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

@Annabelle16
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
Of course every child's an individual, but a child born on the 1st April will be almost 5 months older than a child born right at the end of August. They are almost as close in age to a September born as they are to an end of August child as they were born pretty much halfway through the academic year. How on earth can these child be deemed to be summer born children and automatically gain the option of deferral? What about the immature children that were born in non "summer" months that are actually further behind these children and are less ready for school?

I just think there is a weird expectation that September children are the benchmark that we compare our children to regarding readiness when in fact we would be better looking at the whole cohort. Your child wasn't even been born in the last quarter of the academic year.

People seem to assume everyone is going to do it meaning the spring borns will then be the youngest which is just ridiculous

But it would gather momentum if it became more popular, wouldn't it? I have a summer born who is far too young yet to know how he'll be at 3/4. But I do know my calculation will be different if, say, half the parents of summer borns who 'should' be in his class delayed, or maybe even a quarter, as it would considerably exaggerate his relative youth in the class. In a class of 30 there should be around 7/8 summerborns on average. If he'd be one of four rather than one of eight (oh, and there are also four children in his class that are more than a year older than him) I'd be a lot more concerned, and a lot more likely to consider joining the others...

My spring born boy missed the cut off to be able to defer. I personally would like all under 6s to be educated at nursery schools with Early years trained and qualified teachers. It would be in children’s best interests. Children would still be eligible for 30hours of ‘schooling’ but in a more developmentally appropriate setting.
Primary schools (very often with KS2 trained headteachers) taking 2 year olds is just bad all ways round. Why do we start formal education so early?!

I have to say we delayed our June born and not once did I spend any time working out what his age was in relation to others. Having had 5 children go through the school previously our only concern was that he wasn’t mature enough to do half the things that they were going to expect him to do. He fits in perfectly with his reception class and he’s pretty much in the average band academically and socially, so although he’s about to turn 6 he’s probably more like a just turned 5 year old. He’s not disadvantaged anyone as if anything the teacher & TA have had to spend less time helping him giving them more time to other more needy children. The few mums that didn’t know we delayed were really shocked as they had no clue he was older at all. Regardless of his actual age he is in the correct cohort for his abilities and personality, that’s what is important not how many months there is between him & anyone else.

@NewAccount270219
I completely agree.

I think what people forget is that it's rarely completely clearcut that a child is ready for school. Lots of children start school with areas of strength but also areas of weakness where they lag behind their peers. When assessing if your child is ready for school the only thing you can do is compare them against the other children in the class. If a lot of the summer borns have chosen to defer and the remaining children are either older or deferred children from the previous academic year then of course your child is going to seem even less ready and you're more likely to defer yourself.

I can think of a seemingly valid reason why a parent could want to defer all the summer borns in my DD's current preschool class (including my DD). Some are a bit socially immature, some struggle with concentration, some are physically small and some are a bit behind academically or with their speech. On the other hand almost all of the summer borns (like all other children) have areas of comparative strength where for example one girl can read to a good standard and another is a complete social butterfly who is incredibly popular. Deferring these children another year will undoubtedly allow them to work on their weaknesses but will also give them extra time to hone their strengths and I just don't see how a child born potentially 17 months later than them could ever compete. They would not get a look in on sports day or ever have a chance of being the best reader or writer. The gap would just be too big for even the best and most talented to bridge.

I honestly don’t believe it will gather momentum as the vast majority of parents don’t like to buck the system and just follow the norm.

I’m not saying huge age gaps are fine except for my child. I’m saying let’s try to make sure as many kids as possible are developmentally ready for school. Many just turned 4 year olds are not. Most Jan-Mar kids will be ready for school as they will have an extra 6 months of enjoying learning through play and maturing. They are more likely to start school excited and emotionally ready for the expectations placed on them. I accept that some Jan-Mar borns may not be ready either but the summerborn policy isn’t disadvantaging them anymore than they already would be except that they are now the youngest, as many have said someone has to be the youngest. I genuinely think kids in this country start school way too young. I think more schools should be able to let kids repeat a year if they are struggling and need an additional year to move up to the next class. Unfortunately this is rarely allowed.

I agree that the current summerborn policy disadvantages the most disadvantaged, those who don’t have the resources or perhaps aren’t aware of their right to request delayed reception entry to CSA. That’s why it’s so important for Nick Gibb to change the law ensuring the procedure to request delayed entry is the same and also that it should be up to parents, not the school where currently it’s a postcode lottery.

My argument is misleading? How so?

