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?

I know a little girl whose mum doesn't put her to nursery for the year before she starts school, preferring to "homeschool her" (they came from America). She is already a child who struggles to interact with other children, fighting and always arguing etc.

I can imagine her going to school being able to read and so on, but having no idea how to socialise with other children.

She will be 4.10 when she starts school. I think pre-school is more important than how old a child is.

My dd has done all the sounds this term and her class have started on writing and reading short sentences. She's 3 years and 9 months old and in nursery... So much for no formal learning in the early years.

Why! Why! Why! do nurseries do this! Often their excuse is "parents expect it!

Gosh - that sounds a bit extreme for a nursery! What do they do in reception?

The nursery that feeds into my school doesn't even teach the children how to write their names

Worse still, mrz, I have come across a nursery, albeit attached to daycare, who were teaching letters as a,b,c (hard sounds) rather than abc (soft in readiness for phonics) Poor children then started reception at a disadvantage and very confused.

My XH's boss and his wife were teaching their child ABC as in the letter names and teaching him to write his name all in capital letters.

When I tried to point out the problems he would have "un-learning" these things, they said "Well we never learned letters by calling them a-b-c" and we don't believe in all that nonsense.

Not helpful to go against how a school is going to teach reading or to force children early, BUT - also important to remember that some children are spontaneous readers (i.e. they basically teach themselves) and can't be stopped, just as some children also add, subtract, multiply and divide before they start school because they just do - without prompting or pushing from adults. I'm not saying that's what is happening in the comments noted above, but often it is said that children beginning formal education knowing too much are going to have to re-learn and make life harder for the teacher, but the parents actually couldn't have stopped their child.

(plus - not all children read phonetically - I know it works for a lot of (maybe even most) children, but not all - just saying)

Children don't spontaneously learn to write their name in capitals (someone has to show them) they don't learn A, B, Cs spontaneously someone has to tell them homeworkmakesmemad.

Everyone reads phonetically (even if not consciously) because that's how written language works

Everyone reads phonetically (even if not consciously) because that's how written language works

You should tell the ancient Egyptians about that. They could work with the Chinese on it.

Sorry didn't realise you were THAT old friday Chinese is a syllabic language but

www.chinasprout.com/shop/VVL084

apologies mrz - clearly you are the expert on all things educational as has been shown by all your comments thus far on this thread - I shall cease and desist from having an opinion or evidence of direct experience - clearly I (and various teachers who have taught my DS) know nothing

The sensible thing would be to have 2 intakes into Reception, one in September, for children with 5th birthdays from 1st Jul to 31st December and another at the beginning of March, for children whose 5th birthdays fall between 1st January and 30th June. They should remain in these 2 groups till the end of year 1.

I think that would be kinder and fairer.

An educated Chinese or Japanese speaker will know at least 3000 distinct characters. Neither language, unsurprisingly, has 3000 distinct sounds. There are syllabic systems for foreign learners and children, as you have found. But a language with thousands of distinct glyphs cannot possibly be said to be being read phonetically. Educated readers if such languages have to read glyph by glyph, and it's reasonable to hypothesise that similarly educated readers of roman scripts do similarly.

Do similarly at a word level, that is.

Preschool in Scotland is the equivalent to reception that is why it is guaranteed.

People also forget in scotland children finish high school between 17.5 & 18.5 unlike England where they finish at least 18.

I don't profess to be an expert homeworkmakesmemad but thanks for the apology

Sorry salsarocks P1 is the equivalent of Reception P2 =Y1 P3=Y2 etc.

Technically yes, Mrz, but comparing notes with friends in Scotland, P1 is / was (pre Curriculum for Excellence at least] significantly more formal than English Recption. Much more like the type of learning done in Y1 in England, with much less EYFS-style learning through play.

So while technically P1 = Reception, in 'learning style', P1 is more like Y1 and the pre-school year much more like Reception.

