Is anyone else not sure their child is ready to start in September?

[annieversaire]

I can't decide whether to send him part time for ages, ie as long as he needs, or just not send him at all till Easter.

I think he could use some stimulation tbh but physically, he's no way ready.

He barely eats any proper food. He can't use cutlery, full stop...it'll be packed lunch or nothing, but what to put in it...

He can't use the loo by himself, he's too short, and can't wipe his bottom though he does wash his hands...but he washes them for like, 10 minutes.

He refuses to wear anything apart from a few selected pyjama tops and one pair of trousers, well, I only manage to get him out of them when he's spilt water on them or something.
Nothing else will do and anything I present as 'new' or 'school clothes' is met with an icy stare and 'that's not mine'.

This is quite apart from the fact that he can't recognise his own name, refuses to wear shoes (only wellies), can't say the alphabet, count above ten, thinks three means two, and the only thing he can draw is a scribble.

He was four in June yet refuses to be called four, he is still three in his world.
He is very shouty.

Has anyone else got a child like this and what are you doing about starting school? Now we have the option to defer till Easter I am seriously tempted, but I don't want him to be bored.

I felt like this last year when DS1 (May Baby) was due to start Reception but when he started it was only part time - He did a week of just mornings, a week of just afternoons, then a week of half days inc. lunch, then we had a meeting with Reception teacher who felt he was ready to start full days - but I know some of the children carried on doing half days for a bit longer.
The toilets are smaller (My DS is short) but has no problem at school and there was a TA in the toilets if assistance was required.
He couldn't recognise his name very well but the labels at school had an animal which was his so he learnt to recognise that - It was on his peg, water bottle, book bag plus the labels I had on his belongings had cars on so he knew they were his!
He struggled with his numbers and his colours (everything was pink!) but the teachers were fab and gave me games for at home to encourage him.
He loves going to school, has come on leaps and bounds but still needs the extra encouragement - we were told that we were giving too much help at home with his writing and reading and to let him try himself more because when he was in class, he didn't do the work unless someone was sat with him - He still lacks confidence in himself, has a short attention span but tries hard.
He is starting Year 1 in Sept and I am worried, it is proper school and I know that he will not get the same level of support because there is only 1 teacher to 30 children.
I am sure I was going somewhere with this Ah, yes, if you are concerned then I would go and discuss it with the Reception teacher, they are used to wide range of abilities when they start Reception and I am sure you will be amazed how far he comes on in a short period of time. The schools in our area all offer the option of them going part time so maybe this would be a good option for you.

Look, I'm not keen to get everyone into school, although I do feel that the evidence for staggering entry by age (at least) is that it compounds rather than improves the problem.

The reason I feel strongly is because for most of this year I have had a child who is not just going to find some things hard, but who was genuinely unready-not just not toilet trained, but unable to produce enough comprehensible language to interact. The choices the system gives you in those circumstances are stark and terrible, and the problems you face as a parent in deciding if and where to 'push', what to do and when to do it are really tough.

If I'm bothered it's because 'readiness' is used in these discussions. iI you think your child will be more miserable or even, as so often implied on Mumsnet simply at a disadvantage then that is one set of choices to make, and how you make them is less of a worry to me. But those are not the same as not being 'ready'.

mrz I grew up in Norway and we started school aged 7, and it was not formal straight away, we used to have 3 hour days to begin with. These days they start aged 6 but the first year is still very informal and mostly play afaik.

My dd is a month older than your DS,and although she can do all the stuff needed for school, I am also worrying about sending her. I think I would delay it a bit if it wasn''t for the fact that my older dd wil be re-starting,after a miserable time at her old school that has meant two terms of home-ed. I think they will both benefit from starting together but I do feel very sad about it in some ways and wish that the little one could be part time (the school won't allow it,although my older dds previous one did.) i think they should all be part time until 7 actually.

I think 4 is too young to be going to school. Both of mine were closer to 5 1/2 (Scottish school, spring babies) and the difference a year makes is amazing.

I'm the other end of the spectrum, all 3 of my children have been born in September and October. My first child, my dd, would have been so much better off in the year above, for the want of a few days she would have been. The teachers rave about how good she is in literacy and science and what not, but I always think she really belongs to the year above.

Ds1 will be 5 soon after starting reception, that is perfect for him, I really don't think he would have been ready at just turned four.