It’s not my child being the youngest in the year that i object to, someone has to be and if I thought he would cope well with school I would have sent him. I have plenty of ‘middle class’ friends who have the knowledge and resources to delay have chosen not to because their child is ready. In contrast, my son is not, it’s been almost a year since potty training he’s still having daily accidents, he still sometimes naps in the afternoon and currently struggles to cope with 3 full days (8.45-3.30pm) & 2 half days (3 hr session) a week in preschool. I can only imagine how much he’d struggle going full time in a school environment with much lower child-student ratios. I don’t think he’d struggle because he’s the youngest, I don’t think he’d struggle because of the age gap between him and other kids - I think he would struggle because developmentally he’s unlikely to reach the end of reception having ‘learnt’ what is expected of him in reception. This may be especially true in year 1 where learning becomes much more formal.

@user1473949357
I’m not saying huge age gaps are fine except for my child. I’m saying let’s try to make sure as many kids as possible are developmentally ready for school. Many just turned 4 year olds are not. Most Jan-Mar kids will be ready for school as they will have an extra 6 months of enjoying learning through play and maturing
No, a child born on 31st March will have not had 6 more months of enjoying learning through play and maturing versus a child born on 1st April. Even if you were comparing a child born in late March to the latest born summer child it would still only be 5 months at most. There is absolutely no guarantee that the difference, be it days, weeks or months will automatically mean that a spring born child is ready for school. In fact a March born boy could easily be less mature and ready than a summer born girl.

the summerborn policy isn’t disadvantaging them anymore than they already would be except that they are now the youngest, as many have said someone has to be the youngest
But making the spring born children the youngest is detrimenting them. I just don't understand how you can pretend that some kind of magic happens that makes summer borns so adversely impacted by being the youngest but makes spring borns immune to all this disadvantage. Their academic work would be assessed against their now older peers, they would be mixing with children with better developed emotional and social skills and even PE would be filled with taller stronger children. Being youngest is undoubtedly inherently a disadvantage and pretending otherwise is deceptive. Yes school readiness is a factor in a parents decision to defer, but let's not pretend that other considerations don't enter their heads. As a society we will move house to be in a better catchment, attend church to get in the best schools and tutor our kids to pass the 11+. Of course some parents of summer borns will defer their children to gain an advantage.

The other thing that is not being considered is that the disadvantaged children do not benefit from an extra year at home, even if they are not ‘school ready’. So making the process more accessible to disadvantaged families is not going to help.

It seems like you’re purposefully missing my point and also being intentionally pedantic. 5 months versus 6 months, apologies for rounding up not down in this instance.

My whole point is why are we comparing the kids, it’s about individual learning of the curriculum not pitting the kids against each other. You may argue the expectations change if the age group shifts older but I suspect that’s predominantly because of parents such as yourself who seem to insist on comparing your kids with others in their class rather than simply learning alongside them.

If you had read my post properly you will have seen that I acknowledged that some Jan-Mar kids may not be ready for school either (although there’s a higher chance they will, being between 4 years and 5 months & 4 years 8 months if we’re getting pedantic about the maths here). I would fully support a change in policy to allow kids to repeat a year if it is in their best interest as unlike some here I really wouldn’t be bothered if a child was significantly older than my own if it helps their education and development.

Why would their academic work be assessed against their peers? Why wouldn’t their academic work be assessed against the curriculum? Since when did teachers mark students work based on how their friends have done? Since when did we as a society become so obsessed with comparing our kids with each other? Again if you read my post my argument isn’t that they’re disadvantaged by being youngest, they’re disadvantaged by many of them only just having turned 4! It’s about the age and development not that they are younger than others.

What advantage?! You still haven’t explained what they are getting that other children who aren’t summerborn are not. They aren’t getting special treatment, they aren’t getting extra teacher tuition in those extra months, they aren’t getting a leg up on anyone, they’re getting extra time to play and be kids.

Signing out now as I’ve wasted enough emotional energy on justifying why parents generally know best when it comes to their own kids. Since when do you know what’s best for my child, or anyone else’s other than your own? Next you’ll be saying you’re pro-life in the abortion debate and saying that you have a right to decide what happens to other women’s bodies. Before you argue that they’re completely separate things, sit with it for a while. Sit and decide what’s the difference from telling someone they have no autonomy over their body and potentially changing the whole course of their life and what opportunities are open to them versus telling a parent they don’t have the right to make a choice that’s in the best interest of their own child and may affect the rest of their academic life and the opportunities that are open to them.

Haworthia
Maybe that too but anecdotally you see an awful lot of people trying to avoid the summer months and conceive an autumn born child. It's not just boozing is it. People want a child that's older so they aren't forced into formal education at 4.

