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

My August born daughter started school at age 3 as we were abroad at the time. It was a big mistake.

First term she refused to speak at all. She was previously very confident and articulate.

Second term she screamed, cried and sobbed all the way in. Tantrums every day after school and refused to participate in any activities or play with other kids in the playground.

Third term she started wetting and soiling herself despite being dry for nearly a year.

So we pulled her out and moved back to the UK. Our school borough allows summer born children to start in the term which they turn four but it must be in Reception year. The school was not keen to follow this policy and the Head was difficult and obstructive. Furthermore she was cold and disinterested in my daughter’s difficulties at her previous school.

After a lot of research I found that children in the UK start school younger than counterparts in most of Europe, USA, South Africa, NZ and Australia. Finland has some of the happiest children with the best academic results and they don’t start until seven. Some studies have shown a higher rate of ADHD in children who start school younger, children who learn to read younger are statistically less likely to read for pleasure when they are older, a Stanford study showed children who started school later had better self control (executive function) a Danish study showed starting later had less hyperactivity and inattention.

So I decided to home school her until Y3/KS2. In the last year she has matured immensely. She sits without fidgeting, she openly approaches and engages play with other children in the playground, she participates and enjoys forest school, drama club, rugby tots and listens carefully during horse riding and skiing lessons. An added bonus is all her homeschool groups have a variety of ages so she is learning to communicate with children of differing ages.

Academically she is doing very well in maths and her reading is average. But if she was behind I would not be too concerned because children reach a point of maturity around 5/6 when they are able to concentrate for longer periods and learn very quickly.

I am fortunate I have been able to take this path with her and I feel if she had gone to school she would have been unhappy and learned to hate school. Now she can join school when she is emotionally more mature and ready to participate fully as an equal with her year group as the emotional intelligence gap will have narrowed further when she is seven.

However it is unfair many parents will not have the time or resources for this option. I believe the entire early years education system in the UK should be overhauled. Compulsory school age should be seven. Early years should be optional for parents who want or need their child to go and should be a mixed age play based outdoor/forest curriculum with small groups, instead of kids sitting SATs at six years old!

Also that parents should stop worrying that if their child doesn’t start school early enough then they won’t succeed. A child starting school younger will learn slowly and may feel like they are not succeeding, a child starting school older will have the maturity to concentrate longer and learn faster, they will feel like they are succeeding and they will be happier and more confident than a struggling younger child. Happiness and confidence is an enormous part of overall success.

Interestingly though in Finland there is still the summer born effect, and also evidence that younger-in-the-year children are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD.
I agree that all children should start school later, but it wouldn’t solve the summerborn effect.

Those mentioning social difficulties for a Summer born child, have you experienced having a child who is at the bottom of a 16 month age range? My DS was the youngest boy by 5 months when he moved schools and there were a lot of children with middle class parents in his class. Deferring just passes the problem to other children.

@WindsweptEgret
Precisely! In my DD's preschool it is obvious to see that there is a strong relationship between age and social ability. The older children tend to use this advantage to form friendship groups and dominate play and it can be hard for younger children to get a look in. This was true at the start of the academic year and is true now. As other children have matured slightly then they have caught up a bit but the difference is still significant.

Delaying summer borns will just exacerbate this problem as it creates a new breed of "super mature" children that younger children will have to negotiate. In my experience play styles change a lot between 3-5 and it is asking a lot of the non-delayed summer borns to keep up with those children who are so much older. I can only imagine this will lead to a situation where even those summer borns that would normally be ready for school will be delayed as their social peer group will be reduced as more parents hold their contemporaries back and our expectations of what the "norm" is shift when we compare a just turned 4 year old with a child that is almost 5 and a half.

It is hard to see where this trend will end though, as others have pointed out December - March borns will then look immature in comparison to their new classmates and thus the pressure to delay those children too will mount. Put frankly, there are disadvantages to being the youngest and lots of parents will do anything they can to remove these disadvantages with little thought or care for the new group of children that will consequently be the ones that are disadvantaged.

Three out of my four children are summer born but being in Wales all went to
Nursery attached to the school at three. I think this really helped with transition to school.

