Summer-born children starting school. Latest parliamentary research briefings.

[Gruach]

I have no personal interest in this - not even an informed opinion.

But this research briefing just appeared in my email inbox so I thought I'd share it.

Apologies if it's been done to death already.

That's not quite true eddiemairswife

"All children will have the option of starting school in the September after their fourth birthday to counter the educational penalty faced by those born in the summer, the schools secretary Ed Balls said yesterday as he announced the biggest shake-up of primary education in England in 20 years.

At present children born in the summer often enter primary school in the January or April before they turn five, meaning they get up to two fewer terms at school compared with classmates born in the autumn who start in September. Research shows that summer-born babies are less likely to get good GCSEs and A-levels, or go to university.

Balls will bring forward the starting date from the term before a child's fifth birthday to the September after their fourth. But he said parents who are worried that their child is too young for formal education should have the option of 25 hours of free childcare instead.

At present children born in the summer often enter primary school in the January or April before they turn five, meaning they get up to two fewer terms at school compared with classmates born in the autumn who start in September. Research shows that summer-born babies are less likely to get good GCSEs and A-levels, or go to university.

In a letter to Rose accepting the recommendation, Balls said that parents with a "strong preference" for their child's early education to happen outside of a formal school setting should be offered 25 hours of free childcare instead. "

That's been the situation since 2011

I completely agree with Tiggytape. The only parents I know who even talk about wanting to defer their children are those who are already advantaged in every other way. I've also heard poorer parents complaining that their September born child has just 'missed out' on a full-time reception place. The gap between rich and poor would widen and the gap between oldest and youngest would also widen to about 15-16 months.

Also spot on that August born kids aren't a 'year younger'. They're just short of a year younger than one kid, 11 months younger than a couple more etc, etc. In my youngest's class, half were born in June, July and August. If anything, it was the Autumn born that were in a tricky position.

From what I can see in my kids' school, those who would struggle because of delays and learning difficulties are already deferring. One is a child with a global delay and the other is a child born six weeks early in August with signs of autism. I don't think there has been any issue with this from either council, school or parents.

There is allowance. If prematurity means that a child is going to really struggle in reception class at just turned 4, you can delay with medical recommendation.

yes this exists but in practice I believe is very rarely used as libraries says it isn't automatically honoured later in a school 'career'. Fortunately DS had no permanent issues from his prematurity and the impact of his illnesses over the first couple of years of his life so even after all he had been through we might not have got the medical dispensation. That doesn't mean he wouldn't have benefited massively from starting later in his corrected school year. As I said I think it is too rigid.

April to August is five months though - potentially almost half the class. That's a bit of a headache for planning purposes too lol at the idea of local authorities actually planning.

And the pushiest parents might apply for 2015, not get into their favourite, then defer and go for another bite at the cherry for 2016. Already happens totally legitimately for university places.

I largely agree with Tiggy, but also Hinkyhonk. Some children's actual need to delay their start date by a year far outstrips the need of other children.

I have DS1, born in the autumn, and DS2, who is summer born. It is actually DS1 who is in the year group below his chronological cohort. He was born extremely prematurely and is very delayed academically, socially and emotionally (by about 18 months in all areas). It was unanimously agreed by our paediatrician and all DS's other professionals that he needed to be in the year group below. Yes he is nearly two years older than the youngest in his adopted year group, yes that is extremely unusual, and no that wouldn't be appropriate for most children. But with 1:1 support and children who are academically and emotionally about the same age as him (and the same height!), he is thriving and happy.

DS2, as I said above, is summer born. He was offered an extra term in nursery purely based on his age (so he would have had two terms in Reception rather than three). But we felt he was ready for school, so off he went in the September. He is one of the youngest in his year, but finds learning easier than his brother does, and he too is thriving.

Totally agree that premature children born into the wrong school year group should receive special consideration regarding delaying, but I do feel that all children whose parents want them to delay should have their cases reviewed by education specialists and/or paediatricians rather than it going purely on parental choice. Little Jonny may not appreciate being in a younger year group when he gets older, after all!

And for those children there has always been the option of deferring

"There is allowance. If prematurity means that a child is going to really struggle in reception class at just turned 4, you can delay with medical recommendation."

I have mixed feelings about this. If a child is severely delayed they are never going to catch up their peers. In many ways these children benefit from having a properly qualified teacher who can get the individual health plan/ statmenting rolling. There could be an arguement for starting such a child at three years old in a school nursery setting.

There is no reason why the ehcp can't be started before school. Ds's was in place before he started school, as without one he wouldn't have got a place at the complex needs resource base.

The senco at our preschool helps with the ehcp process, and before ds started preschool he had an early years worker who started the process with us. Parents also can apply for an ehcp.

If a child is severely delayed they are never going to catch up their peers.

Sorry, I also just wanted to point out that it often isn't as a>b>c as this, a child may have severe delays, a child may have complex needs requiring them to have extra support and a differentiated curriculum, but it does not necessarily mean they will never 'catch up' - all children attain different levels.

Reads like they are still crawling towards some version of flexibility.
I have doubts that it's for the best in most cases, for all the types of reasons people listed.

I'd like play-based learning until end of yr2, though. It's so obvious that children learn best thru play.

DS has had a Statement, with full-time 1:1 support, since the start of Reception. In spite of this support, he is better off in the year below and will stay there for all of his schooling unless it becomes apparent that he'd be better off back in his chronological year group (in which case a very gradual and careful transition would take place). He is managing really well in his adopted year group and is very happy there.

I do agree though that in many SEN cases the child is better suited to remaining in their chronological year group with the correct support. It's a case of assessing each child's individual needs and meeting them in the best way possible. One size definitely does not fit all!

Of course there will be exceptional circumstances, where holding a child back is the right thing to do.

