All this angst about summer borns. Can someone tell me why we don't just go over to the Scottish admission system?

[Worriedthistimearound]

On the other thread there seems to be lots of people saying its not ideal but what can you do.
Well, maybe someone can tell me why we don't move over to what seems to me like a far more sensible system. DH is Scottish and we know the parents with children in the system and there is nowhere near the same level of anxiety up there.

Basically, it would seem that the cut off is the end of February rather than the end of August for children starting that autumn (well aug in Scotland) therefore, the youngest child starting school in that year group would be at least 4.5 as they turned 4 no later than end of feb. unlike here where a child could theoretically turn 4 on the 31/8 and start school the next day.

I know parents have more choice to defer up there too but that aside the timings seem so much more sensible. I also know that in England the child doesn't legally need to start until the term after they turn 5 but that's no solution if your child misses a whole year if reception.

So, what's stopping us saying ok, for 2017 admissions we're moving over to this new system so that all children will be more ready for school?

mrz, how many reception classes do you know who dont teach any kind of phonics? I know you teach EY yourself so you must agree it is more formal than just a play setting.

I know it's all billed as learning through play but a) what's the problem with 'just' play and b) the overwhelming majority of reception classes are doing some formal teaching/learning each day.

It depends on your definition of formal I suppose. Compared to when I first started teaching reception, reception classes are more like old nursery classes, mainly learning through play with short teaching sessions through the day. Most reception classes don't have children sitting at tables, indeed many don't have tables. They are very different to when my children were 4.

and I don't know any nursery classes that teach phonics apart from those on MN

I've posted this on a similar thread that there are definitely down sides to the Scottish system. My DS is a Jan birthday so one of the (but not the) youngest in his year. The oldest is 13 months older. We have been subjected to very negative comments from many parents in our community for not deferring him because we are relatively middle clas and it is the 'done' thing to defer. The decision was incredibly difficult not from the POV of him, but more around the fact that because other parents had deferred the year before the age gap would be so big. FWIW he is doing great, both socially and academically and I think another year in nursery would have been detrimental.

Our P1 classes all have desks and most of their learning is fairly formal like Fast Phonics lessons on the Smart board and number teaching with kids taking part actively.

There is some play but most of it is quite formal, unlike the shite that was the integrated day when I first started teaching

mrz I can't help it if you don't know things. My now 15 yo DD1 did phonics at her nursery, using the jolly phonics scheme. So did my other two kids (same nursery).

In my child's reception class they have 'tables' where they sit and learn. The tables are set by ability - there is a 'top' group etc for literacy and numeracy. There are definitely formal aspects for the kids in my dd's reception class. They must all do it differently I suppose.

To be clear, though, they don't sit at tables all the time - short bursts, I think.

I am scottish, living in the netherlands. Here, children can start school the day after their 4th birthday. This is group 0. In september the following year they start group 1. Group 1&2 are mixed classes. Formal learning starts in group 3. UN studies have shown that the netherlands is one of the best place to grow up. Its a good system. Also after primary there are grammer school places available for all who have earned them. No competitieve exams to get. in.

The Scottish school my dc go to they rarely start the children with jan/feb birthdays at 4 and a half, obviously as a parent you can insist, my dd is a feb birthday and started at 5 and a half, also If She'd started at 4.5 she wouldn't have got her 2 years of nursery.

Congratulations Metebelis3

I obviously don't know your child's nursery.

I know the conversation has moved on a bit but we had some friends from New Zealand staying and they have quite a funny system. Every child starts school the week of their fifth birthday. It sounds great except it means that a child could be the only one in the class for a few weeks - also the youngest come into a class where friendships have already been made.

CruCru we used to have that sustem in the UK many years ago

Crucru I know a teacher in NZ who told me they had that system and raved about how great it was. Each child starts the week they turn 5. I can't help thinking it would be a bit chaotic for the teacher, the existing pupils and the new starters but she seemed to think it was great.

My DD1 started Reception at 4 yr 5 months. I remember the stress and anxiety (mine not hers) over getting a school place and also that she would be doing a full day (9am-3pm) straight away.

We moved to Scotland in the July of the following year and DD1 started P1 at 5 yr 4 months with children who had come straight from nursery doing 2.5 hours a day and she wasn't any more advanced.

DD 2 and 3 both started P1 after 2 years of nursery. DD2 was 5 in the July before she started and DD3 turned 5 in the Oct after starting.

The main difference I found was that I wasn't stressed out with worrying that they'd all be at different schools or not local to where we live etc.

Every study on this everywhere shows that being the youngest confers a slight disadvantage (statistically). It doesn't matter how the admissions system works or what the usual starting age is, the disadvantage is there on average.

In the US it's become widespread for parents to hold back starting school a whole year (perfectly allowed, 2 yrs delay even) and that creates a whole separate lot of problems, too. I can even find a report that argues that being the youngest in the year confers significant advantages by the late teens.

I favour only deferred starts for kids born premature or with SN. There will never be a perfect system, anyway. Somebody has to be the youngest.

As others have mentioned the Scottish school system has plenty of problems. I think the fairest system is to have fixed ages for starting school as in England as deferment just gives even more advantage to middle class children and as others have mentioned the oldest in the year can be around 15 months older than the youngest. I think the main problem here is lack of EYFS with really quite formal teaching right from the start. This is quite anecdotal, but I have also found phonics teaching to be pretty half-hearted with a lot of schools did using a lot of look and say.

Having taught in both England and Scotland I found that there was an almost non-existent way of teaching spelling in England whereas in Scotland we always used phonics,

Now back in Scotland we find that many children we get from English schools struggle with spelling,

Having said that my XH (English) could not spell for toffee as he said that he had never been taught properly at school,,

"Every study" fails to exclude other contributory factors (because it would be impossible to do so) children have different home environments, different levels of parental engagement, different pre school experience, different starting dates ...in fact they are different so it is too simplistic to attribute difficulties solely to month of birth.

DS started school (England) a week after his 4th Birthday.
He is now Year 9
If he had for any reason been held back a year, school would have been an utter nightmare because he'd have been bored out of his mind.

I'm sure it is simplistic. Also there are other factors created by the school environment which disadvantage the younger children. Grouping us obviously a major advantage to the teacher and in theory allows children to progress at their own pace. Now whilst some EYFS teachers do not group, a great many do. So those August born children who may not be mature enough yet to tackle phonics or even sitting on the carpet for 15mins are often grouped towards the bottom. So by the time things start to even out towards the end of the infants or beginning of the juniors, the levels and quantity if work they have been exposed to is nowhere near the same as those who started off in the top group. This makes it very difficult for those children to jump up a group or two even if their standardised ability is at the higher level.

In other words, the gap which initially exists due to levels of maturity, continues to exist through expectations and levels of exposure. My dc3 is nowhere near as academic as her older brother and sister. I strongly believe that having an October birthday has allowed her to keep up with the class and not fall too far behind that top group.

Many schools don't group ... we don't and it isn't a disadvantage to our staff, just the opposite. EYFS is about learning through play and providing individualised learning regardless of age. Having an October (or even September) birthday is no guarantee that a child will not "fall behind the top group" (and does it really matter if they do as long as they progress at their own pace)

I am more than happy for her to progress at her own pace. I just feel that being born in oct has meant she avoided the situation I mentioned in my previous post. I know that not all EYFS setting group and if they were all like that then the widening gap situation wouldn't arise, but sadly many do and therefore it does.

My biggest social/emotional/academic struggler last year was born in the first week of September just as there are children this year who are among the oldest in class.