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

Trouble is that if they started to allow more flexibility in holding children back if the parents deem necessary, they would also have to start making allowances for those children who are ready for school despite being only 3. Because its just as bad to have children stagnating in nursery with as it is to not allow those who need to remain there to do so. You could well end up with reception classes with age range 3-6, and whatever their academic abilities there's still going to be massive gaps in physical development.

No, someone is always going to have to be the youngest I'm afraid. If we have flexibility, it will lead to some being over a year older than others (ergo- over a year younger).

The only instance where I can see a valid point is with a very premature child who is still under a consultant for issues relating to their early birth. In this case possibly there could be some flexibility. Having said that, in DDs class there is a huge huge range of abilities and maturity, not at all related to the actual age of the child. The best reader in the class is an August born boy who was in fact born at 26 weeks.

AWhistlingWoman

The point I was trying to make was that all children are individuals. I think its maddness having your daughter being the youngest in her year. It must feel so demoralising for everyone concerned.

I feel that the costs of a tiny minority of children repeating a year could be ofset by allowing very able September/ October born children to go up a year. The lack of flexiblity in the English system hurts both children at the end of the age/ ablity spectrum. In fact it hurts all children as teachers are forced to give more time and resources to children who are simply immature. Lots of English schools in rural areas have mixed years. It would be interesting to see if August/ September born children do better in mixed classes.

I feel that the decision to defer or accelerate a child should be made by the ed pych inconjunction with teachers and parents. All aspects of development need to be considered and just academics.

DD is a very able October born. I wouldn't want her going up a year (socially). It's opening a can of worms to have more than minimal flexibility.

lljkk,

Why do you think its opening a can of worms having a little bit more flexiblity? Surely having a little bit of flexiblity would close the present can of worms. The present system is so arbitary.

I believe that there are some September/ October born children who would benefit from being in the year above both socially and academically. lljkk just because your daughter would not benefit from being the youngest in the year doesn't mean that a few children would not benefit. Many bright children relish being stretched in a slightly older class.

Putting really bright October/ September born children up a year happens a lot in the private sector and if its done carefully there are no negative consequences.

kansas my dd was exactly the same. The last few months of Pre school were hell. She already knew her letters shapes numbers colours etc. yet there she was at four and a half playing with two and a half year olds.

For the sake of two weeks.

No, its a crazy idea. swings and roundabouts, older in year and younger being at an advantage/disadvantage. they all equal out in the end.

Some children become very lazy if everything is effortless.

Kansas I expect that your son would have quickly become top of his year if he had been moved up a year. However it would have taken a lot longer for him to get to the "bored shitless" stage.

I am surprised that he had problems at uni when uni courses are highly selective by their nature.

How is it fair for a July child to be allowed to start school when they are 5 yrs 2 month old? Does this not then give them a massive advantage academically over everyone else in the class?

And if all the July/Aug borns stay down a year, all you are doing is shifting the "problem" to a different group - the May/June children.

There is a wealth of evidence from experts in Education from accross the globe that starting school too early can be damaging. Parents should be given more flexibility as to when they want their children to start and politicians should listen more to expert advice.

Can of Worms: because the more educated, informed, astute parents take advantage of the system. Whereas parents who don't have the economic luxury or who aren't as informed (or concerned) won't. So flexible school entry increases (promotes) social inequities. I can't support that. I would still like some flexibility where prem birth or SN are involved.

I was supposed to have a like top 1% of the population IQ (tested and all). I didn't find school hopelessly easy or boring, and I had to work hard to get top marks. At schools that were supposed to be decidedly mediocre (no such thing as a selective school where I grew up). Got top results for Uni entry. Because I worked for them. Mind, I come from a system where you don't do the homework you definitely fail. Maybe that's why I can't relate to these supposed myths of the bored brilliant.

I suppose it's fair to say I could get moderately good marks and passes with low effort. But not very good results; those you had to work hard for.

Yes wouldbe ydrc, Ive read that too and it makes sense, so in the end it would even out anyway.

Lljkk, so you mean that if a child is really not ready for school due to being young for their age and immature it would be better if they went anyway, had difficulties and needed extra support. The reason for this being that in your opinion a family from a socially disadvantaged group would be less likely to defer their child in these circumstances. It would in fact be better if both children did equally badly as a result of having started school too early as this would mean there would have been no increase in social inequality. That is because disadvantage based on social inequality is wrong but disadvantage based on birth date is ok.

A really well off family would of course simply opt for an independent school instead.

"How is it fair for a July child to be allowed to start school when they are 5 yrs 2 month old? Does this not then give them a massive advantage academically over everyone else in the class? "

Is two months really a massive advantage over the average september born child. Especially when the september born child is up to 12 months older than the youngest child.

Provided that a child is not kept down on the whim of a parent, ie. needing evidence from teacher, ed pych, community paediatrian then it helps all the other children. It may mean that the child does not need SEN support.

They can keep up with the class and the rest of the children will get more attention.

the parents may be very engaged, just not well-informed or they need school as childcare.

In a way I think you are all assuming though that tou have these amazing nurseries that pick up all the issues and work with the child when in reality it could well be that funding is behind a nurseries encouragement to defer and that actually the child could have coped with school.And your assuming that the schools are unable to see that a child is struggling and won't bring in people to deal with it. I may have been on the opposite side of the coin when it came to the cut off points and the effect it had in my child but there is also the fact that when they do start at four the teachers in most cases are aware that the child is young and that perhaps more assistance with dressing or concentration or motor skill developement is more automatically assumes as needed. Whereas as an older child the expectations of physical capabilities will be a bit higher. There unfortunately is never going to be an answer which suits everyone. And yes that's frustrating because as parents we do whatever we need to do for our own individual children. But at school it's not that simple. They are one of 30 and teachers do their best but they also have to think of their class as a whole and a child may not receive the individual attention that is needed as much as they should.

This has never happened to me before on MN, but this thread is making me see red.

This is my child you are talking about, not a generalisation or a statistic.

A little flexibility for those who need it. That's all.

We don't all fit the cookie-cutter, but that's just our bad luck, why even attempt to make things easier?