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

In response to the question above about sport and 11+, I've just checked a couple of things out in my own counties website;
They won't allow 'overage' pupils to do the 11+ test with their new cohort, unless there is 'exceptional circumstances'

Again, this is incorrect information, probably in an attempt to put people off from starting their child later. There is nothing stopping summer borns taking the 11+ with their adopted cohort and then going on to a Grammar School (see attachment).
This is precisely why this campaign is so important, to make the correct information available to all parents, all schools and all local authorities.

The other problem with this policy is the impact on disadvantaged children.

1. Their parents are less likely to delay their start because of extra childcare costs.
2. The evidence shows that actually they are better off starting school as soon as possible as their home environment is not ideal in terms of encouraging learning and development. So staying at home for an extra year makes their situation even worse.

To extend the age range in a classroom to possibly 17 months is madness and would be impossible for any teacher to manage effectively, and it would be the disadvantaged children who suffered the most.

DD1 was born at end of June. When she approached school age, I did consider deferring, by in the end she started at four. Preschool said she would be fine. The SALT therapist said she would be fine. We moved the summer she started school.

Her school was shocked by the analysis of her being 'fine'... But luckily her school was brilliant. Academically she struggled, but she was well supported.

She is now in Yr3. She is thriving. From a maturity and social viewpoint, she is definitely in the right year group. Academically... I'm not sure. Her reading is behind (suspected Dyslexia). Handwriting is atrocious. Maths etc above age expectations.

Did we make the right decision? I'm not sure if we will ever know, but she is very happy in the right year group.

I have a summer born daughter (16 Aug 2016) born early that should have been the oldest in her year due 2nd September.
With my daughters health troubles from only 6 weeks old I feel it in her best interested to start at CSA. I’m hoping when we approach our local village schools they will support our decision.
I don’t believe CSA starts are for everyone. I had an amazing antenatal group so most of my friends have children born within 3 weeks either side and each toddler varies significantly. One born two days later is so advanced she’ll still thrive attending as one of the youngest. Most will cope. My daughter and one of her friends would be more suited to start a year later. She hopefully will whereas her friend will go in the usual age group. Then there’s the ones born 3 weeks after who are naturally going a year later that may seem more advanced than my daughter.

There is nothing stopping summer borns taking the 11+ with their adopted cohort and then going on to a Grammar School

My understanding is that there is nothing stopping a grammar school from accepting an application for a child placed out of cohort, but also nothing requiring them to do so. The one DH works for won't accept them (the only waiver to the age rule that they consider 'under exceptional circumstances' is a child too young, i.e. one put a year ahead, not behind), but also it hasn't been much challenged because the big increase in delaying happened too recently for there to be any kids in that situation yet. I don't know what will happen if (I suppose when) they are challenged.

many kids in that situation, not any. I'm sure there are some*

Personally I think it should only apply to children with exceptional circumstances like they were born prematurely, have special needs / developmental delays or some other reason along those lines. Otherwise when does it stop?? 17 months is too wide an age range, and the more people deferring their April babies then the next thing is naturally you’ll get the parents of the March children saying theirs are ending up the youngest and disadvantaged and so it goes on.... someone has to be the youngest, that’s just the way of life? I say this as an August birthday myself, with 2 summer born boys.

Elisheva and firawla have some very good points.

The main thing is it needs to be a choice. My DD is an early August birthday but had she been overdue could have crept into September... this would have been horrendous - she has thrived in school nursery, is enjoying the maths and phonics they do and is one of the most physically confident children in the year. She seems more ready than some of the September born children! Have a range of options makes so much more sense.

The only issue is she is very narrow hipped but tall so her pinafores will be too short well before they fit for width!

To the PP who said it should only be considered in the case of special needs - how would you do that? The first sign my DD was different was when she started the nursery attached to our school and they didn’t start mentioning SN until halfway through reception.

DD was too young for this and to be honest she was so good at some areas (phonics/colours/shapes) that I probably wouldn’t have taken it up but it would have been a mistake. She’d have benefited hugely from another year.

In fact what i really think is the direction of travel is wrong in the UK. Pre-Reading and pre-maths is being started earlier and earlier because not everyone gets it at home. It would be much more sensible to copy other countries and have a year of pre-Reading / pre-maths and learning through play in reception and only to start with readers in Y1. And I say this as the parent of two kids who took to reading like a duck to water. It’s the luck of the draw, makes kids who aren’t ready feel stupid, and makes no difference in the long run because by Y3 they’re mostly in the same place anyway.

Yes, I think the approach to the early years of schooling needs to change to suit the needs of young children, rather than delaying school for some. Delay the formal academics not the school starting age.

But some children will start school having just turned 5 already in September - would you class that as delaying?