Ds2, remains to be seen. There really should be flexibility in the system, even a couple of months either way would be good.

I'm sorry Adela, but I think you are splitting hairs about this word "ready". I do have sympathy for your situation, really I do. My younger child also could not have attended school without quite considerable support. I am very conscious of how much more flexibly her needs can be met outside the school system and the battles and heartache which would face us if she were in it.

However, the fact that the school environment is profoundly ill-suited to certain children does not mean that we must describe all of the other 98% as "ready" for it. To me, the word "ready" means that the child will actually thrive there, not just cope. To my ears, it sounds very strange to say that a child would be "miserable and disadvantaged" at school, as you put it, but that she is nevertheless "ready" for school.

A proportion of four year olds will thrive at school. A proportion of four year olds will manage to survive school, one way or another, but would be better off elsewhere for the time being. A proportion of four year olds really do not belong in school at all.

You can call that middle group "ready" if you like, but I don't.

AdelaofBlois:
I do feel that the evidence for staggering entry by age (at least) is that it compounds rather than improves the problem.

... in a system that is so rigid - seems to me to be a useful ending to that sentence. There is evidence to the contrary if you compare the UK with other countries. I also sympathise with your situation but I wonder what you mean by the word "ready".

To take one area, children often find it difficult to use the toilets at school (even if they are toilet-trained). So much so, that every September there are mothers on here worried about their DC not drinking at school to prevent themselves having to go to the toilets. This stresses the parents and the children. Knowing that this is an issue for so many, I cannot believe that it is helpful not to tell parents (who are already concerned that their 4yo will not cope) that they do not have to send their child to school at 4 (or any other specific age).

At home, a not-quite-dry 4yo can gradually become dry and feel confident if starting school at 5. At school, that same child may feel (and even be told that they are - not by mrz but other teachers and TAs have been known to do so) babyish and be set back and stressed to the point where they cannot learn.

It really is not necessary to have every 4yo (going down to 3yo and soon-to-be 2yo) in group care, whether school or nursery. There is a wealth of research showing that small children's interaction and learning is (in general) better with their primary carers than in a group situation. A very accessible book is Young Children Learning by Tizard and Hughes. Parents are not holding children back by deferring and may even be helping them.

Saracen I'm sorry but your idea that the school environment is profoundly ill suited to certain children surely applies to children of all ages not just four year olds. I would also suggest that in reality the huge majority of children are profoundly suited to school and actually enjoy the group care so IMHO every child's needs should be considered individually not judged by birthday.

I do support AdelaofBlois in that a staggered intake does (Again IMHO) disadvantage the younger children but I'm really not sure what the answer is. How we can ensure every child has the same length of time in early years before moving onto the next stage ?

However Halwa the current Norwegian Kindergarten system /curriculum is very similar to the English EYFS (better staffed admittedly) and primary education now begins the year the child turns 6 ...

Adela, I have a child who, while she would, I'm sure, have 'coped' in school lst year, would certainly not have thrived. We therefore had her officially kept back a year so that she is starting reception at 5.2 not 4.2, and will start part time. (I still feel that this is very early.) Would that be an option for you?

UnSerpentQuiCourt - How on earth did you manage to keep her back a year?!

I think that is a much better option than a child starting one or two terms after their peers and expected to be at the same level by the end of reception.

but again I must stress that I believe the option shouldn't be based on birth month but on the individual needs of the child.

Has anyone mentioned (sorry not read entire thread) that there is for this year's intake a new situation whereby a school is compelled by law to hold the place until the last term in reception, or the term after the child is 5, if the parents choose to defer entry?

They don't have to hold it into year one and I'm not sure if it counts terms in 3 or 6 iyswim. But paragraph 2.69 in the admissions code part of the govt website states that schools must not hold the place till the child is five.

No time to link, sorry...our school kept it completely hushed up to the point where some parents were refusing places offered because their child isn't ready. I think I'd rather a term of reception before going into yr1, for mine.

sorry, schools must now hold the place until the child is five. Not 'not'.

yes

Deferred entry to primary schools
2.69 Admission authorities must allow parents of children who are offered a place at the school before they are of compulsory school age to defer their child?s entry until later in the school year. Where entry is deferred, admission authorities must hold the place for that child and not offer it to another child. The parent would not however be able to defer entry beyond the beginning of the term after the child?s fifth birthday, nor beyond the academic year for which the original application was accepted. This must be made clear in the admission arrangements for the school.

