PARENTS' ANXIETIES IGNORED OVER AGE SUMMER-BORN PUPILS START SCHOOL

[wotnopulling]

I'm gutted, my august born babe will be forced to start school days after she turns 4.

I think you are worrying obsessively about a problem that hasn't arisen yet.

but by the time it does arise it'll be too late to do anything about it won't it?

i don't think i am being obsessive. I'm concerned about my child's education based on a variety of sources which suggest there's a substantial risk the current system will disadvantage my her. Including the attitute of my s-m-i-l who is a primary teacher (reception). when she heard my early sept due date the first thing she said was 'don't have it in august'

now i really must go...

Scotland has a system where children can defer. A child born between Dec-Feb can defer for a year, so they can be either 4 1/2 or 5 1/2 when they start school.

Hi WnP
You mentioned home-schooling for a year??

You would not be home-schooling for a year though! Children do NOT have to be in school or receiving an "education" until the term AFTER they are five. That is the LAW. Funny how schools and gov.bods don't make it public knowledge!!
You cannot be forced to send your child to school when she is just 4 years old. The schools may pressure parents into it, and deliberately mis-lead parents into thinking it is the law.
If you want to make a stand, it's simple really....No need for petitions or campaigns, just... "Don't send your child to school until you believe she is ready!"
All parents have this choice!

You could have an extra year together as a family. You never get those precious years back, and I personally am really saddened that "some" children are being sent into school too soon, as the growing evidence shows.
You will be amazed how much your DD learns from just living and having fun! She will be more mature, confident and prepared for school....when she is five!
Of-course, you may find she is happier and learning more out of school and decide to Home-ed for longer!

But then the children go straight into year 1.

I don't think the part-time thing helps either.

As far as I see it, the older ones who are at an advantage because of their age/development anyway then receive a further advantage by being part of a smaller group in the afternoons.

In DS's class 8 children were there all day from September to December. When DS started afternoons after the Easter term he was with the last intake and therefore shared the teacher's (and TA) attention with 29 other children. So the ones who need the extra care don't get it.

Anecdotally, some parents of the current Y6 (it's a one form school and there isn't much movement in or out) have said that you can still tell who the autumn children are and that they are a closer knit group in the class.

I would have been happy for him to go full time - but the following year, i.e. start Reception aged 5 and a month. IMO, if the government believes children can start school at a given age, they should go all day from the outset. If they are too young to be there all day - they are too young to be at school.

I also think the system is biased against boys who generally are less ready at a young age than girls.

In addition boys need much more physical activity yet are expected to conform to school routines, the sitting etc far too young and then made to feel naughty when they have trouble with it. Boys need to be out running around not sitting down in class. I feel very strongly about this and think it applies to the autumn boys as much as the summer boys.

Children in this country go to school far too early as it is and I have huge sympathy for the parents of summer children.

Wotnopulling.

Hi. How nice to hear of someone else who doesn't take these things lying down. My DS2 (3.3) is in Bradford LEA and therefore now "safe"; he will be deferred and enter reception in 2010.

If you are serious about campaigning, you might find it helpful to read some of my posts (under "Education") about my own negotiations which included turning up at the last moment at a meeting of Bradford Council's exec. committe to stop them changing their present more enlightened policy. I'd then be happy to talk to you via email, etc. I'm considering contacting the Observer. Journalists like to be spoon-fed stuff I think.....

I suggest you call Leeds LEA education department. Leeds spearhead the "Yorkshire revolt" against the UK's disgustingly early default school starting age. If you can find out more about their rationale and - all-importantly, whether they think their policy of allowing deferrals saves money in the long term, then that could be a starting-point. I also think there is a human rights act argument. Irwin Mitchell have been recommended to me as solicitors to advise on this.

Ignore those who say you are obsessive. It's great that their kids were ready. Hurrah for them. If yours has to go, you will support him and soften the blow. But it's too soon to give up.

I knew DS2 would not be ready because he follows the same neurological path as DS1, whose speech only caught up by 4.9. As soon as I realised DS2 would be a late talker too, I knew that the August birthday couldn't be ignored. As the speech therapist said (in between her multiple sighs of relief at hearing of my decision to defer) "It's a double whammy to be an August-born boy anyway, to be a late talker as well would be a triple whammy". Here in my town, where teachers are allowed to tell the truth about the consequences of being an immature August-born, the school nursery manager takes every parent of a July-August born and briefs them on their option to defer.

I will help you in any way I can. best wishes, lingle.

Oh bugger I had so hoped that we would be able to defer DS for a year (Aug 25th) As it is now he should be able to start in the January but our LEA are looking to get rid of that too!

move near me, children dont go to school here till after their 5th birthday as is the law

if my lea can do this so can yours so you should write to mp etc

littleducks and fatzak, would you mind saying which LEA you are in or maybe namechanging to say it?