I think it also depends on factors that aren't academic at all, particularly physical size. I'd never really thought about it before but I wonder if one reason that I never really noticed being one of the youngest in my year (I'm July born) is that I was still always either the tallest or second tallest in my class. In fact, if I'd been put in the year below it would have greatly exacerbated my self consciousness about this (I was 5'10 at 13, which was pretty awful - being 5'10 in a class of 12 year olds would have been even worse). Because I looked one of the oldest it also made it very easy to do age restricted things (cinema, pubs in sixth form) with my peers, as no one ever really questioned my age - driving was the only thing I remember being really annoyed that they could do and I couldn't. Being the youngest and the smallest must be quite a different experience.

I did ask my mum about this recently though (I was thinking about summer born DS) and she said I was academically fine compared to the others right from the start, but in reception it was more 'life skills' I struggled with - I ate really slowly and was pretty bad at getting myself dressed. Obviously I don't remember that!

Rosie does fantastic work in supporting parents with summerborn children and guiding them through the often difficult, confusing and inconsistent process of starting children at CSA in reception. Whatever your opinion on summerborns we have a legal right not to start our children in school until the term after their 5th birthday. If we exercise this right then why should our child miss out on a year of education and start in year 1? A reception start makes sense for all children so as to have the same foundation and grounding.

For those commenting that summerborn children starting CSA in reception have an ‘advantage’ please remember that school isn’t a competition. It shouldn’t matter how someone else’s child performs in school. Surely it’s about ensuring each child achieves their best from their potential. I would argue that making children start school when they have just turned 4 and if they aren’t ready means more disruptive behaviour and the teacher and TA having to spend more time supporting these kids who are trying to keep up. That then means your kids get less of the teachers time and attention to help their learning. I think everyone is getting disadvantaged in that scenario.

No one is disadvantaged if the children who aren’t ready to start school wait until they are. A larger age range just means all the kids actually have a chance of keeping up with the work and development expected of them. The curriculum isn’t going to change and suddenly become more difficult because the children are overall more able. Yes there may be a larger age gap between some of the kids but in lots of nursery setting there’s a range of kids from 2-5 years old - no one worries about that or says their 2 year old is at a disadvantage because they’re expected to play with a 5 year old. The older ones learn skills in caring for the younger and the younger ones look up to the older ones. The dynamic may be different in a reception class but that doesn’t mean they won’t all benefit from being around a wide age group. My son is friends with kids of a variety of ages, older and younger and I see it as a social benefit being able to socialise with different ages of kids, not a disadvantage. Lots of schools do some mixed activities with reception and year 1 mixing together, are you suggesting they stop doing this also?

Yes there may be a larger age gap between some of the kids but in lots of nursery setting there’s a range of kids from 2-5 years old - no one worries about that or says their 2 year old is at a disadvantage because they’re expected to play with a 5 year old.

Surely this is an argument against deferral at all?

I think the fact that they still have the summer born problem in Finland is very compelling evidence that allowing deferral doesn't solve the problem, it just shifts it.

2&5 year olds aren’t expected to be learning the same things though, that’s the major difference.

Right, which makes it equally irrelevant to your argument that it's fine for there to be a 17 month age gap in reception. Your view seems to be that huge age gaps are fine so long as it's not your DC that's the youngest.

The curriculum isn’t going to change and suddenly become more difficult because the children are overall more able
Actually the evidence shows that the teaching and the expectations do change if there are older and more able children in the classroom.
No one is disadvantaged if the children who aren’t ready for school wait until they are
Yes they are. The measure of ‘ready for school’ is an arbitrary one, and it is not consistently applied. The children most affected are the ones who are already at a disadvantage.

The older ones learn skills in caring for the younger and the younger ones look up to the older ones.
The difference is that everyone in nursery has a turn at being the oldest. In school the younger ones are always the youngest, they are always ‘looking up’ to the older ones. And the bigger the gap the bigger the effect.

@user1473949357
I too find your argument contradictory and plain misleading.

No one is disadvantaged if the children who aren’t ready to start school wait until they are
I think this is an unconvincing argument for many reasons.

1. The debate isn't about whether all children that aren't ready for school are allowed to defer or indeed that only those children that aren't ready to start school are allowed to defer. The argument is that all parents of summer born children should be allowed the option to defer. A privilege that wouldn't be extended to other children in their academic year group irrespective of their school readiness and a privilege that would be granted to some children that are actually ready but just happen to be born later than their counterparts.

