Delaying and deferring reception admission

[BettyandDon]

I have taken part in several discussions on Mumsnet regarding this issue and wanted to share the following which was featured on BBC this week.

[[http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-25726538]]

There is a closed Facebook group entitled Flexible School Admissions for Summer Borns which also may be of interest to many. Their report was featured on the BBC.

It has become apparent that many LAs are largely ignoring or are unaware of DoE advice from July 2013 on the matter of deferring and delaying reception entry. They appear to be using a variety of tactics involving misinforming parents to force children into starting reception at 4. For example, misinforming that children would have to miss reception year and start at compulsory school age 5 in Y1.

I do hope I have managed the link correctly. I have found it most useful.

My last class had 3 autumn born children (1 Sept birthday and 2 December) 1 spring born (March ) and 25 summer birthdays - 6 were August born in a single form entry school unusual but not unheard of as tiggytape says.

Thank you for this thread.

We year-deferred for our August-born son four years ago. He had severe receptive language delay - the LA's recommendation had been that we apply for the default year but also apply for a statement. Thankfully though, the paeds, SALTS, head teacher and nursery manager all supported our wish to defer.

It has worked out beautifully, he is in year 3 now. As pointed out above, the only problems threatened are ones created by the system itself. We did have an arrangement with the LA that he would have to stay in the year he was placed in. Our secondary has indeed proceeded to become an academy though thankfully it has delegated its admissions function back to its LA. And as Tiggytape points out, that does indeed mean that we cannot leave the area where we live.

A good diagnostic for us is "given the risks of some Kafkaesque bureaucratic horror story at the secondary school transfer point, and given that you have had to stay within your LA and that has slightly held back your DH's career, was it worth it?"
To which the answer is a resounding "Yes, I don't have to think about that even for a moment".

I have seen the children who were "just summer-born" get over it in their default year. But it was different for DS. You can pay for one-to-one, but you cannot adjust the peer group and you cannot pay for the extra time your child needs to develop, now matter how skilled the teacher. What DS was given was the extra time he needed in the right environment. As his abilities have evened out, he has had peers at a similar level around him. That wouldn't have happened in the default year. At most, he would have been babied.

[Tiggytape, the teasing thing hasn't been an issue so far by the way.Also, on the weighing scales, even if it happens, it would be nothing compared with the alternative I think].

"A child who had been "held back" would be the odd one out and coupled with the pride attached to being in an older class rather than a younger one, it could make them very self conscious about why they were singled out in that way. "

We have the opposite. DS is very proud that one day he will be the oldest in his school. We have told him that, luckily, we were allowed to choose whether he should be the oldest or the youngest, and we though he should be the oldest because he learned to talk very late.

As for the teachers, they have all forgotten about it. From reception onwards, every parents evening was a question of "by this stage in Year 1 we expect A,B,C" - not "oh but of coursehe should really be performing one year ahead...."

As a teacher I've been in the reverse situation where the parents of a child assessed as 3 years + behind at age 4 (multi agency involvement plus a statement issued pre nursery) insisted the child be admitted full time to reception.

thanks Tiggy. I really like the way you have put that.
I think you and I would agree that there are two issues here, and whilst of course they are related they should not be confused.

Issue 1. kids like mine.... so everyone working together to identify the right course of action for the ones where a year in a very good nursery followed by a permanent adjustment of peer group is a key intervention.... These children's issues will usually be sufficiently obvious that no-one could mistake the parent for someone seeking an "advantage"....

Issue 2. the whole issue of whether we start school too early in this country anyway .....

Mrz, I can see you have had lots of experience of parents being wrong. But that doesn't make my decision, or my head's decision to support me, any less right.

goonIcantakeit I've also had lots of experience as the mum of two summer borns one of whom was born a month prem with SEN.

and I'm unaware that I have commented about your decision at any point on this thread?

Historically summer borns started school up to two terms after their peers so from the very first day in school they were playing catch up Paintyfingers.

and i say that as the mum to two summer borns

I'm not claiming it is Paintyfingers only that it compounds the situation.

In my area all children have started school in September for 16 years so well and truely filtered through

If you haven't read it these people published an interesting report on 14th Jan about all of this and the legislative history etc.:

summerbornchildren.org/

wonderful stuff Piqueaboo!

thanks for that post and what a great report. So heartening.

I so wish it had been around three years ago.

It's the Kafkaesque element that is the worst - the absolute nonsense of "Well, exercise your "right" to wait till s/he is 5 but we will get you - we will punish your child for the choice you made, either by placing them in Year1 or by making them skip Year 6. And even as we administer that punishment, we will dress it up as a "choice". So keep quiet". Add in a bureaucratic delight in delivering that threat to a distressed parent and you have a teeny tiny nugget of pure evil really.

Paintyfingers, I do think you are right. In fact, it doesn't matter what I think, you are the expert on your own child and you have statistical evidence to back up the arguments on a population level! But Tiggytape is approaching the problem in a very positive logical way - encouraging people to focus on the actual legislation rather than what LAs say when you phone them up..... If we followed the approach that I think Tiggytape would favour - ie improve the "spotting" of the children who need the intervention at 3, then the statistics would change perhaps? You could then compare the English and Scottish systems and get better information.

It doesn't help that the research on this seems inconclusive. Yes, there is evidence that summer born children lag behind but, as Mrz points out, this was generated mainly at a time when most schools insisted that summer born children started later in the year, thereby missing one or more terms of Reception. There is much less research available showing the performance of summer born children who enter Reception in September immediately following their fourth birthday.

In Scotland parents have the right to delay entry. There is a study that looked at the effect of parents choosing to defer for a full year. This found that the children concerned entered school performing at a similar level to their peers but had fallen behind after a couple of years. Of course, this is only one study and it doesn't tell us anything about how those children performed through the rest of primary school and into secondary school. And, of course, even if these results are robust it doesn't necessarily mean they would apply to children in England.

On the legalities Tiggytape is correct. Until the Admissions Code is changed parents have the right to defer entry to later in the year but the LA and/or school has the final say if you want your child to enter Reception in the September following their fifth birthday. Things politicians say are not binding on anyone until they make the necessary changes to the law or regulations. And politicians are not always reliable when they describe the current situation, even if the politician is a minister talking about matters that are part of their remit.

absolutely painty.

they may still be struggling less than they would have done without any deferral at all though.

A comparison of England and Scotland summer-borns at school-leaving age would be fascinating

"I think it is important that the LAs really spell out to parents their options (or as some would see it their lack of options). Lots of parents come here to ask if their child can be kept back a whole year since LAs do not address this question in the literature - and they should. Even if it is to explain that, no, it isn't possible to request this just because you feel it is the best option. You must have medical evidence to prove it is needed but that you can defer by a few months or go part time instead."

Absolutely. The way you put it above it is (a) harsh and (b) not what most of us want to read but it is also (1) not an insult to a parent's intelligence (2) not a lie and best of all (3) tells you that you need to take your non-verbal three year old to the GP tomorrow if you are serious about deferral. So it is actually useful. Do you engage with the decision-makers Tiggy? You should.