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

lljkk
www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Statistics/Browse/School-Education/dspupcensus/pupcensus2012
Table 2.4 on the spreadsheet shows that clearly VERY FEW children are deferred entry as the age mix in P1 is the same as in p2-p5

useful information here as well
www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2011/12/06114834/3

All the Summer born dc I know have ended up doing brilliantly both socially and academically.
ddil-31/8 first class honours from York
dd-6/8 2i in Philosophy from Sheffield
dss-27/7 2i in Civil Engineering and an Accountacy qualification
dgd[aged 13] 25/8 and G%T since age 5-bilingual and musical.

WouldBeHarrietVane
But the statistics are by definition out of date for what is going on in schools now - as they track 22 year olds .....

So what would you have schools do?
SOMEBODY has to be the youngest in every class

THe IFS researchers certainly have no answers ....
www.ifs.org.uk/docs/born_matters_summary.pdf

I agree OP. I have an August baby who is due to start reception this September. If the option was there I would 'wet myself' to defer her for another year. Not because it may give her any academic advantage, but because I feel she would be emotionally and physically more ready for the more formal school environment. For example She still occassionally wets herself and my heart aches to think of her being embarrassed by this in a class of much older children. She is bright and I have no concerns at all about that side of things, I think she'll learn to read just as well at 4 as she will at 5. My issue is with the fact that I don't feel she is ready for school at barely 4 years old. Yes someone always has to be the youngest and if that's my child, fine, for me that is a total non issue. I just feel that she will not be in the right environment for her age and as her parent I should be given the option of deciding whether she is ready this year or not.

Harriet
None of which include kids starting school at random times to suit their parents perceptions.

Norks
parents who have to work do not have the luxury of even considering deferral

I work, part time admittedly, but still have childcare to pay for and would still like the option of deciding whether my dd is ready for school this year or not. Won't be an issue with my 7 mth old ds, he will automatically be at home/in childcare a whole year longer than dd. Maybe I'll wish I had the option of sending him earlier!

Hi bananas, thank you for posting about this important issue and knowing that you will have to experience the mumsnet smugness. I just wish that some of these ignorant people could see the damage done to the child firsthand. I never expected to see my child at age 4, 5, 6, 7 headbang the table in such frustration and distress at not being able to properly express himself and comparing himself adversely to others in his class. All we are asking for is flexibility for our children, so they get the same opportunity to learn and develop as other children.

My DS is doing OK compared to his correct peer group of the academic year below. It is such a senseless waste of resource - if he was in the correct year he wouldn't need concentrated help to keep up.

There are so many reports - all say the same thing - that on average summer-born children do worse. It impacts in many areas of their life, including outside school activities which use academic year only to group. This may mean winter-born children have had an entire season more e.g. for sports. At age 5, 6, 7 this is an enormous advantage and not one that should be given.

If you are concerned about this do come and see the facebook group (closed) Flexible School Admissions for Summer Borns.

But what I would say to all of the posters who provide anecdotal evidence, as to how there is no problem, is why are you are so bothered about this? I am not asking you to defer your child by a year but let my child who needs that extra time to grow and mature, defer if that is what is best for them. I live with the damage everyday - just be grateful you don't have to.

DS is 25th August. And I'm still in favour of a clear system. Flexibility costs money and there isn't any money.

Wouldbe - I agree totally ;)

Talkin - flexibility in this case would SAVE resource and therefore cost. Not every summerborn child would need to defer. But the number of summer born children who receive help because they are designated special needs is high enough to stand out as an issue. Either the state (via schools) or parents pay professionals large sums of money to look at this or diagnose. We now believe that my own DS has quite severe dyslexia - the summer-born issue clouded it. A lot of DS's issues were dismissed as immaturity. If he had been in the year below the age issue would disappear and any real issue become clearer so you treat and spend resource appropriately.

in addition DS receives at times 1:1 support (or 1:2) - that is very intensive and expensive resource, paid for by the state. That resource cannot be used to help the rest of the class (at the same time) so the rest of the class lose out on extra help. This really is an issue that affects everyone.

Peace, I doubt some flexibility would cost much or anything other than a change in attitude. They seem to be able to manage it ok in Scotland, Germany etc. I feel we have been round this argument a few times already but if you defer your child for a year as in the scottish system another child gets the place and your child goes the next year. No places are held open for anyone and the total cost is 0 pounds and 0 pence.

There is however an obvious direct cost to misdiagnosing a summer born child with SEN and providing extra support when they just were not ready for school and need to be in the year below.

More generally there is a cost to organising an education system in such a way as it fails a certain number of children. The more well educated, skilled workers that the country has the more economic growth there will be, the more taxes will get paid and the better off we all will be. It is not some kind of wierd zero sum game pitting august born dc against those born in september.

Peace, you linked to some Scottish figures yesterday 9th, about 5pm, and said the table showed low levels of deferral as the age spread was the Same in p1 as in p2-5, and that the numbers are tiny, but that is not what the table showed.

Firstly, it shows a fairly consistent rate of deferral (children starting school aged up to the date of their 6th birthday, ie who would already be 6 in the feb of their p1 year), as parents have a right to chose this.

Remember this deferral is permanent, the child stays in that year group. The figures show around 7% a year deferral rate- not tiny but mostly those will be jan and feb birthdays, with some dec, and some end aug to dec birthdays.

So in reality, the deferral rate for the dec,jan,feb birthdays is more like 20% a year. Every year. And that matches my experience of Scottish schools.

I am denting my now 2 yo to p1 as a 5y 9month old (oct birthday). The sky won't fall in, it's not going to cost the Scottish gov any more to educate him.

Also, the reason the table you linked give p1 -p5 is because the age spread increases in p6 and onwards, as a number of children with additional needs, social or educational, are kept back in p6, and repeat it. This gives them 2 years at primary school with their new peer group, before they all move to secondary school. That is common enough that one child in my Ds1 class and 1 in ds2 class were kept back to my knowledge.
Again, the sky does not fall in because there is some flexibility in the system, and those kept back kids do cost a years extra education but I bet it saves money on other provision for them as they have an extra year to mature and develop alongside slightly younger classmates.

To the OP - can I suggest that you amend your letter to refer in more detail to the additional costs of extra support for children who are in school too early? I think the costs argument is a powerful one for decision-makers. We were advised to apply for a statement for DS2 when he was 3.4. Statements are far more expensive to obtain and implement than an extra year's nursery funding. The resources would, however, need to be directed into identifying the target children.....

*deferring!

Those who feel their child isn't ready for school at 4, would you be prepared to have them skip Reception altogether and go straight into Year 1 shortly after turning 5?

Assuming your reasoning is simply that they are not emotionally or developmentally ready to learn alongside 5 year olds.