school and summer babies - lets allow real choice!

[nattysilv]

What do people think about a campaign to give parents of summer babies a choice (made in conjunction with pre school/ nursery teacher or health visitor) whether to defer their child starting reception for a year. Thus the deferring child goes into reception and not year 1. Parents can already do this in Scotland (and I think Ireland) - so why not England, NI and Wales? The Rose Report never addressed this (was its failure to do so money related?).

The thought of my titchy little 2 year old boy going to school just after he turns four fills me with terror... I know things may change and he may grow and develop and it may be ok... But for gods sake - I should have a CHOICE in all of this... My daughter has just started school at almost five and is completely ready... surely my son (who is more immature) should also be allowed that choice?

I too have an August born DS and I've thought about this but I can't see a practical solution that works for both the children and the schools other than six monthly intakes which would be hugely expensive.

Under the current system, if you hold your son back until he's 5, he'll go straight into year one rather than reception.

If you want him to go into reception, where do the schools draw the line. Should August babies be allowed to go into reception at 5, in which case that disadvantages July babies.

In Scotland, the cut off birth date is end of February. So the youngest child starts school at four and a half the following August. Children born in dec, jan, feb (i.e. the equivalent of our summer babies) can easily defer the start of reception (p1) by a year . Children born earlier can still defer but it is slightly harder. Two of my friends have just done this. In one case the child was a Feb birthday and in another a November birthday (the Nov birthday was slightly more complicated but it was the nursery who recommended the parents to defer - for the child's emotional well-being and future educational achievement). I also think that in the case of jan and feb birthdays, the nursery place for a deferred child is still paid for.

Such a system works fine in Scotland... So why not England? I realise there are potential complications for the first two years where some schools would be potentially under-subscribed one year and the next over-subscribed, but overall it is surely a fairer system for parents...?

If education is there for the child, surely the child should be ready or approaching readiness to start school? Some children will cope fine, but others - even if small - may need/really benefit from that extra year..

I have 2 feb born scottish children who started school at 5y6m - brilliant system!! Youngest had to go at 4y9m (November birth) as there was no funding for nursery for another year - she still seems really small for her year (p3).

Can't see why this can't be done in England. My friend's little boy who is 6 months younger than my dd1 started school a whole year before her - nuts!

As a fellow weegie, thanks for your support! I am somehow going to get on the case... I think I will start with my local MP and have the number of the policy official for schools admissions to contact (I just need my children to sleep a bit better for a few nights to help engage my brain)... Out of interest, do you know proportionately how many children defer each year?

At my children's school, it is far more common to defer than not! My dd1 is the oldest in her class, she'll be 11 in the Feb of her p6 year, but there are many others within a month, and I don't think there are any Jan or Feb 10th birthdays.

I don't know if that is typical of 1) Glasgow or 2) Scotland, or a unique "blip" at the Gaelic school. Because our children here are bilingual, the extra year in nursery can help a lot before going into full immersion in p1, which might be why a lot of parents choose deferral. I used to live in the Western Isles and I know it is pretty common there too.

I think having two entries in to reception helps a lot. In our city there are scheduled entries in September and January. Dd1 (April birthday) therefore started at 4 years 8 months instead of 4 years 5 months and dd3 will be the same. Dd2 (January birthday) was 4 years and 11 months instead of 4.8. Obviously for the children in their year with may,july,august birthdays the benefit is even greater.

Remember, of course, if you are not in Scotland that our years are also different, not "reception" - starts in Primary 1 (which is the same in style - very play based).

So my dd1 in p6 is in Year 5 for England/Wales. She'll be 12y5m when she goes to High School.

That's where it makes a real difference in 2 ways. The older the child, (generally) the better transition they make (secondary teacher here!!) and, as in Scotland we only do 6 years in secondary education (no lower/upper 6th), a child who starts school at 4.6 like me leaves at 17.6. For my first term at Uni I had "MINOR" stamped on my Matriculation card and couldn't get a pint of cider anywhere!!

I also started university at 17... but luckily no 'minor' was stamped on my card:)

I like the idea of two intakes, but this does not happen where we are. I also have a feeling it may change with the new rose report findings... Whilst much of the report is being ignored due to the new government, I think that as from sept 2011, all children will be offered a full time reception place from the sept after their fourth birthday??

I think that summer babies (i.e. june, july and august) should have the option, if done properly (i.e. in conjunction with a nursery/pre school teacher or health visitor) to defer reception by a year..