My August born will be starting at 5+1day & I’m so happy. Reading some comments about pushy elbows!!

At the moment the postcode system with varying support of councils does mean it is harder & expensive for some parents to get the CSA start they want for their child. When you consider multiple meetings & liaising with unsupportive head teachers/LA’s, legal challenges, FOI requests it can mean that some don’t have enough time or money to fight the system.

The summer born campaign is trying to make it fair for all with no excessive time or money spent just a simple parents request.

Further comments on parents like myself only looking out for our own children being the PROBLEM! Thank you so much it’s kind that you feel that way that by supporting our own children to cope better at school is a PROBLEM! If you stop shouting off and think differently you will see that Yes it does benefit our children but it also supports other children. our children will be less likely to need SEN support, costing less to the school which can be spent otherwise & leaving more availability for children that do need it. Additionally our children will be more emotionally ready for school and able to support other children that may be needing support for a multitude of reasons rather than need support themselves.

Our children’s educational journey will be smoother and easier making it easier for teachers and other children.

Before you argue that they’re completely separate things, sit with it for a while. Sit and decide what’s the difference from telling someone they have no autonomy over their body and potentially changing the whole course of their life and what opportunities are open to them versus telling a parent they don’t have the right to make a choice that’s in the best interest of their own child and may affect the rest of their academic life and the opportunities that are open to them.

Yeah, I've sat with it for a while and I still think it's at best nonsensical and at worst crass to compare women's rights for bodily integrity and a campaign to get to pick when your child goes to school (unless they're born 1 September-31 March, when apparently it doesn't matter how ready they are).

Btw, we did the whole 'why are more children born in September' upthread - I know it's a long one so I'm not blaming anyone for not reading the whole thing...

@user1473949357
It seems like you’re purposefully missing my point and also being intentionally pedantic. 5 months versus 6 months, apologies for rounding up not down in this instance
I am absolutely not purposefully missing your point. I wasn't trying to be pedantic but just pointing out that you were talking about the most extreme cases with the whole 6 months thing and that the difference between a March and April born would be very much less.

Why would their academic work be assessed against their peers? Why wouldn’t their academic work be assessed against the curriculum? Since when did teachers mark students work based on how their friends have done?
My understanding is that most of our academic testing (11+, GCSEs) is norm referenced which involves looking at how a candidate has performed against their peers. There are advantages and disadvantages to this approach, but the point remains that at present summer born children deferring will probably lead to spring born children being academically disadvantaged. The correlation between age and academic attainment seems pretty strong even when looking at September borns Vs slightly later born children so adding older children to a spring born's cohort and removing the younger born children would almost certainly adversely impact their results as a group.

What advantage?! You still haven’t explained what they are getting that other children who aren’t summerborn are not. They aren’t getting special treatment, they aren’t getting extra teacher tuition in those extra months, they aren’t getting a leg up on anyone, they’re getting extra time to play and be kids
In addition to the proven academic advantage outline above, the deferred summer born children get an extra year to hone their skills in other areas too. Young children develop rapidly and they pick up new things everyday. This is presumably the reason why summer born parents want to defer their children so they have this extra time to develop. At present the policy suggests that an April child can enjoy this privilege whilst a March child can't, irrespective of the fact that the March child may be more in need of it. That is the advantage, that is the special treatment

I don't know what's best for your child and I will fully admit that deferring a year may be in many summer born's best interest. However, the best interests of these children must be offset against the interests of other children who can be detrimented and ultimately have the course of their lives influenced by this policy. Imagine having a March born child narrowly miss out on a college place knowing full well that deferred summer borns had pushed up the grade boundaries. Imagine having a child miss out on grammar school place knowing that a bunch of kids 17 months older got in. You are blinded by your love and care for your child which is understandable, but if your child sat in the other side of the fence and was in any of these scenarios I'm not sure you would be such an advocate of the policy.

I am American. The rule for starting Kindergarten is that the child just turn 5 by 30 Sept, but you can hold back summer borns for any reason or no reason. People do it for lots of reasons, including sports, but also just because being the oldest gives their kid an advantage. The oldest kids are (with exceptions of course) among the cleverest, strongest, and fastest in the class, and over time that leads to recognition, encouragement, and opportunities to further develop their talent. But it is a slippery slope — first it was just August and September kids (cut off us 30 Sept) being held back but that meant spring-born kids became the youngest, and of course their parents don’t want that for their DCs either, so then they hold back too. It is creating situations where you have kids 18 months apart or more.

