Thinking of skipping reception year....can't be the only ones surely?

[kitmil]

Hi

We have 4.2 year old twins. They've been at home since birth with mummy always around, and often daddy too (self-employed, work from home, flexible sort of thing). We've had a couple of fab au pairs in the past which has worked brilliantly. They recently attended a nursery for a couple of weeks but we pulled them out as one was clearly not ready emotionally, and we were also concerned that they were going to learn behaviours that we consider unacceptable (screaming, shouting, standing on tables etc.). Also noticed that on busy days they were often left to their own devices without being properly supervised (not necessarily through fault of the key workers). We feel that this age is still too young to attend nursery or school and are now considering skipping the reception year entirely - we want them to enjoy learning and finding out about things in their own way, and can't understand why it's so important to start reading and writing at such a young age, even if most of the activities in reception year are still play-based (which also begs the question 'what is the point of a reception year then' - seems to be about convenience for parents). We're finding that people think we're a bit odd, and are being told that the twins will 'miss out' on a year's learning, but quite frankly we find that completely ridiculous. Why is the emphasis on getting kids into school at the earliest possible opportunity? They'll learn to read and write in their own time. Is there anyone out there who feels the same way?

Hi

We have 4.2 year old twins. They've been at home since birth with mummy always around, and often daddy too (self-employed, work from home, flexible sort of thing). We've had a couple of fab au pairs in the past which has worked brilliantly. They recently attended a nursery for a couple of weeks but we pulled them out as one was clearly not ready emotionally, and we were also concerned that they were going to learn behaviours that we consider unacceptable (screaming, shouting, standing on tables etc.). Also noticed that on busy days they were often left to their own devices without being properly supervised (not necessarily through fault of the key workers). We feel that this age is still too young to attend nursery or school and are now considering skipping the reception year entirely - we want them to enjoy learning and finding out about things in their own way, and can't understand why it's so important to start reading and writing at such a young age, even if most of the activities in reception year are still play-based (which also begs the question 'what is the point of a reception year then' - seems to be about convenience for parents). We're finding that people think we're a bit odd, and are being told that the twins will 'miss out' on a year's learning, but quite frankly we find that completely ridiculous. Why is the emphasis on getting kids into school at the earliest possible opportunity? They'll learn to read and write in their own time.They're also absolutely fine interacting with other children and adults on a social level, apart from being dismayed at others' behaviour sometimes :-) Is there anyone out there who feels the same way?

No. My son's been through reception. It's fine, really. They do learn as well as play. If you skip reception, you might have problems getting into the school of your choice, and your children will have to break into established friendship groups - as well as being way behind the rest of the class.

'Convenience for parents' is quite insulting, btw.

Have a look at your local school before making a decision. Make an appointment and see if you think the Reception class will meet your children's needs. Play-based foundation learning is wonderfully productive for lots of children, but some will be better off staying at home for a bit longer.

There's no big deal if you decide against them attending. It's a personal choice. Those that choose not to make use of non-compulsory education are not better parents.

I am considering it too, as mine is August born - we're a few years off that though. My personal feeling is that full time school or nursery is too much before the age of about 5 or 6.

However, ds does already go to a great nursery 2 mornings a week, and I'd be happy to keep him there part time until he starts school.

Sorry if it's insulting, but we that's what we believe - these days, through no fault of their own necessarily, parents have to work, so lowering the entry age for full time school is a no brainer culturally. We just don't happen to believe its emotionally healthy for such young children. Equally, the implication that children have problems breaking into 'established friendship' groups is rather bizarre to us. Children move schools all the time - where's evidence for this being a problem? Why would you make the assumption that they would be 'behind' the rest of the class if they didn't start in reception? How about those who are home educated - are they considered 'behind' too?

dd was born 4 weeks early on 29/8 with major health issues - she was born 3 days before the cut off point for her year.she has been absolutely fine and always at the top end of all of her classes.she is now an a grade predicted for her gcses and has already taken her first (A) gcse in yr9.i wouldn't worry.

When was the school start age lowered then? I'm sure you could start the September after 4th birthday when I was a child in the 80s.

My now 11 year old August born son didn't go to reception, he stayed at pre-school 3 mornings a week until he was 5 then was home educated for a year before going into year 2 at school. This worked for him as he has an ASD and is dyspraxic (not that he was diagnosed at that point but he clearly struggled with formal learning. It hasn't done him any harm as far as I can see but then we have no way to know how he would be if he had started school at the usual time.

Maybe its not emotionally healthy for YOUR children. Thats fine. My DC have had a wonderful experience of nursery and school. I don't think you're odd so much, you come across as very smug and arrogant though.

It's a perfectly valid decision, but an unusual one.

Will they be starting the term after they're 5 (when they legally have to)? Or Home Educating them until Sep Y1?

You might have an issue with finding 2 places (or 1 place) being available in the school you want them to go to - so you will have to consider that in your decision making process.

Reception really really is very similar to nursery. So if you were unhappy with nursery....

But even Y1 isn't kids in desks in rows facing the front.....

Then again you might like HE so much you decide to stay with it for a bit longer.....

