Please sign this petition regarding when summer-born children start school [headline edited by MNHQ]

[Sootball]

Yes I'm posting for traffic. But this is important. It really is. Because very few people know that the UK government are currently consulting on whether to change the guidance for allowing summer born children to defer a year.

And yes I know many start school at 4 and are ready, they have no problems, that they are the top set. But the research evidence does now show that socially and emotionally the summer born effect lasts for some into adulthood. This is simply about allowing those children who are NOT ready for school, whose self esteem and confidence will be impacted to wait a year.

If you care or have faced this issue then please can I ask you to take a moment and respond using this link >www.gov.uk/government/consultations/changes-to-the-school-admissions-code

Even if you are not sure what to write I have been advised in a box 5 the following will suffice Parents who wish their summer born (April 1st – August 31st inclusive) child to enter Reception class at compulsory school age must submit an application for the relevant academic year. The application must be treated equitably with children starting school prior to compulsory school age, and the child can remain with that year group cohort for the remainder of their education.

AND THANK YOU

Fish Your deferral then catch up is a nice idea but as an End August birthday who was deferred until January (all post Easter birthdays were) I would have been pretty annoyed as a top-of-top-set 13 year old if I'd lost a week of school holidays in order to help me "catch up". Especially as my brother is an October birthday so would have been on holiday then. It would have felt like a punishment.

"Some people can't afford to hold them back." School does not exist to provide childcare.

If you can't afford to have kids then don't have them.

I live in the US and have a July born whom I redshirted. He started kindergarten at 6.

I don't know if it was the right thing to do or not, honestly. He is seven now and in the first grade. Academically he is advanced, even given his deferral. He doesn't like bringing home "little books" in their Read At Home book bags, when he reads Road Dahl and Harry Potter at home by himself.

Physically, he is the tallest in the grade, though he might have been anyway. DH is very tall and my family is stocky, and DS has inherited both of these things. He looks like a 9 year old.

However...emotionally, he wasn't ready to go at 5. I just felt that it was too long of a day for my just turned five year old. He got another year of preschool in the morning and home with me in the afternoon. Also, everyone here redshirts their simmer borns so he would have been far and away the youngest.

Actually, I'd have been happy to send him straight to first grade at 6 and bypass kindergarten altogether, but it wasn't an option.

So, what's done is done. He likes school and is doing very well. However, I know that DD (May born) will go at five, not six!

"redshirted"? Is that an American term?

cheerful- is that an actual deferement- or just delaying entry. Did your son eventually join his "designated" year group- or a younger set?

Yes combust. :)

From an article in the New Yorker: "Redshirting is the practice of holding a child back for an extra year before the start of kindergarten, named for the red jersey worn in intra-team scrimmages by college athletes kept out of competition for a year. It is increasingly prevalent among parents of would-be kindergartners."

No, it was a delayed entry, sorry. But there are lots of kids in his grade who are his age. As in, born in the summer of 2007.

OK thanks.

When i started school back in 1967 they did a rolling start where I (september born) started in September and My april born sister started at easter. However I went into a class that had the previous easter starters in it. Im not sure quite how it worked but I remember at some stage half my class went up to juniors, while i stayed in infants.
Even when my dcs started (2000 and 2002) they werent rolling classes but those born between september and march started in September and the those born in March onwards started in January.

cheerful- so not a true deferement?

Here you can start preschool at 3 or 4, and the three and four year olds are often together. So in September half the preschool class will go to kindergarten and the other half will have another year of preschool.

With DD I will probably do two days of preschool at three, four days at four, and then send her to kindergarten at five.

Nope, sorry. They don't really do that here. I suppose it's possible but I've never heard of it.

It's 3 a.m. here and I'm babbling, grabbed the word "deferral" out of thin air! :)

We have deferement here is Scotland- it's different to the English system and allwos us to hold back a child for a year and join a younger age group.

I grew up in Scotland, and I had never come across the late born syndrome before, till I moved to England.

In Scotland, the catchment for mid August school start are January through to following March, with January and February being allowed to choose whether they wait till the next year.

So my 3 year old DS with a March birthday actually would not start school till he was almost 5.5, whereas in England, he will be 4.5. I actually think he'll be ready emotionally at 4.5... My mum always said that they used to have March mums begging them to allow their children entry early! So I don't think the Scottish system is perfect, but if it stops lifelong problems, then I think it should be considered...

"with January and February being allowed to choose whether they wait till the next year."

There is always the choice to defer from September born onwards. Jan/Feb born get automatic funding for another year at nursery- Sep-Dec born is at the discretion of the LA.

Remember too that in England kids have reception year which in similar to the pre-school nursery year in Scotland which kids attend at age 4.

School does not exist to provide childcare.

Well no it doesn't exist to provide childcare but it does provide childcare. The vast majority of people who have children at school do use it as childcare.

Presume quite a few posters haven't read the consultation document? The proposals aren't about letting all summer-born children start a year later if their parents want them to, it's consulting on the existing guidance that in certain cases (determined by professionals and the LEA) that a child can start reception when they turn five, in consultation with the head teacher of that school. The guidance is already there but the volume of correspondence to MPs and LEAs hasn't reduced, so them problem isn't being dealt with effectively.

Here in NI the cut off point is the end of June. So you still have kids in the same class who can be 11 months and 29 days apart in age, but at least the youngest ones are a minimum of 4.2 when they start. That makes sense to me.

Aw, MrsWolowitz. They'll be okay!

My son is in the same class with some children who are 15 months younger than him.

Many many LEAs have stated that until the advice becomes statutory they will ignore it. This is about pushing them to consider the cases of some summer born children.

MrsWolowitz I am sorry - out of interest did you consider deferring?

It would only work in my area with guaranteed acceptance in catchment school the following year as parents would be scared to lose a place. As it is many do not get 1st choice as it is and I could see parents of July/ August children not gaining a place then wanting to defer with hope to be luckier the following year. In catchment wars areas in could cause chaos.

Mumoftwoyoungkids

Are you me?

I'd have been pretty pissed if I'd had to spend an extra week at school 'catching up' while my middle/bottom set October and March born brothers were on summer hols already!

Speaking as the parent of a late August born DD and a mid May born DS, I am concerned about this.

Unless there are specific needs that have been identified by professionals associated with the child or family AND those professionals believe that the child must be educated out of his/her year group because of these needs, then I believe that children should be educated in the correct age group.

At present there is the potential of 12 months difference in age in a cohort if these proposals resulted in many parents of April - August children delaying entry, then you're just moving the problem to children born close to 31st March. More so, there will be parents who are not aware that they could delay entry, or they simply cannot afford to delay entry, for their late summer born DC and those children could conceivably be in a cohort with children up to 16 months older.

Secondly, when a parent has secured delayed entry, it is imperative that they secure it for the rest of the child's education. There are cases of children having to skip Year 7 and go straight from Year 6 to Year 8, there are also cases of families who have moved and the new LA have placed the children in their correct age group, meaning the children have, effectively, missed a year of education.

Then you have parents whose April - August born DC miss out on their first choice school. They could conceivably choose to reapply the following year. I cannot begin to imagine the knock-on effect this would have for schools in very oversubscribed areas, like London Boroughs and Bristol...

The current research on summer born children is based on children who have had 2 fewer months education. It is only recently that all children were able to start in September; therefore the results are biased. I believe - and this is only an opinion - we will see less of a summer born effect as those summer born children, who have had 3 full terms of reception, education go through the education system.

Honestly, I can only foresee problems with this.