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.

...assessed for suitability for school, or not? Do our doctors, health visitors, teachers and pre school staff all have time for this evaluation?

To be fair, preschool staff do evaluate where a child is developmentally in relation to the EYFS, and therefore whether they may need extra support or a delayed start.

I agree with the poster who said that what seems right for a child at 4 might not turn out to be a good thing when they're 7. I have a summer born DD who is also immature for her age. She absolutely needed another year at preschool in my opinion, and needed so much support when she started school. She refused to speak to her teacher for the first six weeks, wasn't keen on being taught anything and got very tired. She wasn't the youngest, but she was very small and shy and I felt a bit sorry for her. Now at the end of Year 2, she is coping very well socially, well ahead of her peers academically, and I can see that starting Year 2 now rather than Year 3 would be very boring for her. I also have an autumn born older child who is very mature and would have been better off in the year above.

Having said all that, there should absolutely be some flexibility. I like the Scottish system and the element of choice there. My step brother was born 3 months prematurely 30 years ago - he was due in October but arrived in July. His parents immediately contacted the LEA, and were told it was tough, he'd have to start school at 4 despite his struggles due to prematurity. He did OK in his exams - nearly all grade Cs at GCSE, with and A and B in his favourite subjects, but I suspect those results would have been very different, had he had another year to mature.

Well, the whole setup is judging need on age isn't it? It's judging that they all need schooling between exactly 4 and 5. Allowing that edge to blur slightly would be judging slightly less on age not more.

The system doesn't say they need to be in school aged 4. It says parents can send their child to reception from the September of the school year in which they will turn 5 if they wish.
The problem is that if they choose not their child may miss reception completely.

Well yes, but even starting later in reception just means it's even more of a battle to catch up. So in effect 4 and 5.

Since reception follows the same curriculum as pre school or nursery (in theory) it shouldn't make a difference which the child attends ... Should it?

So your school don't try to teach all your reception class to read and write mrz? Or you do teach your nursery class?

No we don't routinely teach nursery children to read and write, although if a child was showing interest they could choose to join in both. Stages not ages! Again in reception there will be children at different levels of development so what they do will be based on needs.
All children will have access to lots of fine and gross motor activities, lots of stories. The "trick" is to know each child's needs and interests and to provide opportunities for both in the activities provided as well as in direct teaching.

I have a summer born boy who will start school this September. I don't really feel he's ready, but I also don't feel deferring him a year would be the best thing for him, I truly wish that everyone started school a year or two later as I also think staggering starts doesn't always work, as friendship groups become established etc.
I think Really good reception teachers should be able to manage this transition year into school, and if they stick to the plan eg reception is an early years year too, I'm hopeful all will be fine..

Wherever you put the cut off, someone is going to be 24 hours the wrong side of it.

Baffled mum you have the right to defer your child's start until the term after their fifth birthday. That's the law ...children don't need to be in full time education until they are five.

So if DS had been in your school he wouldn't have learned to write in reception mrz? He was clearly not ready and not showing an interest. He really would have sunk academically speaking if he'd started year 1 not writing.

Come on, be honest, you try to get them all reading and writing by the end of reception wherever they start. (Or your reception class I mean - can't remember what year you said you teach.) You don't do that in nursery. It may be the same overall EYFS curriculum, but the targets and the teaching in reception and nursery are not the same. That's like saying it doesn't matter if you put them in year 12 or year 13 as it's all the same A-level curriculum.

Hey, I wish I thought someone would teach DD at her own pace in nursery. She could do with a bit of help on spelling with alternative vowel sounds and getting her letter formation right. Maybe some multiplication and simple division. Is that going to happen? No. She'll have fun running around playing dressing up. They'll let her write if she sits down at the drawing table and writes, that's about the limit of the support she's going to get on academics.

I can't say whether he would have been writing in my class. I don't know your son or why you think he wasn't ready. All I can say is that if he'd started in my class with obvious motor problems we would have assessed his difficulties (involved specialist paediatric occupational therapist service) and would have planned activities to support him. IMHE given early support most children are writing at an age appropriate level by the end of Y1.

OK I'm being totally honest the targets and teaching in nursery and reception are exactly the same as they are based on the child's level of development.

DS didn't need occupational therapy. He could be taught to write, he was taught to write, but he wasn't at a stage anyone would try to teach a child to write if they were in a nursery class. It was a battle. If he'd been 6 months younger and started school at close to 5 it wouldn't have been nearly so much of a battle. If he was 3 months younger and it was a matter of days it would be even more of a battle and I'd be feeling mighty pissed off for him.

DD has far stronger fine motor skills and is just starting preschool, she won't be taught to write until reception. At their own pace? Really?

Maybe she would be at your school. And yet you say no children start your reception class writing? Statistically speaking if they all start at their own pace, and almost all start by the end of reception, you'd expect a reasonable proportion of the older ones to be writing by the end of nursery. If the opportunities are exactly the same.

That's great baffled. And is it writing can be accessed if they choose for reception children too? If so, what happens if they don't choose?

Catkind are we talking about your son writing in reception or nursery as I'm confused by your post.

I went to a very old fashioned primary school (once upon a time in the deep past) where children started at 4. They started a term at a time and after Easter, the more mature intake would move into the next class, and so on up the school, until Junior 3 (Y5). It was not necessarily just the older ones.

It worked very nicely, as those in the younger end of the year got to be the oldest for a while, and those at the older end got to be in a class with older children for a while. It was flexible and good socially too. I was happy. I have no idea what parents thought about it, but they didn't have much say in anything then.

mrz, I'm saying if DS had started nursery at the same stage he actually started reception, he would have ended the year not writing. He didn't have any interest, he didn't have the fine motor skills. Given that you say none of them start reception writing at your school, I assume that would go for your school too. But in reception they made sure he learned to write. Do you try to make sure all your reception kids learn to write? Or do you leave them be if they're not interested?

baffled, what I mean is, you said your son chose to access reading material in nursery. Is it also left up to the children if they choose to access reading stuff in reception? Cos if not that's a big difference between nursery and reception. Nursery they may do it if they're ready and interested; reception they are pushed, nudged, encouraged, supported or otherwise made to do it because otherwise they'll be playing catch up all their school lives. Like my son and writing.

It's very unusual for any of our pupils to start reception able to read and write but it's not unusual for our pupils to start nursery with little or no spoken language ...
My school is in the top ten of the 10% most deprived areas in the UK. Children don't have any books at home. They don't regularly attend nursery - parents can't be bothered to bring them (reason given by parents for child not attending)... Is that similar to the setting your children attend?