Suchffun. I agree!

Why do you need an au pair if you are at home with them?

A universal right to three years in the infants was introduced in the late 70s AFAIK Rita. I started school in 1979 and my school still operated the system where those born in the older part of the year had 3 years in the infants and the younger ones only 2 years. Some parents, mine included, thought that was unfair.

Kitmil - no, I'm sure you're not the only ones, but as others have said, you may well find it hard to get a place if you skip reception. In fact you have missed the application date for Sept 11 start now, so it's probably a moot point. You do have the right to accept a place but not send the kids until January though, which some people do.

You may be shocked to learn that some of us don't "have to work through no fault of our own" but actually choose to work. And that we believe that we are doing the right thing.

Fwiw i used to agree with much of what you say about uk children starting school far too early, but my actual experience of reception education has been overwhelmingly positive.

And there really was no need to be quit so insulting to working parents.

Good luck with whatever you choose :)

They may find having to share a teacher's attention with 29+ other 5 year olds quite difficult if they have no experience of working independently with other children. It's less the writing and more the socialisation, co-operation and independence that makes Reception a good foundation for later learning.
Your choice though.

Im sure your little darlings will fit right in when they eventually start school.

If your children start school in Year 1 they will find it a tougher start than Reception IMO.

For us Reception year has been a God-send as our DS proved to have special needs which needed addressing, and the correct support package set up. Also he is improving generally just getting used to the structure of school, and slowly making friends. If our DS had started school in Year 1 settling him in could have been a nightmare, because as well as all the things mentioned above, he would have been settling in to a school year which is far more of a formal learning enviroment.

That is just us though - Reception as an early warning system and as a gentle introduction to formal school.

Not completely sure why you are asking though, as your mind appears to be made up and you seem to just have used it as an opportunity to have a pop at other people's lifestyle choices.

YOU will do what is best for YOUR children, as we all try to do.

I'm not sure what you mean about lowering the age that they start school. I am in my 30's and started school at the same age as children start now.

I think firstly you found the wrong nursery, and secondly maybe your children need more of a chance to socialise with others. Do they go to toddler groups?

I also agree with others that if they miss reception they will struggle with the formality of Y1.

If they are 4.2 then they would be "due" to start school in 2011/12. Have you applied foe places for them?

Such behaviour which you are describing is not acceptable in any way at Reception. There must be teachers here to confirm it. Standing on tables?? Even at the nursery (at least state ones, even the worst ones) they wouldn't allow them to behave like that. I know of people who have taken their children to really bad pre-schools which are supposed to do the same job but seem different to me, maybe it's just me being ingorant. Like others have said why don't you visit a couple of schools and see what they do?

You might want to consider if the schools in your area vary at all in their reception approach, and how they handle the move to Y1. We have fixed catchment areas here, but in our previous area, there were massive - and I think significant differences.

Check them all out before you make any big decisions, if you can.

If you feel like this maybe you need to consider Home Education? If they start in year 1 they will struggle to cope with the socialisation, and maybe the separation from each other. You will struggle to find a good school with space to take them. They will also be hot housed to catch up with those who have had a year of school.

Play BTW is how young children learn. Children learn a lot in reception, just in a more friendly way than used to be the case.

Eventually you might learn some humility over the choices that most parents make.

Think your children are used to having adoring parents AND au pairs doting on them. Would do them good to mix with other children .
Not sure what sort of nursery you went to where they were standing on tables?????
Reception year is learning through play but also learning social skills etc.
Age of school entry has not been lowered what nonsense.
Good luck to the teachers...........!!!!!

I think it varies enormously how a child will cope tbh

DS3 is a late July baby and we would have gladly held him back as he has SN (still attended MS though), school wouldn't guarantee a palce so we worked a compromise: he started at Christmas (so avoiding the other children's settling in phase), PT until Easter; FT from then. It was absolutely right as he coped from Christmas but FT was too much and he now attends a resource base in a diferent primary where he thrives.

BUT I think it is very important to make sure children get social skills outside family when taking this choice- ds4 went to a friendly cm with experience oh his sn most days for a few hours.

I'm not working ATM but my DD (also summer born) will still be going to reception. I find the convenience comment insulting too. Just because your children aren't ready, there is no reason why others shouldn't send their children to school at the standard age.

We were actually thinking of HEing our DD but she loves preschool so much and is desperate to get to big school, so she will go.

Of course you should do what is right for your children but there is no need to imply that it's wrong for children to be in school so young. Check out the home ed board on MN - people there don't try and convert the masses, they don't imply that all us school-users are doing the wrong thing :)

"we were also concerned that they were going to learn behaviours that we consider unacceptable (screaming, shouting, standing on tables etc.)."

Sorry but I LOLed at that they will see that everywhere, doesn't mean they will copy it...

The legal age for starting education (school, for the majority) is the term after they turn 5. It's completely up to you to decide whether and when your DCs start school.

The practical note is that, if you want them to start in year 1, you will be depending on places coming up ad hoc. You may not be able to get them in to the school of you choice, and there might not be a school with 2 places available at the same time. But perhaps school will not be what you choose to do at all.