1. Of course allowing summer borns will disadvantage children born in Jan - March in particular. The disadvantage of being the youngest doesn't suddenly disappear just because you have made some other group of children the youngest in the class. You have simply shuffled the pack of cards so that summer born kids sit at the top and Jan-March kids sit at the bottom.

1. If children benefit from socialising and learning alongside children of slightly different ages then why are summer borns the exception that need to defer a year to avoid being the youngest in a class with older children? You imply younger kids will get something from having the deferred children in their class but I find that pretty disingenuous when the implication is that summer borns are damaged by being put in their own class where they would experience older children.

My lb is 4 on the 29th August and 'should' have started school in September 19 but we have successfully applied for him to start reception next year at age 5. He will in no way be at more of a 'middle class /pushy parent' advantage than the September born children born days after him. He would have struggled to start school at just turned 4 and it might have turned him off school and learning for life. I'm so happy we delayed him to have another year of pre school, and start school when he is truly emotionally ready. it is the greatest gift for his 4th birthday he could get. And the more people know about this and apply the more normal it will become. I think the difference for the August borns is so stark between a just turned 4 year old and a nearly 5 year old. There isn't going to be an influx of April borns doing this I believe by far the majority are July and August borns who are just too young to start school.

@rachy81stew
Do you not see the slippery slope argument though? Of course there is a huge difference between your son and a September born child, but is that difference so stark between your son and a child born in May/June. Your son is probably at a very similar level of maturity to these children and they too would form part of his cohort.

If you're right that initially it will just be July and August born children deferring then it will be inevitable that this will lead to many of the parents of the May/June children doing the same. They will compare their children to the deferred children (like your son) in their year and notice how far behind they are in comparison. Then as the May/June children are regularly deferred then the parents of April borns will begin to wonder if their children are ready for school as they seem so far behind some of the other (deferred) children in the class. And so it continues.

Summerborn is April to May so I’m sure many April born children have also delayed. It’s not just July to August.

Actually no I don't. The stop off is at stark if my son was 3 days younger he'd be in the next year no questions asked. I don't make policy I just do the best for my child like any parent would. There used to be 3 intakes a year in reception. I myself am August born and started after Easter. There isn't anymore for whatever reason.

• April to August

And there is a reason there are so many September babies. It's people trying on purpose to have a child eldest in the year and avoid summer born.

And there is a reason there are so many September babies. It's people trying on purpose to have a child eldest in the year and avoid summer born.

I thought it was Christmas and New Year boozing?

@Annabelle16
That is exactly my issue. I have two children born in April/May and find it absurd that they could be classed as summer born and defer a year. Yes they seem young in comparison to September born children, but compared to most children they don't stand out as being different.

@rachy81stew
Actually no I don't. The stop off is at stark if my son was 3 days younger he'd be in the next year no questions asked
Yes, but there has to be a cut off somewhere otherwise it just gets ridiculous. The deferral system just means that a parent with a child born on 31st March could and I presume as deferrals become increasingly common will argue that if their child was born a day later then they too could defer a year. There are always children either side of an age boundary.

I don't make policy I just do the best for my child like any parent would
I understand this and in a way I think that's why the deferral concept is so flawed. Every parent wants the best for their child and deferral seems an obvious way to do this. The problem is that this will be at the expense of other children and for that reason I am opposed to the system and would support any campaign to end it.

Bumpitybumper
It’s impossible to compare all children born in a particular month and it’s great that you don’t view yours as summer born, but I do for my end of May child.

Every parent wanting the best for their child doesn’t automatically mean every summerborn’s parent is going to delay entry to gain some advantage as a lot of children are well & truly ready & it would possibly be detrimental to wait another year so they wouldn’t do it. The whole point is there being the option there for children that need it. People seem to assume everyone is going to do it meaning the spring borns will then be the youngest which is just ridiculous. I’m pretty sure the vast majority of parents doing this aren’t just doing it as they just don’t want their child to be the youngest it’s to do with the individual needs of that child and whether they can meet the expectations school have of them academically and socially.