will fight to defend this policy for fear that repealing the policy could see them lose their rights to delay their child that isn't ready for school.

That's why I won't accept this policy as a step forward. I see it as a dangerous red herring that has been designed to not be fair to all.

I completely agree with you about the reasons the Tory govt introduced this policy. But I don’t think their reasons at the time are the main or even a relevant factor in assessing the policy now. What matters is it’s effects, not how it came about.

I also agree with you about the failing system. But if you don’t want to replace it with one that includes more flexibility what do you want to replace it with? Children are individuals after all, so to me flexibility is a key element.
But hardly anyone on this thread has focused on that, I feel like there has been a lot more emphasis on making those that have or would take advantage of it feel guilty because of the perceived - but in my opinion utterly minimal - disadvantages to others. Does the same righteousness and judgementalism get extended towards the middle class parent of the high achieving child who chooses to send him to a good or outstanding school rather than the one in special measures? Because they could arguably have an effect on standards at the sink school. But who is seriously going to judge the parent who picks the ‘better’ school? But yet, choose to start your child at school at an age pretty much everyone agrees is a better age to start, and it’s a different story!
I think I’m probably a bit more optimistic than you- I don’t think we’ll have a Tory govt forever and I think this - albeit imperfect - policy could be a good building block for those that do have good intentions in relation to our children and their education, to evolve from our rigid system to a fairer one.
Meanwhile, as I said before, I’m not making my just turned 4 year old one of the victims of the current one, and neither I, nor anyone else who makes the decision I did, have a thing to feel guilty about!

I agree with your post livetodream, and me neither. And I also agree with bumpity about the failing system. Happy to see that changed, the sooner the better.

You’ve summed it up perfectly! The biggest and most important issue is flexibility, as every single child has different needs and develops at different rates. This applies even more so now that our early years is so much more about the academics than learning through play, that one size fits all and if they don’t hit the targets they are written off as failures at age 4!!!

What we can’t have within this new ‘flexibility’ is parents being allowed to decide whether their child is ready for school or not.
In order to be fair there would have to be an agreed definition of ‘school readiness’ assessed by a neutral body, and all children would have to be assessed before applying for their school place.

@livetodream
*What matters is it’s effects, not how it came about
I agree, it's relevant though in understanding the context in which the policy was created and why the provision within it has only been extended to some children

I also agree with you about the failing system. But if you don’t want to replace it with one that includes more flexibility what do you want to replace it with?
As stated previously in the thread, I would prefer a policy that allowed any child to delay if the need to do so was verified by a professional (in most cases the child's current key worker). I would then want academic achievement to be age adjusted to reflect the age of the child actually sitting the exam/test. I think this would allow a lot of flexibility, safe guard against children being unnecessarily delayed and remove any claims of academic advantage. I would probably compromise on the professional assessment if required, but I think the other elements are pretty important if we were to create a system that was fair for children that would benefit from being delayed and those that wouldn't.

Meanwhile, as I said before, I’m not making my just turned 4 year old one of the victims of the current one, and neither I, nor anyone else who makes the decision I did, have a thing to feel guilty about
I agree, you shouldn't feel guilty for exercising your rights as per current policy. I'm not sure if I feel the same though about your pragmatic defence of the policy.

• you cannot accurately assess school readiness, intelligence etc in a 3.5yo.

• The professionals wont even diagnose sen often till much older

The keyworker, lol, theyve only been there 3m by jan or so when you have to apply for school . They do not provide reception teaching in many settings.
One child was thought fine by preschool actual teacher struggled at school, repeated reception and has asd.
Also a slight conflict of interest as whose job is it to ensure the kids are school ready....

Elisheva, why? Parents know their children better than anyone. Parents in conjunction with professionals would be ideal in my view. But professionals don't know how children react at home after a hard day at pre school - they might not even know the child had a hard day, if the feelings were saved up for when they got home. Likewise they don't know how a child sleeps, what anxieties they share with or exhibit to their parents etc etc.

But this is how the summer born policy works in my area. It is not automatically applied. I had reasons that my LA considered justified a delayed start for my daughter but, as it happens, I take the view that NO child should be made to start school at just 4. The youngest school starting age in the world and to what benefit? Absolutely none!

But, the system I thought was the best was one someone shared on the Facebook group- an article about school readiness in Switzerland - there's a massive checklist of skills and preschool staff assess children against it. If they don't meet the criteria they don't move up to school. Ideal, in my view. But expensive, as preschool costs the state more than school (precisely because its a better environment for young children to be in, and more conducive to optimum development).

