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.

So do schools have to accept a child as part time if that is what you want? (hopefull) Mine is refusing. We are in Wales though,so maybe it is different to England.

"Untrue if the child is 5 on the 1st Sept they are therefore compulsory school age"

No, if the child turns five between 1 September and 31 December inclusive, she must be educated from January and can therefore have her place deferred until then. You need to read several pieces of legislation for this to become clear. Technically the child reaches "compulsory school age" as soon as she turns five. However, her parents' requirement to educate her begins on the next key date following her birthday, as specified by the Secretary of State for Education. These dates are currently 1 Sept, 1 Jan, and 1 April. And finally (!) if school is not actually in session on that day then parents don't have to educate the child until school does start.

People like me often refer to compusory education age as beginning in the term after the child's fifth birthday. This isn't quite accurate and I'm sorry if I confused people by saying it.

For example, a child born very early in September does not have to start in the autumn term just because she turned five before the term began. It's the key dates that matter. That explains why six-term systems don't actually introduce any practical change to the start of compulsory education. It also explains why the start of compulsory education age remains clear for children whose birthdays fall around the beginning of term, regardless of whether school actually starts on 1 September or 6 September in that particular year.

Hope that helps and doesn't just confuse people more!

Saracen you stated

Saracen Wed 17-Aug-11 16:41:12

" 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."

that is untrue

as the child is already compulsory school age they can only defer for one term not the whole reception year

You are right, Mrz. Sorry, perhaps I didn't word that clearly. When I said that the child must start by the end of Reception and also by the time he reaches compulsory education age I meant that both conditions must be met. That's why I said "and" rather than "or" but I should have explained better.

You are correct, an autumn-born child can defer for up to one term. A child born between 1 Jan and 31 March can defer for up to two terms. A child born between 1 April and 31 August can defer until any point in the Reception year, but must actually start school at some point during Reception if he wants to be sure of keeping the place. He can't have his place held until Year One even though there is no legal requirement to educate him until then. (Many people say that a summer-born child must start by the beginning of the summer term but there is nothing in the legislation specifying that children need to do entire terms.)

HTH.

This starts to look like a semantic discussion. AFAICS, Saracen and mrz are saying the same thing - a child born on 1 Sept can defer until 1 Jan (or the next term starting after that) after they turn 5.

The rule is that the child cannot defer for more than the year they applied for (so Saracen is correct in saying that they have to start in Reception) and they must start after they reach compulsory school age (so mrz is correct in saying that a child born on 1 Sept can only defer a term).

X-posted, sorry.

I wasn't aware of the key dates Saracen so thankyou very much for mentioning that. Ds could ostensibly start after April 1st then. Brill. The more I watch him and listen to him, the more I am aware that school is utterly not the right place for him to be at the moment. I will need to talk to preschool about starting back there instead for a while.

I thought about going part time for ages but tbh I just don't think he is ready at all yet. He;s too little. And I don't want him to become 'schoolified' yet, I mean to think that's what the world is all about, and to be mixing with the huge children instead of just his own age and a few grown ups.

Then start him part time in Jan or April depending on how ready he is.

Awwww, he sounds lovely . I sent off my 'baby' last September. His birthday was the end of August and even now he still has a baby face. But, he has really settled in, really grown up, can read and write (well, sort of write, so long as you don't mind a few words joined up, letters back to front and very original spellings). It's surprising what a bit of peer pressure can do.

I have noticed this holidays, being the baby of the family (and me being a bit soppy), he has gone back to baby talk and fluttering his eye-lashes at anyone who looks in his direction!

PS: I meant to send him part time if he needed it, but when it came to it, he was fine most of the time and only started to flag once, when the school agreed he should have a few shorter days.

Sorry to return to this.

All I'm really saying is that I think it would be helpful if posters thought about the system for entry, or the merits of sending a child of a certain age to school, in different places from when enquiries are made about readiness.

Because, whatever it appears, I too think the system is fairly shitty. I am sceptical about whether the general age of entry is appropriate, certainly feel it is unresponsive to individual children's needs, and fear many parents (I'm one of them) are forced by economic necessity to start children's schooling earlier than we might wish. And, totally honestly, although I think in the round my DS is ready for school-he will cope in some ways and thrive in others-I'd be a whole lot happier if he had been born four days later. After a weekend thread, I even wondered aloud on 'e-petition' thread if something shouldn't be lobbied for, explicitly early and timely pre-school EP assessments (which I found impossible to obtain). But that is a thread about 'how the world could be better', not one which advises concerned folk (who RL seems to be throwing at me a lot at the moment) about what to do.

That's partly because I do feel a lot is written in ignorance of the range of abilities in a Reception class and how they are coped with by teachers to allow children to develop and thrive. Making the jump from 'DC is not ready for various individual reasons' to 'should not go' is very hard unless you have seen someone like DC in school and looked at what they enjoy / don't enjoy in the round and whether they like and benefit from it.

But the second is the practicality of advice and the difficult position it puts parents in. First, the choice for most now is whether to delay for a period and then enter that year when 'ready' or start now. That is incredibly tricky as a judgment, because you are weighing up the advantages of starting after uncertain future development against the advantages of schooling from the September, and also trying to assess what the impact of that development (in terms of its speed and consequences) will be if it takes place concurrently with attending school. Second, 'home schooling' or 'stay at nursery' isn't always an option-there are bills to be paid, childcare arrangements to make. To blithely tell someone who is really worried that they can just keep their kids with them, without even asking about the impact that ha son their and their family's life, is not helpful.

And so I just feel that in the OP and titchy's case some advice puts them in that horrible situation faced by the 'unready' for no real reason-there are no conclusive reasons their children cannot handle Reception and thrive.