I appreciate that this may have changed post CforE

Sorry teacherwith2kids I did try to clarify that earlier but my internet crashed and then I had to pop out
this is what I tried to post earlier

Actually it isn't quite that simple because of different starting ages so some P1 children would be in reception and some would be in Y1 (the same applies to Northern Ireland).

Yes, I know that too - but the difference is not only in age, but also in content / structure.

So the final pre-school year in Scotland contains children from c 6 months younger to about 8 or 9 months older [due to deferring] than children starting Reception in England - and it covers an EYFS-like curriculum, taught in an EYFS way, much like reception in England.

Equally, P1 contains children who in England by age would be in Reception, and others who would be in Y1 - and it covers quite a KS1-style curriculum, taught (at least historically) in a very KS1-style rather than an EYFS style way.

It's a bit like the comparison between starting school ages in England and elsewhere in Europe - yes, English children start 'school' earlier, but much fo what our children learn in the early years of school is taught in pre-school settings in European countries, so the difference in 'starting to learn to read, write and do number work', as well as the start of 'formal learning' is much more similar than the differences in school starting age suggest.

P1's more formal structure than Reception (traditionally) is in line with it having children on average 6 onths older, so in terms of the individual child's experience, the educational experience that they have at the same age is very similar between the two systems.

My experience of the Scottish system is limited to having family there, but whilst there are advantages, there are definite flaws in the system.

The principle of children being slightly older to start school is probably a decent one, but as others have said their P1 is immediately more formal. So you could say that a child who starts school at 4.5 in Scotland into P1 is disadvantaged compared to one who starts at 4.5 in England in Reception.

The whole business of deferring also opens up such a potential age gap between oldest and youngest children and, as others have commented, seems to be a bit of a class issue.

There is also the issue that children mature at different rates. A 'held back' oldest child may, in later years, find it hard having their class peers so much younger. I also think it must be incredibly difficult to make a decision to hold a child back based on how they are at 4, when you don't know whether actually a couple of months later they'd have caught up and will actually be disadvantaged wating.

In terms of England, I have a bit of a bugbear with pre-school funding. The government seems unable to decide whether the priority is helping working parents with childcare costs (in which case an age based rule makes sense) or enabling pre-school education for a wider group of children. If it is the latter, funding should be based on academic year of starting school, not age.

My DD1 is a summer born and wasn't ready for 5 days of pre-school at 3, but has been totally ready and stormed through school so far (admittedly her first term).

There is technically 2yrs of funding for all regardless of birthday. It is from the term after 3 until the term after 5. Of course, in practice, this means that summer borns babies lose out in funding terms unless their parents send them to an independent school. Parents who opt to pay for school can claim 15hours free until the term after they turn 5 so for summer borns that is the whole of reception.

True. Doesn't help the vast majority, who state educate, though. Particularly those from less affluent backgrounds.

The problem is all children are different, so parents need a flexible option which fits the needs of an individual child.
DS1 was eager and ready for reception at 4.3 and was reading by the end of the second term, whereas DS2 would have been happy with half day nursery for the whole of reception year and is only now getting into the school stuff. He was 4.2 when he started.

If DS1 has started a year later I really feel he would have missed out on a whole year of learning. They have very individual learning needs at that age.

Why not have a learning in the morning and then playing in the afternoon approach and then if parents feel they can't cope with a whole day in reception, they can collect early.

Someone mentioned NZ. Yes, you start on your 5th birthday here, although school isn't compulsory until a child turns 6. From 3 you get 20 free hours of early childhood education.

Probably is a bit hard sometimes or teachers to manage, but they seem to because I guess it's just the norm here.

There is never only one child in a class as while the school year runs February to December, the oldest children in the class are May or June born and the youngst generally April and May born the following year. So my daughter will be in an academic year with children born May/June 2010 to April/May 2011. Schools manage their class sizes etc. lots of schools will add a second New Entrance class mid-year.

I guess it means some children spend more time at school than others, but I have never heard that made an issue of anywhere. Definitely no where near the level of angst in NZ as I experienced with friends' children when we lived in the UK.