But the problem with that, Gloria, is that a younger child who has deferred entry ALSO gets fewer terms in Reception, where the curriculum is best suited to their needs.

The parent (and the school if consulted) then have to balance whether a child would benefit from a later start and then a shorter time in Reception (a 'ski jump' start - nothing and then a very condensed time to get ready for the more formal schooling in Year 1) or an earlier start with a longer, gentler time in reception to prepare for more formal schooling.

This is a difficult balance. It is one of the areas in which small schools which have mixed classes or a split Year 1 (mixed R / 1 and 1/2 classes) do have an advantage - in that a less ready child can start at Easter and then remain in a classroom where 'EYFS'-type learning is available for at least one more year.

Also, the modified rules do not allow for an older unready child - a 1st September born who is nevertheless not "ready" for school has to start in the Autumn, however much a deferred start might benefit them.

"Also, the modified rules do not allow for an older unready child - a 1st September born who is nevertheless not "ready" for school has to start in the Autumn, however much a deferred start might benefit them."

Not true: an autumn-born child also has the right to a deferred start. Like everyone else, his place must be kept waiting for him so long as he starts by the end of Reception and also by the time he reaches compulsory education age. In the case of an autumn-born child that means January.

You're right that younger children can start later in the year than autumn-born children without risk of losing their place. But it's hard to see how one could justify keeping places reserved for any child beyond compulsory education age. That needn't stop their parents keeping them out of school longer if they feel the child isn't yet ready for school, by home educating them. It just means that the parents' preferred school needn't keep vacancies for such children and they'll have to go wherever a place can be found later on.

Untrue if the child is 5 on the 1st Sept they are therefore compulsory school age so the admission criteria states

Admission authorities must allow parents of children who are offered a place at the school before they are of compulsory school age

Reading this thread breaks my heart. My DD is an August born and has just finished Reception. She turned 5 last week, so was 4 the entire time in Reception. Her friends from pre school, 4 weeks younger, start a year later. Its madness.

Our school has a split intake, Sept for Autumn/Winter born, Jan for Spring/Summer born. The rate of learning seems to be upped as they have more to get through in just two terms ( my elder DS is an Oct birthday so have experienced both ).She's done OK. I am very worried about Y1 though. She is going to be with children a year older, when she has just turned 5.

London, I talked to the school, then requested an assessment by the ed psych. I was amazed how straight forward it was. I don't live in London, though.

Academically my youngest son probably wasn't ready for school in Reception, his birthday is August 16th so he was 4 and 2 weeks when he started, as he has Aspergers, he probably wasn't ready sociallyand having dyspraxia meant that practically he struggled too! SO he spent the first year ambling happily round the classroom, joining in the activities he wanted to and ignoring those he didn't! He seemed to spend most of the day in the water tray and was always coming home with wrinkled hands and soaked shoes. He played with train sets and counted beads, built and destroyed sand castles and had a perfectly jolly time! Academically he probably wasn't much further forward at the end of the year than at the beginning, he refused to read and his writing was what the teacher politely called "emergent" and I called scribble. He did develop an interest in numbers however and could happily add and subtract beads and counters ( but preferred it when the dinosaurs came out and he could count those!) But the year he was in Reception was a year where his confidence grew in leaps and bounds, he picked up skills without realising he was doing so and by the beginning of Year 1 he was ready to learn. He became accustomed to school routines and his role in the school community. Yes, I could have delayed his entry until later in the school year ( and he attended a jolly nice playgroup he could have stayed at) but the benefits of being "in school" outweighed the concerns I had. I firmly believe that the huge progress he made in year 1 onwards was because of the Reception year he experienced in full. The Reception teachers were skilled at encouraging him to socialise and develop at his own pace. He WAS younger than the majority of the class and they recognised and accepted this without underestimating what he could ( or in his case would!) do. For him, starting in September gave him the maximum time possible to develop and mature.

"The parent (and the school if consulted) then have to balance whether a child would benefit from a later start and then a shorter time in Reception (a 'ski jump' start - nothing and then a very condensed time to get ready for the more formal schooling in Year 1) or an earlier start with a longer, gentler time in reception to prepare for more formal schooling."

There is a 3rd option. The child can start in September but only attend part time until you feel they are better off going full time.