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?

ploom my niece also has such a long day in Gymnasium (partly due to the shorter time to Abitur now) which is a shame. (Feel nostalgic that I never had afternoon lessons in my entire time at school ). Reassuring that your dd adjusted so well. My late summer born dd is in reception in the UK so I think we'd have to wait a few years to move because she would be quite insulted to be put back in Kindergarten for another two years!

mrz - your school has, mine doesn't - pretty much sums it up. My dd also gets homework to do every night and is expected to write in full sentences with appropriate punctuation. Aged 4 3/4. And I think it is too much, too soon, and the days are too long. My opinion, my problem.

mrz you'll also be to hear that she's being taught to read using mixed methods including phonics, key words, picture clues, initial letter sounds...!

I don't think the starting age/month of birth that is the real problem it's inappropriate provision for young children that is the issue

Coming back to the OP's question, does anyone know the actual reason why children have to stay in their year group in the UK?

Completely agree, my DS is late August and will not be ready for reception next year (sept 2013). He won't start nursery until jan and it will also be a shock to him to only have a short time to acclimatise before holidays. If I had a choice I would hold him back now. I've heard of kids being held back by the school when they are older - surely this is better form earlier.

It isn't totally correct to say that all children have to stay in their year group as there are exceptions (IMLE). We had a pupil who started out of year and continued that way through primary. We've also had children who have remained in nursery or reception longer but they have eventually rejoined their peers.

mrz did this child go straight into yr 8 in secondary to be back with his or her peers? I have heard of this happen that children who were advanced a year or two had to repeat a year in primary, or those held back had to go into their year group at secondary. Neither is ideal.

No she went into Y7 of a special school but there was a long discussion about whether she would have to miss Y6 or Y7 or her final year of compulsory education

Strange how in the UK we just do things by age not ability, seems very backwards?!

I started in reception 3 days after my 4th birthday in early January so was essentially a year above what I should have been as in the previous September was only three, my school worked in a way that meant you spent 3 terms in each class, so I moved up a year to Y1, Y2 etc after Christmas each year. It was a joint decision from my parents/teachers whether I spent an extra 2 terms in primary so I went into the correct age class, or missed my last term of Y6 and went into essentially the year above... I ended up going a year early as my grades dictated that this would not put me at a disadvantage.

I really wish more UK school worked in this way!

blondiedollface if you do it by ability where do you draw the line? Some 16 year olds will still be in reception

Someone aged 16 with reception level ability should never have been put into a mainstream school mrz (don't get me started on inclusion at all costs!)

Parental choice SocietyClowns Parental choice

Ah yes, all those parents who would choose to place their 16 year old with LD into a reception class, how could I forget...

Only if the criteria for moving up is based on ability rather than age.

In my class next year I will have a child who was developmentally 3+ years behind when he started reception

In our school the first parent's evening for reception involved the teachers telling the parents how the child was progressing in:

• reading

-writing -numeracy

• behaviour and social skills.

Their transition to year 1 involves a mock spelling test. This for 4-year-olds in (25% of them). Parents of boys who could not read and write by the end of reception were very upset.

In the case of my son, it would have been arrant nonsense to suggest that he would have been better off starting a year early - just self-evident nonsense, no-one suggested it once they were clear that I knew my options. And he cannot be unique.

I agree that there is also though a big risk of parents of typical or even mature August-borns feeling that they must put their own child first and must try for deferral. That's a long way off though - I know other parents who could have deferred and didn't because they felt it would be as if they were saying there was something wrong with their child - one in particular regrets it now.

Gabsid - I think summer-borns with certain near-autistic profiles include many ideal candidates for deferral. Our story was a sudden "halt" in language development for 18 months followed by resumption of rapid progress. I appreciate not all kinds of autistic-like profile though... my friend deferred her son who had a bit of an Aspergers-type profile and after reception finished she was asked to put him back up a year. His social skills were still not great but his numeracy skills were superior and it was considered better to concentrate on meeting his academic needs. And indeed he seems to be building his self-esteem through a consciousness of himself as clever/competitive.

Your point being?
No one suggests children starting school and moving up purely on ability. The difference between the UK and many other European countries is that there is flexibility and a balance is achieved in other countries. The UK is too rigid in focusing on chronological age. This can lead to the absurd situation where a prem child born 31 Aug (but due Oct or Nov) is placed into reception at 4 years and a few days old alongside a child who turned 5 on 1st September and may be light years ahead in physical and mental development.
This is an anomaly that needs more sensitive handling rather than banging on about year group.

SocietyClowns - I believe there was a reaction to a previous culture of "keeping a child down a year" which you can see would lead to problems unless handled very well.
But that issue doesn't apply when you are talking about a very immature child of 4.0 - none of DS2's peers have ever commented that he is "too old" for his year (he's the oldest by only two weeks) and even his big brother struggled to figure it out.

SC was your previous post directed to me or mrz?

Perhaps you missed it SocietyClowns

blondiedollface Sun 22-Apr-12 15:45:46

Strange how in the UK we just do things by age not ability, seems very backwards?!

I asked whether there is a cut off age but blondiedollface hasn't returned to answer.

Lingle- at mrz .

Typed too slowly on phone, sorry

and it may sound ridiculous but I once did supply in a middle school reception class which included a 13 year old

sorry just wanted to add to the story about the boy with the Aspergers'type profile who had been year-deferred.

The year deferral didn't work for this particular child because he became concious of his superiority in certain core skills, particularly spelling and numeracy. And because his social skills were raw, he started to look down on his peers. So in his case it has been better to put him with peers he doesn't look down on academically - he has more chance of forming friendships with these children.

They are all different and I'm sure Mrz would agree that you need exceptions to every rule. It would have been an abuse pure and simple to put my son in reception at 4.0 when the previous six months' rapid progress suggested that with a further year under his belt he'd cope independently at 5.0 (which proved to be the case).