Summer-borns - Would anyone be willing to send this to their MP?

[bananasontoast]

As per the title:

Dear [MP],

I am concerned about the inflexibility of the school admissions process for summer-born children in England.

Section 8 of the Education Act 1996 states:

"A person begins to be of compulsory school age when they attain the age of five"

The important words here are;

1. "a person"

Each child is a person in their own right and deserves to be treated as such and the child's best interests are what should be driving any admissions discussion. Not what the admissions authority administrative system wants to happen for its convenience. And;

2. "compulsory school age"

Summer-born children don't reach this until the September term after they have turned five.

Reception class is defined by Section 142 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 as:

"A class in which education is provided which is suitable to the requirements of pupils aged five and any pupils under or over that age whom it is expedient to educate with pupils of that age".

Reception Class is therefore aimed at children aged five, yet parents are being forced to enrol their child a whole year earlier than compulsory school age or have their child's education entitlement reduced by one year with obligatory entrance into Year 1, completely missing Reception Class.

When forced to enrol at just four years old, these children NEVER reach compulsory school age during their attendance during that academic year.

There is a wealth of empirical evidence that clearly demonstrates the harm that can be done to summer-born children should they start school too early.

The current system of inflexible cut off dates for school entry does not allow for the normal range of children's development, every child is different after all and needs to be considered in that light if their best interests are to be ensured.

Administrative constraints take precedence over the well-being and future life chances of a substantial number of our youngest children.

I would like to see admissions authorities adopt a more flexible approach so that parents are given more choice, to enable them, if they so wish, to enrol their child in school after they reach the age of five and in Reception Class.

I would be grateful if you could raise these concerns with Rt Hon David Laws MP, Minister of State for Schools.

Yours sincerely

[Name]

[Adress]

[Contact Number]

[Constituency] Constituent

Talkinpeace, the summer born child who isn't ready for school yet, just goes into reception the following year and their place in reception is given to another child. There need be no empty places.

I think a policy change would cost almost nothing and actually save money because there would be no need to provide additional support for children who in reality just need to start school a little later in the year below.

No one has done a study in England yet but a study in Canada shows that 30% of boys with attention deficit disorder and 60% of girls appear to have been diagnosed purely because of their position in the school year. Aside from the fact these children have been incorrectly labelled and medicated an awful lot of resources will have wasted treating them and helping them at school when they could have just started a little later.

THERE IS NO FUNDING FOR EMPTY PLACES IN CLASSROOMS. Says talkinpeace. Says it all really. Not about children & there best interests but as usual MONEY!

Aw Jux that's horrible. Your poor DD.

My DD was born at 23+4 on 26th August. Obviously even if I'd had the foresight to aim for a December due date my plans would all have come to nothing!

She was under the care of paediatrician who had looked after her since she was a baby, the school and the LEA were both informed that she would not manage well in her year of birth but they didn't assist in offering any flexibility at all. She had a brain haemorrhage as a baby which I'm sure has caused a few issues and she is, effectively, sixteen months younger than the eldest child in the class even WITHOUT the developmental delay!

So she has had school action plus, educational psych, she is only just starting to toilet train now so the school has had to change nappies and clean her up for the best part of the year, she has only just started making representational drawings and how to hold a pencil correctly. They've been sending her home cursive handwriting to practice for the last year!

Doesn't seem to have benefited either the school or DD vastly to be honest, wish there was some flexibility. At the very least for children with diagnosed SEN. DD is a happy, sunny child by nature and has warmed to the social side of school but often gets cross with the 'work' and says that she's no good. Seems so sad (and unnecessary) that she should feel that way at such a young age :(

In much of southern England there are multiple applicants for every school place
kids arrive from overseas and elsewhere in the country throughout the school year (read MN for your info on that)
schools are funded for the number of kids on roll
many schools are no longer LEA
no school will hold empty places when they have applicants today

get real and move on from this non issue

Flinstones
are you willing to pay the extra taxes to magically hold the places open for kids who may or may not need them ?
Would you give up your child benefit to pay for it?

It's not about being the youngest in class, as you pointed out someone will always be youngest, it's about being just 4 & starting school it's too young.

InViennaWeWerePoetry, Why would everyone with summer born DC want to defer if they have the option, leaving spring children as the youngest? Surely if you have a child born in the summer who is ready to go to school you will want to send them rather than having them bored at home or preschool. Lots and lots of people are posting saying that their own DC were actually ready for school at just turned 4.

Effectively deferral is already an option for those who can afford private education as private schools are often able to accomodate a later start for a child that isn't yet mature enough for school. I don't think that means that the youngest children at independent schools are all born in May/June.

Hmm it isn't a non issue to me talkin but I doubt I'll sway you somehow!

Does seem sad that it all comes down to the money in the end. The NHS invested vast sums in saving DD's life but the education systems seems interested only in sticking to the rules, even against medical advice. Presumably because of the money rather than anything to do with what is in the best interests of the child.

Here in NZ kids CAN start school the day after they turn 5. And don't have to start any formal education (home schooling is big here) until they are 6. They just rock on up to school and sit down.
Seems odd and administratively hard - but it seems to work.

Why do they need to magically be held open??? I would of decided he should start year later! Decision over.
What benefit????

