To be able to choose when your child starts primary school

[kedge]

Like many other parents, I am waiting to find out which school DC3 will get a place at. Although DC1 & DC2 are already at our first choice of school for DC3, it is not guaranteed that a place will automatically follow so am understandably nervous. But was wondering how many parents feel that their child is actually ready to start school?

DC1 was nowhere near ready, having only turned 4 at the end of August and would definately have benefitted from an extra year at home. When we enquired about deferring a place for a year we were told that it was at the schools discretion if they would hold a place and that DC1 would join the class in Y1. We decided that there were no benefits to doing this as we felt reception class was too important to miss as it introduces the children to school life, is more 'play' based and enables them to form friendships. We were not allowed to defer the start such that DC1 would start the following year in reception and go through school with that year. Additionally, the school is one of the best in the area and heavily oversubscribed, so we didnt want to run the risk of losing a place there, so it was Catch 22.

When DC2 started, it was a whole different ball game as with a birthday that meant DC2 is one of the eldest in the year and was obviously 'ready' for school it has been plain sailing compared to DC1 who still hadn't settled in at the end of Y1!! DC3 is also going to be one of the older children in reception and is also ready to start school. The contrast between the two children already at school leaves me in no doubt that there is definately a 'right time' for them to go to school.

Would anyone else like to see a system whereby parents can decide if a child is ready to start school in the year they can apply for a place based on their own judgement? For example, if the childs birthday falls between June and end of August for a September start, they have a choice whether to defer a place for a year and start as a reception class child the following year, so that the child has effectively started school at just turned 5 rather than just turned 4?

That's correct, Deux.

they can refuse to allow you to go part time, but they can't refuse to allow you to defer.
I don't have the section of the code off the top of my head - but there is a link to it on one of the other threads from last year which discussed deferring school places.
Or you could ask Phr47 or Admissions as they will have the reference.

Great thanks. Not sure if I want to swim against the tide but just want to be prepared. .

My DS is an autumn born and he seemed so ready for school in comparison.

You can defer in Scotland for a full year. We did with DS. He definitely wasn't ready for school last year, and has grown up a lot in the lady year.

I would like to see a system where people were allowed to defer 1 year in very limited but well defined circumstances. Basically where SN or premature birth are involved. System is flexible in most of the USA, where I'm from so plenty of my old friends have deferred their kids & I can see how it works in practice. I perceive a lot of problems when people are allowed to defer just because they'd like to, without there being objective assessment/reasons.

I'd also like to see preschool funding standardised so that everyone gets the same amount ,regardless of birthdate, apart from those allowed to defer.

Yes, a system where the individual child is taken into account and maybe not just the parents' view but that of an education professional as well, not just birth date. That would also work for SEN too.

My DS doesn't have SEN, is a bright and lively boy and with an April birthday he isn't one of the youngest either - but he is still terribly immature and wasn't interested in any academic stuff in R and Y1. Now, last term, in Y2 his teacher tells me that he is maturing and being more sensible in class, e.g. stopped rolling around the carpet and being less silly. He prefers to play with younger children too. So it would have been the best for him to be defered I believe in every way - anyone who knows my DS would agree.

Deux: we deferred DDs place until January.

We applied thought the normal system and got our first choice but grew increasingly uneasy about sending her (summer born, tired easily).

We rang the LEA who confirmed she didn't have to attend until she was 5 and the school had to keep her place open for her.

We informed the school she wouldn't be starting until Jan or Easter. They weren't happy and rang the LEA who told them what they had told us.

DD stayed in nursery until Christmas then started school full time in January. The school settled her in really well along with another child who had deferred too. She settled quickly and it was definitely the right decision for us. She and the other child who deferred probably got a lot more support when they started as they were the only new children, rather than the other 28 who all started at the same time.

ragged and gabsid,

I nearly agree with you but I think there isn't enough support available to sustain your idea of an "objective" assessment factor.

In Bradford you used to be able to start summer born children in a later year as of right and offset their education year till 18. We were the last year able to take advantage of this and my August born son started reception at 5.0. Everyone agrees that this has transformed his life-chances (language delays, immaturity, etc). It has also saved the state thousands of pounds that would have been spent otherwise on 1-to-1 support or battles for 1-to-1 support.

My son was clearly in the 10% or so of August-born children who really really need to be the oldest, not the youngest, in their class.

But - here's the thing - it was only a matter of luck that he was "in the system" - had I not moved him into state nursery we wouldn't have had the support of headteacher, SALT, paed, etc.

So my feeling is that deferral for summer-borns should be as of right.

I am torn though......

But anyway, it should absolutely be the default option for immature August-borns (by which I mean children who are immature for their own birth-month). It's nonsense to refuse the option to them.

The other point is that where the problem is academic readiness, the teachers are well-trained to adjust the curriculum and keep the child's interest alive until they are developmentally ready (easier said than done I know but this is after all their expertise). So in theory at least a little boy who can't hold a pencil should be happy in reception and start real pencil work in Year 1.

But when the problem is social immaturity, the blunt fact is that even the most brilliant teacher in the world cannot adjust the peer group and the peer group's expectations.

My son is in year 1 - oldest in year - and has friends. There are peers on his level.
If he was in year 2, the most we could hope for is that he would be some kind of class pet, looked after by the nicer little girls.

I know what you're saying, Lingle. I wish that some kind of definitive objective assessment could be brought in for maturity (speech an obvious marker). But what do you do about kids with severe special needs? Why should parents only be allowed to defer one year, why not 2 or 3? Should 16yos with Downs Syndrome be in with Reception (my 16yo cousin with DS was in classrooms with 6yos). Any change in England would be SO controversial, I can see why no govt. would want to touch it with a bargepole. The only way they could successfully make any changes would be if the revised deferral criteria were very strict & very difficult to dispute.