I understand why you wouldn't want a just turned four year old to be in an academic environment all day. But I don't think the answer is to change the entry age like this. All that will achieve is to make the age range larger in the classroom and/or move the starting age up (as has happened in Ireland and some US states). Might it not be better to change the classroom environment, ensuring that all children get a good early years education that doesn't necessarily include learning to read and write from the start, but does have the advantage of making sure everyone is ready to start academic learning.

A just turned five year old September child is starting school on time because they were not eligible to start the previous year. Someone has to be the oldest and the youngest, delaying the school start for some summer born children just makes the age range larger for other summer born children. Change the cut off age and you just make a different group of children the youngest instead.

Absolutely!! My August born son started school at 5 in reception and he is thriving!!

rivierliedje Absolutely, in an ideal world that is exactly what should happen and in fact is more how it was years ago with my older children. Sadly in this day & age that is never gonna happen as the government is expecting more & more from our children at a much younger age and are in fact trying to bring in baseline testing for 4-5 year olds now! So the option to delay a child’s start into such a tough, hard working environment full of targets to hit to make good statistics is a good option to have.

Be mindful of school applications. Deferring doesn't hold a place in a school.

If you apply, get a place and then subsequently defer, you have to apply a year later. You may not get the same school due to fluctuations in parental preferences, size of the cohort etc.

Also be mindful of labelling children as being behind their age cohort, many thrive being with older children, and some will have slower development with younger ones.

Parents should consider all options eg attending part time or starting later in the year. Some children do need to start later and that's fine but I have seen the negatives to this process as well as positives.

But it make no sense to have the least able to deal with being youngest as the youngest. Those with SEN where the parent knows they are behind and they are not diagnosed with anything. Not surprisingly as you have to apply before an Aug born is even 3 and a half!
I would rather a specific child was 17m older than have that child in my dc class and needing comstant supervision/help etc for years that they might not have needed.
Also with the youngest it's hard to know if there is a genuine issue as teacher/parents put it down to being younger so they dont get the help.
With the way the system works some schools set in primary leaving younger dc in lower sets having to work their way up.
Logically the gap at gcse should be small they are 15/16ths of the age. The fact there is still a difference shows an issue with the tests and with how we identify intelligence and help kids achieve their potential. Sane with sports really.

MC parents have already been getting advantage by planning to have sept borns and so it would be more likely a SB might be from a family where they were more chaotic or unplanned.
More needs to be done to take the power from the HT who don't really understand (and lets face it it's the parents who have to do all the extra support at home, get the tears as they dont want to go, deal with the stress when they are naughty).
A kid who cannot sit still shouldnt really have to go yet, it would only stress them and distract others.
Physically many just cannot do the writing, at the very least that shouldnt be introduced maybe until 5yo. Something like 1/4 summerborns dont hit the eyfs writing target. (If it is say done in may then the aug ones will be 4.9yo so 3m youngest than friends starting the class.

Would go all be in more faviour if the benefits (costs, time etc) were shown?
Even with evidence that doesnt really work as the targets on eyfs for 3-4yo are not that stretching.
Some kids are also not teady by 4yo to stop naps which then combined with a morning of work affects their behaviour.
The 4.8yo i know are not on the surface that different to a 3.10yo but behaviour and resilience, attention, emotionsl control, all change a lot in that time.

OP, I'd be pushing the Minister about why this is really such a big deal. We're in Scotland and although the intake is different, parents of younger children have the OPTION to defer. This is not a new thing, it has been this way for at least 40 years since I started school.

I have a daughter born in the last week of August. Part of the reason for our move back north was that we would have been forced to send her to school having just turned 4, or miss out on the whole first year of school. There is no flexibility and there should be. Some parents might still decide to send their July/August kids, others may not. But at the moment they just don't have the choice.

I think it shouldn’t go unnoticed that those that defer are usually the MC parents who’s kids already have every advantage and now that advantage is extended even further to being the oldest.

Someone’s always got to be the youngest.

This link has some interesting research on it making a limited difference - and also that take up is, as posters above have said, largely among middle class families, whose children are far more likely to already have many advantages.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/education-44155068

So glad I live in Scotland every time I hear about this problem. All children are at least 4 years and 5 months when they start school and the youngest ones are easily deferred to the next year. My son is a January birthday and I was able to defer his start until he was 5 and 7 months.

No child should start school at four, regardless of what month they were born in - or at three which is the age they start in Wales.

Its an absolutely absurd system.

The Institute of Fiscal Studies published a report which summarises all the issues: www.ifs.org.uk/comms/r80.pdf.
They do not recommended delaying school start for summer born children.

We delayed our sons start and we are most definitely not MC and I’m pretty our 6 children wouldn’t say they have every advantage 😂 That link is only focusing on the phonics testing in year one and I’m pretty damn sure passing that is way way down on the reasons for wanting to delay a child. As the report says, there is no mention of the effects delaying has on social skills, mental attitude, confidence & independence which are far more important.