What's needed is a campaign group: "Ready for School" would be a good name. If this had happened 12 months ago I'd be establishing it this evening!

Just to add that the netmums founder is talking about this tomorrow on GMTV at 6.45 am (please check times)

Lingle - I'm in Kirklees (that's Huddersfield by the way) (have you remembered that it's not in Scotland??!!)

I have the answer.

When I started school (1961, July born, Easter start), come September I didn't go up to year 1, I stayed in Reception with the new Autumn born children and went up to year 1 after Christmas.

If that was an option now (our school have a gradual build up to 'work' in year 1 anyway), the summer borns would stay in Reception for the Autumn term, maybe even spending the afternoon in year 1, so just having a bit longer at consolidating the basics.

What do you think?

Windsor and Maidenhead (primary school admission info)

is odd though as dniece lives in next town but in different LEA and is 4 months older than dd but will start school a full year earlier

the founder
Lordy

wotnopulling
Not read all this thread but interested to read that you are in Haringey.
My DC now in year 6 was put back a year in a Haringey school, he did reception twice.
He has an end of August birthday and could not cope when he moved up to year 1.
I know that Haringey schools will no longer allow for children to move down or defer.
I have recently applied for secondary school and at present I am not 100% sure that he will be accepted out of year, I have to wait and see what happens in March.
All very stressful.
I don't understand why they can't give some flexibility like they do in Scotland, it seems to work for them and parents get the choice, every child is different and some are fine being the youngest, others are not, I'm sure the numbers wishing to defer would be low, as it would mean another year of paid for childcare or staying at home for parents, so it's not an option everyone would consider, but for those who really thought that their child was not ready, they would be able to keep them at home or in nursery.
I still remember my DS on his first morning of school, standing in the back garden taking a picture of him in his school uniform, he was so tiny, so not ready, he had had his 4th Birthday party the week before, when I look at that photo now I think to myself, what the hell was I doing?

I haven't read all of the thread but am disappointed too. It won't make any difference for us now as DS is now 7 and started at 4. He coped totally fine btw but it is NOW in Yr 3 that he is struggling a bit. Funnily enough my friend's DS who is 3 weeks younger than my DS and in the year below is doing great.

Yes for my DC it has made a real difference being the oldest in the year, although he is still not as mature as many of the girls. I feel he is def in the right year now.

I feel furiously strongly about it too, wotnot. June-born DS goes part-time and our super headteacher has said he can do mornings only all year, if that is what we would like. She believes four-year-olds are too young to be in school. DS's teacher believes the same. Why are we doing it?! Can you negotiate a part-time arrangement with your chosen school?

Of course this investigation was going to conclude that children starting later will miss out - because the notion that reception year is all nursery-esque play is rubbish, and certainly DS's school will have done all the phonic sounds and made a big start on reading by Christmas. So yes, those starting late will have missed out - looking at it like this. What I would have liked the investigation to do is look at the bigger picture overall: should UK children in general be starting formal schooling at four, whether or not they are an older/younger four? There's already research aplenty to suggest not. If we held off until five, six or even seven, as many other European countries do, the odds of more children being developmentally ready for formal learning would be greatly improved, younger ones included. I think they're looking at it the wrong way: how to make especially young children fit a system where the kids already start too early.

So going back to your what-can-be-done-about-it question: take a gamble and delay the start until a term after your child's fifth birtday, which you're legally allowed to do; try to negotiate part-time schooling with your chosen school - at least for reception year; home educate.

Yes, definitely feeling furiously strongly about it this end, having left a very unhappy young four-year-old at school this morning.

Some LEAs let april-august born babies defer and start reception a year later. The problem is that when they go to secondary school they usually have to go straight into year 8.

Littleducks - in your LEA do they not have a reception class then? So if they are 5 in august they start a month later in September? What if they are 5 in October? Do they start January? Do they have an April intake too else those who are 5 in say Feb wouldn't start school til they were 5 and a half?

nappyaddict - I'm deferring - is that definite about Year 8?

We'll fight that battle when we come to it. Anything could have happened by then.

leavesleaveseverywhere - our school nursery manager - who shares your views and those of your school - says that the silver lining is that Year 1 and Year 2 may now be more summer-born friendly as they should become more playbased.

I'll probably homeschool until 7, coz that is when I believe it is the right age to start school!

Think it is a bit narrow minded to be looking at this from a summer/winter point of view anyway. Surely children should start school when it is appropriate and when they are ready. For some this could be 3.5, and for others it could be 7.

Dance classes, music classes etc. are all arranged by the level that they children are at, NOT their age. They move up when there teacher believes they are ready. Why can't our education system enable this too?