But evidence from the U.S., based on longitudinal data going back to the 1970s shows that Tiggy is spot on. It is 10 times more likely for affluent kids to be held back than poor kids. Age spreads in the classroom increase. There is a vicious circle where the youngest birthday moves ever backwards. And for children who don't have a specific, documented reason, but simply had parents who were a little nervous about them being the youngest, it's often self defeating. The early advantage of being bigger and more developed initially fades by the preteen years. Even worse, being a year older than necessary at school means one less year of job experience when education is over. It's small on an individual level, but statistically significant across lifetime earnings of cohorts.

You can Google "redshirt kindergarten" and find a slew of respectable articles.

This is the case in Ireland and the past two decades have seen an explosion of "redshirting" and later starting. Basically everything Tiggy describes is spot on.

When I was young back in the stone age, about 50-50 of summer borns (thats June/July/August) chose to start at 5. But there's been an arms race now for years. It's normal now for middle class kids to start at 5, not 4.

Irish parenting forums have posts from parents with children turning 5 in October seriously considering keeping them back until they are almost 6. And other posters encourage them to - I mean why not, it's always best to be the oldest not the youngest (you see this all the time on boards.ie or the old magicmum site for anyone curious).

So you not infrequently get classes which contain a child who just turned 4 in August and another child who will be 6 in October. 6 year olds are experiencing a curriculum designed for 4 year olds and teachers have to try to balance the needs of children almost 24 months apart.

And the early years foundation stage is not even the most difficult time for this!! Think what it's like ten years down the road when puberty hits. Kids tower above other kids. Imagine being two years ahead or behind everyone else with breasts and periods - it is Not Fun. Or fair on the kids.

I used to wish the British system had a bit more flexibility but having seen the Irish arms race at first hand, I much prefer the strict criteria here. It quite properly keeps the expectation on teachers and schools to cater to the children's individual educational needs, instead of expecting parents to perform assessments no one is capable of.

Maybe the starting age should be moved back to 4 by April. Yes, that's still rough on the March kids but at least they have five extra months on the August kids today which can make a big difference. But any move to introduce flexibility or choice should be strongly resisted - they are buzzwords that sound alluring to parents who are educated and wealthy enough to exploit them, but a disaster for the education of poorer kids.

As an American, where full day school for five year olds is still not universal, I can't imagine how hard full day school is for four year olds. Social promotion for children with poor academic skills doesn't work, but academic promotion would be great for very academically able children. Having everyone the same age in the classroom is a very new social concept, and not always wise.

Many under 3s attend full day childcare for much longer days.
Just read the threads from parents complaining about phased entry ... I'm not sure there's an answer that everyone would be happy with.
As a SENCO on the few occasions we've suggested to parents that their child would benefit from extra time in nursery parents have been against it.

Having everyone the same age in the classroom is a very new social concept, and not always wise.

I would love to know what you base this statement on. (Particularly given the nightmare vision presented in the post above yours.)

TonyDanza could you clarify the part wealth plays in parental attitude - surely it's purely a matter of parental education?

To me the issue is not the age they start school but the fact that the expectations for children at the end of reception do not allow for age differences.
So you get a situation where a September born exceeds expectations and a summer born is only emerging. This then leads to the school treating the older child as brighter, putting them in top sets etc and the younger child is in the lower sets this then becomes a self fulfilling prophecy.

There is always going to be a cut off date and an oldest and youngest in the year that is inevitable. What needs to change is the way that schools compare children. There should be weighted expectations based on birth month as this is much fairer and actually presents a more realistic picture of how a child is doing.

Teachers also need to be more sensitive to age difference I.e not just choosing older kids for sports day races as they are older or picking the best readers for awards.

Wealth is key because childcare is much less subsidised than in the UK (not that the UK is that great for subsidy vs. eg. Scandinavia!) and so an extra year at creche (nursery) is very expensive. Parents in the greater Dublin area (where over half of all new babies live) will pay €1,000-1,200 per month.

Middle class families can afford to pay an extra €12,000+ to give their child an extra year before starting. Or they can manage a SAHM an extra year. But poorer families can't turn down a totally free school place.

There are some cheaper community creches but it's very tough to get a place (and people will be unsurprised to hear that many places in them somehow go to canny middle class parents anyway).

I forgot to mention one other downside which is that if schools are under pressure with numbers they will simply refuse to register younger children. So lots of schools will just tell parents if they have eg an April-born that they can't register, there isn't room, so they need to come back the following year. Lots of people have 4yrs 4mo children who are raring for school but have to keep them home because of pressure for places.

(I sound SO negative in these posts - there are some lovely things about Irish schools, like a total lack of standardised tests and the associated pressure until the Junior Cert at 15. No teaching to the SATs or league table anxiety!)

TD You don't sound negative! One can't address a problem without first seeing it.

Thank you for explaining.

(It does rather confirm, from a different angle, what I've always understood - that the drive towards pushing children into formal school earlier and earlier has more to do with economics than child development.

I was born into a world where you started "big" school in the term following your fifth birthday.

As said above it was only a few years ago it changed. In my experience it didn't really work all that well.
You had a class started and established with friendship groups, understanding of the daily routine and then suddenly new children start and everything changes.

My concern that the youngest children only got one term of reception before heading off to year 1

I was also born in the Stone Age and started school aged 4 years and 2 weeks (December birthday) . Both my summer borns started school the September after their 4th birthday. For the whole of my teaching career (20+tears) children here started school in September so not that recent.

Years not tears (definitely more than 20 of those)

Start date has had massive regional variation. My mother had everyone starting in September from the time she returned to work in 1984.

Sorry, posted too soon.

....so a lot earlier than Ed Balls was involved.

Ed Balls gave all parents the same right to a September start if they wished it as this is what many had wanted