The only down side of the NZ system is what to do with the super smart 4 year olds. I went to school in the UK at 4 (it was the '70's) and my DS looks like he will be ready then too. A 2 year old who knows his numbers, letters, colours, can count beyond 50 and add up to ten - whadya do!!

AWhistlingWoman - Flinstones is right. It wouldn't cost any more money anyway.

Awhistlingwoman you are very right, just comes down to money nothing to do with children.

Athrawes - You just let the parents choose. The super smart (or just well developed for their age depending on your take on it) just turned 4 year old can head off to school. The one that really needs to spend some at home or preschool can do so. Everyone wins.

Cotton - I think, in my DD's case, it would have saved money as she probably wouldn't need any additional support (no IEP, no EP) at all had she started this year (her due date year) and some poor teaching assistant would have been saved changing LOTS of nappies and been available to do her actual job, assisting the other 29 odd children in the class? What's not to like?

A small observation on the Scottish system, where in most areas there is more flexibility on deferring entry if your child is within 2-6 months of the cut-off date (depending on area).

As a generalisation - middle class parents who can afford to cover an extra year of childcare or have a SAHP tend to defer. Others tend not to. And kids with unsupportive families are never deffered. Reception classes (called Primary 1) then have an age range of 18 months within the one classroom, and this has overlaid on it the social class/support background of the kids. There are worst-case-scenarios of very young kids with poor family support in a class next to very old kids with competitive MC parents who have deferred for the reason of giving their child advantage by being older than the average.

(This is a generalisation, but it is noticable.)

So - deferring great in theory but has some other knock-on problems.

Talkinpeace - what are these empty places you keep mentioning? You do know that children in Scotland who are deferred just start in P1 the following year don't you? There's no place kept for them.

Assuming a fairly equal distribution of births across the year (not sure if the Scottish system avoids the crazy pressure on maternity units seen in England in September as the planners birth their Autumn children), the places vacated by those children who defer are simply filled by those from the previous year who are now starting.

Ds is at an Glasgow city primary (5 classes in P1 this year). I've never heard a teacher moan about the pressure of teaching children with age ranges spanning 14 rather than 12 months (you can technically defer any child born after the middle of August but very, very few parents do). Seems to work well.

Ds is November born so it therefore one of the youngest in the class as most Jan/Feb children defer (though not all). Academically he's fine, socially you can see a difference between him and the March-June boys, but as he was 4.8 when he started school I fully expect that this will be smoothed out within a couple of years. I didn't consider deferring but I probably would have done if he'd been born a couple of months later unless he was champing at the bit to start.

If dd starts 2014 (debatable), there is no chance in hell Im going to be making her do homework, other two dcs got homework and reading books on starting reception but as I say were 5 shortly after starting, I will not be making dd sit down to do homework at only just turned 4, its insane! btw It definitely is an issue!

THe UK start "school" at 4
other countries (Germany, France, Sweden, Spain, China etc etc)
start "Nursery" at two and do their teaching at "nursery" till age 5 or 6.
THe UK calls it "school" from age 4
but in every country in the developed world, kids are in high hours, formal childcare from an early age.

My nephew is at nursery from 8am till 6pm 4 days a week - from the age of six months
starting school will shorten his day
and he'll stll be in nursery all holidays ...

Flinstones
If a school has a place they will fill it at the earliest opportunity : look at all the threads on MN about waiting lists.
Once the school is full they will admit no more children.
If you have deferred your childs entry in a high demand area, you may find yourself home educating.

Cottonwoolwraper. You said it really let parents choose we know are children best, why when are little children turn only 4 do we loose control over what's best for them???

Flinstones, I really don't think it is about money. I think it is about a bureaucracy that finds it more convenient not to treat children as individuals and which we don't really have any control over.

18 months? Really? I know of one child born outside Jan/Feb who deferred due to hearing problems which had led to speech delay (and he was a very late Nov baby so just a few weeks older than the Jan children).

I know you can defer an August born child but I've never heard of anyone actually doing it - clearly I don't know every school in Scotland though .

These threads are always full of people giving examples of great their summer borns have done at school and how being the youngest hasn't impacted on their success. My own dd is August born and doing very well too.

But the statistics prove that in general summer born children do not achieve the same level of success, not just academically, but in sports too, as their September born classmates.

In addition it is particularly problematic for children who are born prematurely and forced into school a year early due an accident of birth as one poster's experience up thread.

Flexibility would be great.

"If you are struggling to decide whether your child is ready to start full-time education, but you are worried they may miss out if you defer their place for a term or two, it is worth giving some thought to the following facts. In the latest world education ranking report, PISA, only one of the top ten countries, which include South Korea, Finland, Canada, New Zealand and Japan, expect a child to start their education before they are six (and in the case of Finland, and Estonia which ranked tenth, the start age is 7). Two years is a big difference to any child?s development ? it is half the life of a four year old. Perhaps the government should reconsider the expectations it places on our youngest children.

*It is worth noting that neither the head nor the admission authority will have had any experience of your child at the point when they are due to start school, so it is highly unlikely that any decision made by either party could be one based on your child?s needs. "

All makes sense to me especially the last paragraph.