The problem isn’t just when they are young — when they start hitting puberty there are hugely varying levels of development and this creates problems too. My friend’s summer-born DD started “on time” largely because my friend works full time and couldn’t afford to pay another year of nursery/child kinder fees (no free hours there but 15 wouldn’t be enough anyway). Now her DD is in 6th grade (year 7) and she’s just 11.5, but there are two boys in her class who are 13 and a few more kids who will be soon. That’s a tough age socially no matter what but my friend’s DD hasn’t really started puberty and is still pretty innocent and she gets shit from the boys about being flat-chested etc and she feels pressure to join in the boy-girl relationship stuff even though she’s not ready, because that’s what everyone else in her class is doing. She’s also getting really discouraged about pursuing the sport she used to love and do really well at because the older girls in her year group are taller, stronger, and more coordinated so it’s hard to compete.

The problem is that everyone wants their child to be the oldest in the group but clearly that’s not possible. And it massively advantages the kids whose parents can stay home or afford childcare for another year. These are the kids who are already “ahead” of many others due to the opportunities they had/have. It makes the playing field that much less level. Obviously there will be variations even among a 12-month age range but it’s much more pronounced the bigger the range gets.

Ok
1 jan to mar already have an adv. They get 4 terms of preschool up to 30h now!!

• sept-dec get 5 terms!!!

What do summerborns get , yes 3. Because their time is taken away when they start school. We are basically 'encouraged' to give up their time at 1:15 or 1:8 ratio to shove them in at 4 to 1:30. It's hardly surprising they wouldnt progress as much that year as the sept borns. (Who have sorted more eyfs stuff in nursery). So that's a minimum of Apr-aug having been at nursery extra.

2 i agree with user? That height may make a difference here. Looking older may = acting older. Being allowed into friendship groups. Being better at sport as they could be tallest. Less tiredness.

3 yes there probably is a slippery slope. However all can apply to defer whatever the month it is just on different grounds and will probably need medical evidence.

4 currently deferring carries not insignificant risks. Imo people would be silly to defer an April for no reason. Due to having to re-request. The rules could change etc or grammar schools could start to say no or further adjust the results weighting.

Anyone seeing my dc when they are tired would agree they shouldnt go this sept. Their tantrums are epic and extremely loud, noone would be able to work
To imply it is always about getting better results is simply untrue. (And anyway for that child it is only giving them the possibility of achieving closer to potential.
Note there would be 5/12 apr-aug so approx average of 12.5 of 30.

Puberty isnt a strong argument at all. Although i guess it would go on averages there is large variation. No reason to think the apr born would start first. I was in yr 2 of secondary at least, maybe nearly 14. Ethnicity apparently plays a part too. And boys later than girls so unless you think all boys should defer...

In the US, the age gap by the time kids finish high school can be over two years due to different areas, and sometimes elementary schools in the same area, having different cut off ages, people moving around, and being held back or pushed forward being much more common. It is a major issue when you have 17-year-olds graduating with 19-year-olds and expected to be at the same level and continue onto the same things when so many things are very different for the oldest and youngest.

I don't think England is ever going to get that point, thankfully, and as sports tend to be far more outside of school by age/birthdate rather than school year, the sports issue is somewhat already dealt with, but I think some of the behavioural and other issues that can be seen in places with wider gaps is something we can look at and learn from. I don't think the issues of puberty will be helped much by this with the natural band of puberty covering years and while there are recognized differences in starting age of puberty by sex, by race, and even by class/socio-economic groups, there is nothing I've seen to suggest that groups that start the physical changes of puberty earlier or later develop in other ways differently that would affect when they should start school.

There are two issues at play here. That of being ‘ready’ for school and that of being ‘the youngest in the group’. My concern has only ever been for the first ‘ready’. Without the summer born policy and support of the Facebook group I would almost certainly been forced into home educating our daughter at least for a few years. The option for her to start at 5 instead of 4 has enabled her to reach several milestones that I consider to be key to accessing a formal school environment on a full time basis (sleep-no more naps/self care-ability to wipe after toileting and dress herself/communication-confidence to talk to other children and adults/emotional maturity-to manage emotions to some extent). Without a doubt she has benefitted hugely from not having to attend full time school early at 4. Since making that decision the research on ‘being the youngest’ has become apparent to me. I do feel that ALL children would benefit from later starts as another person mentioned on here (a longer kindergarten stage until 7 for example) as this would address the issue of readiness to some extent. It doesn’t address the ‘youngest in group’ issue. For my younger May born daughter we haven’t decided yet what to do but I feel much more social pressure to conform and send her at 4 as she would be so much older, even though I know it would be in her best interest to start later so she isn’t one of the youngest! How crazy is that?!? Even thought I know all of the research I may well send my may born to school Early because I am worried about what others think?! It makes no sense? I am what some of you might call the pointy elbowed middle class mum that has delayed her summer born but is considering sending her other summer born early at 4 because she isn’t quite as late a summer born and so far is a completely kettle of fish to her sister 🤔 I have the luxury of choice, and agree that more needs to be done to help those disadvantaged summerborns to have equal access to choice, and more too for those winter borns that aren’t ready! The summer-born policy is a small step in the right direction of allowing some flexibility and choice to parents and children but giant leaps are yet to be made to ensure that all children have the best schooling start possible.