Helix,

Why can't you assess school readiness with some degree of accuracy in a 3.5 year old? In any event, there's no cut off for delay - it can be done after the school place is obtained, probably for this reason. That child's place just goes to a child on the wait list for that school.
If its a SEN issue there remains the possibility to delay children whatever month they were born, that hasn't changed. Yes, some SEN only become apparent later but that's why heads have the discretion to move children down a year if they think its appropriate.
School readiness isn't an exact science, we're obviously going to be working on best estimates, but that imperfect system is better than treating 3 year olds like cattle and saying one size fits all full stop, surely?
Also, I don't know what the percentages are but there are an awful lot of children who aren't at school nurseries, but at nurseries they have been at a lot longer than a term when it comes to applying for school places.

Bumpity, the reason I defend the policy is because I think anything that allows children to start school at 5 rather than 4 has absolutely massive benefits which last throughout a school career. There's so much research on this, the effect on motivation, supposed attention deficit disorders, love of reading etc. Its a lot better than nothing, and whether the cut off for consideration of delay is 1 April or 1 September the year before, there is always going to be a cut off.
Your 'ideal' is basically how it works in my LA, it just only applies to children born after 1 April. Prior to that, SEN still are and always have been enough to secure delay. Exams at 16 aren't weighted as there's a perception that age differences don't matter by then, but grammar school exams are.

My daughter was born August 31st and I think you should only defer if there are exceptional needs. I don't think it's fair to have such an age range in one group. She is academically doing well but she is aware that she is the youngest and compares herself to the others.

She would have been disappointed if we deferred her and she wouldn't have understood why all her preschool friends are going to school but she'd have to stay another year. I am also a late August born and I would have hated waiting an extra year to go to University/ leave school.

What we can’t have within this new ‘flexibility’ is parents being allowed to decide whether their child is ready for school or not.
Seriously??? I carried my child for 9 months, I gave birth to it, I raise it, yet I shouldn’t get to decide what’s best for it’s education? Completely absurd!

Elisheva, why? Parents know their children better than anyone
We had this discussion earlier on in the thread.

1. Not all parents know that much about schools and what goes on in them, not all parents can afford to keep their child at home for another year, not all parents want to keep their child home for another year.
2. Children from deprived backgrounds are better off starting school earlier than staying at home for another year.
3. Parents do not accurately assess their child’s needs and abilities.

As I said earlier, in the schools where I work over 50% of the children have delayed development.
In many situations a 4 year old summer born from a middle class family is still significantly more advanced than a 5 year old autumn born from a low SES family.

The socioeconomic gap is much bigger than the summerborn gap, and the more children who are delayed because of this policy the bigger the negative impact on children from low socioeconomic backgrounds will be.

The readiness lists have things like putting on a coat.
Even a teacher couldnt see the dc in my post wasnt ready. But putting them in a classroom it was obviously pretty quickly.

Maybe otherwise we have yearly tests and retain kids who dont pass.

Or make reception part time maybe 3 days so it's not so much for the youngest.
Remove writing till at least year 1.
Start of reception at 4.0 is definitely too young. Painting, play doh lego etc.
And actually following instructions would be good for the start instead.

How long would you allow before the child had to start school?

Elisheva,

The socioeconomic gap is much bigger than the summerborn gap, and the more children who are delayed because of this policy the bigger the negative impact on children from low socioeconomic backgrounds will be

See this, in my view is a complete fallacy. Disadvantaged children are being identified by their preschools and delayed if they're not ready for school. As I said previously, I can only talk about my area, as I obtained the stats for delaying through an FOI. But it agrees only with reasons and half the children that were delayed last year - the 4 I know of, their delays were initiated by the school not the children. And schools are going to keep doing this - Why wouldn't they?! They don't want unready 4 year olds. It is just a question of knowledge spreading.

1. if a parent doesn't want their child to stay at preschool another year or can't afford it, are you suggesting the schools force it upon them? Of course they need to be involved!

1. And really, parents can't accurately assess their children needs and abilities?! There might be some bias there but you surely don't believe parental involvement in decisions about their child's school readiness is useful? Wow!!

1. Young children from deprived backgrounds are better off at preschool than at school, where the ratios and expectations are lower, so thank god for pre school funding!

When you get into what actually is needed its clear isn't it, that its not as easy as all that. And there will always be children that suffer from any scheme. But one size fits all, the status quo before the summer born policy was introduced, is surely indefensible?! An attempt to create more fairness is surely better than none? Not saying you have to like the summer born policy but all 'solutions' have their pitfalls.

Young children from deprived backgrounds are better off at preschool than at school, where the ratios and expectations are lower,
This is not backed up by research.

Not all parents are good parents