What happens in the USA is that parents "in the know" are the most likely to defer. Even if the child has a birthday that already makes them one of the eldest in the year. That disadvantages children already least supported by their parents. Also, there are important merits in keeping children close to their natural peer group, especially important when it comes to things like peer group expectations, what they can handle watching on TV, what their interests are, swimming parties, puberty, playing out, learning to drive, etc. Even if academically they aren't doing so well as most of their peers, they may be better off socially staying very close to them. It is a tricky balance.

I would like the to see the cut-off date to be a bit earlier, maybe 1 March instead of september. so that the youngest are at least 4 and a bit and not just 4.

I think 5 (the term after their 5th birthday maybe) would be a good age to start reception, at least most children would be ready and those few who are keen to read earlier will learn anyway with their parents.

But still, there will always be some who aren't ready and that should be spotted and dealt with, e.g. deferred - not that one size fits all model.

Mousy - you mean they should start reception the term after they turn 4.3?

Agree with gabsid term after they turn 5 better. I think that's how it was until the 1970s. This is why we have this weird discrepancy - they have to be educated from 5.0 but that means starting at 4.0.

One issue is problems with mothers wanting to go back to work/childcare.

Absolutely! My son's 4 in June, but is really behind even for his age. He has speech problems and no one but me and my family can understand him. I enquired about deferring but was told this isn't possible. As I was born in late July, I also felt the struggle of younger children and I can honestly say it affected me massively. I was really behind and it gave me confidence issues which I still have today, never feeling "as good" as colleagues/ class mates etc. I am so angry he will be starting when I KNOW he isn't ready, he really needs an extra year, makes me very mad.

However, what seems to be missing on this thread are all those people who tend to say that their DC were more than ready aged 4 and were keen to learn to read and write at that age.

Research suggests though that young children are not ready for formal education until age 7 and learn best through play and what they are interested in. So I think a good pre-school education until age 6 would be ideal and the Reception year could be part of it.

my dc was ready to start school when he did. but that is due to many factors.
for him it was the right time to start reception at his age and he is thriving. but he was well prepared by being in a nursery before.

My dd started school in the UK at 6 weeks past her 4th birthday and altho she was def ready for the schoolwork she wasnt physically ready - she would fall asleep in the car on the way home. Unsure what we've had done if we could have deferred her start by a year.

Before ds1 was due to start school, we moved to Bavaria. Here the cut off date is the 31st Sept but dc born in Oct, Nov and Dec can go to school if the parents want them too. Ds1 has an Oct birthday but wasnt ready so we held him back and he started school 5 weeks before his 7th birthday - and is just thriving at school. 2 of his friends had birthdays before the Sept cut off date & with the support of the school were able to defer a year as well. They both had very mild speech problems so it was a great idea for them to wait. They would have both struggled when they were 6.

But in Germany, there is just more flexibility in the system. Dc who are not doing well can go back a year with no shame involved. They just dont see the point like in the UK of putting all dc thro in a year just because its the age appropriate one. There needs to be a bit more flexibility in the UK system - but the schools dont seem to like change.

What impact would it have on school admissions? Would the parents 'in the know' be able to apply twice in the hope that second time around they get 'their' school. At the moment if you don't get your preferred school you can keep them at nursery for a while, but presumably not if they are 5/6. Would there be any priority to place an older child over a younger child if there are insufficient classes? It might work out after a while, but it would be tricky the first year or two.

Ploom how many Germans put their children in school if they are tested as ready but the child will end up with a birthday in youngest quarter of the year? Or is the pressure to follow the testing/screening recommendation too strong to do that?

My impression is that "middle class" English would hold their kids back, just to give them advantage of being eldest not youngest. Whereas less informed parents, those who need the cheap childcare, & kids otherwise in care would go straight in as one of the youngest. So instantly a potential disadvantage to only the kids who are already socially disadvantaged, and a potential extra advantage to kids who are already advantaged.

I was told that it used to be in California that only the children with a birthday less than a month before cut-off date would be allowed to defer if parents asked. Gradually that has stretched out & now you can defer up to a year (in areas). It's nuts.

There seem to be cases though where children who are in school and struggling badly are deferred. I don't know the circumstances though, but there is one very young boy from a disadvantaged family in my son's year group who is in Y1 for the second time now. There was a girl last year as well. But what does it do to their self confidence to be struggling badly for 2-3 years before something happens?

Ploom - I went to school in Bavaria, and I was almost 7. I don't think I missed out on too much learning not having been sat down and taught aged 4! I don't quite get what the big deal is? That young boy I was talking about seems to fit much better into the younger year group anyway, in every respect.

gabsid have you ever spent time in a reception class in the UK? Four year old children don't sit down they play and learn as they are playing.

Four year old children don't sit down they play and learn as they are playing.

but they do sit down and do handwriting, numbers, reading...it's not all play like nursery!

It's exactly like play in nursery it's the same curriculum

abcdoes.typepad.com/abc-does-a-blog/2012/03/some-great-ideas.html

abcdoes.typepad.com/abc-does-a-blog/mark-making/

mrz - don't get me wrong, I do like the concept of Reception, its a nice and gentle introduction to school, whereas I went from Kindergarten (all play, although we did have sessions where bigger kids were taken out to do some pre-reading and writing stuff) to sitting down from 8am to 1pm.

Reception would be ideal it there would be less of a focus on reading, writing and maths. My DS refused the lot aged 4, he just didn't want to play that way (loved the jolly phoncs though). He wanted to do his own thing (building, sticking and having fun running around). It wasn't the ideal place for him to be aged 4, it would have been aged 5 though! We couldn't start him a year later though.

Well he could easily have learnt to read, write and do maths while still doing all those things with a little creative thinking from his teacher