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 am in Wales. Here we have 3 intakes a year into Reception, so most children start school the term after they turn 4. This means that they are all roughly the same age when they start. It does mean that autumn born children spend 5 terms in Reception whereas summer born children only have 3, but other than that it seems pretty fair.

Irish system- start when you want between she's 4-6! It's great, I planned early summer babies & started them at 5.

It does mean that autumn born children spend 5 terms in Reception whereas summer born children only have 3

And presumably those initial two terms are in smaller classes in a school has fewer pupils in it: not just more time with the teacher and the TA, but more time per pupil with the Senco if required, more place in the playground, faster lunch queues, etc.

It's not just that they get extra time, but the extra time is more effective. A double win. Rising Five policies were abandoned in part because of this.

One you can equalise outcomes might be to have streamed schools where children who are younger start six months later, but lose a couple of week of holiday per year (along with their teachers) so that by the end of Y6 they've had the same number of weeks of instruction, fitted into 6.5 years rather than 7. It would be virtually impossible to make such a scheme work in the state sector.

My mother is a retired teacher and she hated teaching reception when there was phased start dates, for the reasons Friday16 has mentioned.

She says that that youngest children were the ones who had to cope with coming into a big, established group of children; a full noisy classroom; a group who knew all the routines (like how to line up for lunch); had to compete with a full class (often of over 30 in those days) for the attention of the teacher, the TA, any special attention they needed, etc. She felt that the young children were doubly disadvantaged by being both young and expected to dive into a big pond (as it were). Also, some of those children only got a term of reception before they had to cope with the change to year one and a new teacher, etc.

Hopefully more a sign of the times (this was quite some years ago) but she also felt that year one teachers didn't make as many allowances as they should for the different periods of schooling the children joining their class had had.

She was very pleased when it changed.

And presumably those initial two terms are in smaller classes in a school has fewer pupils in it: not just more time with the teacher and the TA, but more time per pupil with the Senco if required, more place in the playground, faster lunch queues, etc

The quietest term in Reception is the autumn term, when there is only the following year's Y1 cohort in the class. Every child gets this quiet term in Reception, whether it is their 1st, 2nd or 3rd term. The busiest term is the summer term, when there is the following year's Y1 plus 2/3 of that year's intake in Reception. The Spring term is somewhere in between. The extra 2 terms that an autumn born child will have in Reception are a Spring term and a Summer term. So no, those first two terms aren't in a smaller class, they are in a larger one. Summer born children star school in a much smaller class with the benefits of more time with the teacher and TA etc.

BTW I have 3 children, who have all started school at different terms. I haven't noticed much difference in their reception experience, the only ones that I can remember are that my autumn born was a bit fed up of reception by his 5th term and that my summer born went into a far smaller class than the other two. I still think he was better off starting as part of a smaller group (8 children IIRC started that day) in a smaller class (around 16 in the class) than if he had started after Easter in a class of 24 (as DD did, although only 2 children started that term) or under English rules with a whole year group of 16 starting on the same day.

There is no workable solution to the issue of cut off dates for school intakes. Internationally the trend is to be more like England and to disallow flexibility/deferral/repeating or skipping a year because all research points to best individual outcomes when DC remain within cohort.

I am in Scotland and wouldn't necessarily recommend our system. Deferring kids often means that there are no kids with January or February birthdays in a P1 class. This simply means that the kids with the November or December birthdays tend to be the youngest in the class and therefore the most immature when they start formal education. It isn't quite as drastic as the situation in England because the kids are 4.8 when they start school, rather than just 4, but I do feel they are disadvantaged. I can't see any easy way round it though. Perhaps it would be better if there was less formal education until age 6, by which time the differences in maturity may be less pronounced.

I actually think the real problem here is government targets, not the age that the children start, but what they are expected to know.

Yes, Reception is supposed to be play based but many schools do not follow this for a variety of reasons. It may be that they are in an area where children are entering the school already reading and writing - in which case they would be silly to not continue at a reasonable pace. It may be that the children come in at a very low level and they don't have a lot of time to 'catch up' in order to reach government targets.

If children are not taught phonics, reading and maths in a formal way at some point in Reception, they will not meet government targets (yes, there will be always be cases where they will because they have come from educated families - but what about the children who have not seen a book before Reception?)

Time and time again I have taught children who struggled and struggled and were labelled SEN in Year 1 - only to 'click' towards the end of Year 1
Summer born children shouldn't be at a disadvantage because they should just be playing until they are ready to do more. But government targets do not allow for this.