I sent my August born son to year R at just turned 5 and have no regrets. It is his right cohort. He would not have been emotionally ready at four.

I also cannot believe it’s four years since the government’s promise and that nothing has happened to rectify the totally unfair postcode lottery which exists. I guess they have other things to think about, while actual children still struggle going to school at four.

Many are fine but equally many are still babies at this age and need another year of play before the frankly ridiculous expectations children now face at school, even in year R.

I also cannot believe it’s four years since the government’s promise and that nothing has happened
I’m not sure what the Government can do. Since the change in policy to allow parents to delay their child’s entry there has been a large amount of research that has proved that the policy does not work. It does not always work for the individual child, it does not work for the population as a whole. It contributes to socioeconomic inequality which the Government is trying to address.
I should think that Nick Gibb is desperately trying to work out how to reverse the decision he made without proper consultation or consideration of the consequences

Clearer eyfs targets might help with decisions on deferring. As a parent i cant obviously see how others are doing.
They may all be listening to chapter books, writing, and doing phonics.
The under 4 targets are relatively simple and dont say much about how they will do on the 40-60m targets. The sept borns should be well into this (and i expect are being helped work towards it) whereas aug borns can be fine in just 30-50.
If they have to be the same by end of yr r they need to try to be the same at end of preschool otherwise they are trying to evidence so much.
Do some sept come in with lots of exceeding evidence?

Umm the research hasnt said that at all...
Of course not every SB child deferring will suddenly be top. Why would theu when not all sept are?! Especially as many more have sen/prem/attention issues etc and that is why they deferred.

• the test isnt going to be the phonics test as that is extremely easy by end of yr 1.

You would need to test where that child was the year before. They are very unlikely to do worse. If anything is holding it up it is Brexit and cost. Cost of funding 30 hours per child preschool for a year longer. But they need to consider the savings of less support needed.

Umm the research hasnt said that at all...
It really has.

No the phonic data says they scored 0.7 higher than non delayed summer borns. On a test of 40 easy questions.
But less on average than sept borns. The test tests the school phonics teaching. There is no exceeding etc. They removed those flagged as SEN but the kids are almost 7yo so may not have a diagnosis.
Reasons for delaying which include
Attention/concentration/prem, so general development delayed. I actually think it's surpising on average they did better than non deferred because it means the extra year has overcome things for at least half. And actually this demonstrates that many deferred ones are not the exceptionally bright trying to get ahead as they would do better than sept borns.
Thing is with an average like this if you have a few that really cant do phonics that will really distort the data. Especially because there are only thousand? Vs all the rest of the countries yr 1 pupils. You would need to remove all prem too i think and children deferred because of s&l etc etc. The fact they are in the pack is a good thing.
Ks1 data might show more.

If it didnt help that child it would mean

• they havent improved in 12m
• there would be no slippery slope as if theres no benefits noone would bother
• it wouldnt disadvantage the poorer as deferring has no benefit...

It would fly againt all the evidence showing oldest advantage.
Basically they have tried to correct it by removing sen but in fact the data is going to be too biased to be reliable. Because it would depend on age each child ie plus 1d vs 5m. A prem aug 31 would never be expected to exceed a sept child anyway.
If 75% of deferred are jul/aug with due dates etc they are really hardly older. Many will be twins/triplets etc.
If i had deferred dc1 she would have still acieved 100% so unable to help the average further, unaffected either way.
Whereas i propose she would have done a lot better at ks1 sats. Because there is no teacher interaction. The maths is hard for a still 6yo. And i think without the struggles in reception re writing she would write better now.
Maybe i should test her myself next year too with the maths to see the difference.
With the phonics too, those that fail in yr 1 retake it in yr 2 so that extra year is expected to make a difference to at least some of the kids.
Same with gcse retakes etc a % do pass later