Great news for summer borns...

[satinpillowcase]

www.theguardian.com/education/2015/sep/08/parents-of-summer-born-children-get-right-to-delay-start-of-school

"they've got long enough to sort out classes."

Hollow laugh. In the current system, too many children are without a place in September.

Forgive my ignorance here, and I've asked this before but don't recall getting an answer, but how is it going to work when even fewer people get allocated their closest, preferred oversubscribed school because places are taken up by children who ought technically (as things stand now and always have done) to be in the year above. I think I'd be pretty pissed off.

I absolutely cannot see how if children born in the five months of April, May, June, July and August all have the opportunity to defer how class sizes and higher numbers of children not getting their first choice (or indeed their third choice) of school won't become common place. The first year that this comes into effect could see smaller class sizes initially but the year below would really struggle. I am on the Surrey/West Sussex boarder and we already have many primary schools with bulge classes, temporary classrooms, children not getting any of their 3 choices etc etc. I can see class sizes being increased at infant level, where currently they are capped at 30. Goodness knows how that would benefit any child.

The children that have just entered year 1 at my local primary have a year group where 2/3 are spring/summer born. In fact my friends ds is one of the eldest, with a February birthday. Fine for this particular year group as deferrals would have meant considerably smaller classes but the year group below would have to run with about 45 per class if only half of those entitled to defer did. The only way around this would be to out the Sept-Dec born children into the year above but not sure how this would affect 11+, GCSEs etc.

In reality, I can't see any of this actually going ahead. Someone will always have to be the youngest and that is just the way it is, whether born in March or August. August born children that don't defer could now be 17 months younger, making the problem worse. It may be made easier for August born children/those born prematurely or with developmental delay to defer but April born? Seriously?

There but surely a similar number in the class below would defer...
So 10 children defer and enter the year younger - that class would have 10 more children...but if 10 children defer in that class the class is still the size it was always going to be.
Same with talking about differing no of children having birthdays at certain times of the year...even in current setup (no deferring) it can be a problem - if you get lots of children born just after and just before the cut off you would have a big year - but the years before ...and after could be much smaller ...

Surely unlucky is right about the numbers - you're talking about the same number of children overall. So if a summer child starts a year later, she/he is 'taking up' a space in the year below, but freeing one up inthe year above. It's the same as the 'two bites of the cherry' thing - a child can only take one school place. It's no different to people moving into and out of an area.

theressomethingaboutdairy it's very likely that this proposal will be adopted, the Schools Minister is very much in favour of it. And it's not such a radical thing really - see my post above for the legal position and reason for it.

Well, if this goes ahead then thank goodness my dd3 was born 12 days overdue on 9th April! If mass deferral does happen (grammar school area where many parents are already talking about deferring to give their children an advantage) at least we will have the choice. Sadly that can't be said of those born in Feb/March who will become the new summer borns.

I'm surprised Feb / March parents aren't more vocal about not wanting this.

Many don't think that this will actually happen or don't even seem to be aware of it. If this does go ahead then I am sure that it will be the Jan-Mar born parents that start shouting the loudest. It will never end. Someone has to be the youngest. I know people that have gone to great lengths to maximise their chances of not having a summer born but hey ho...

I presume the April cut off is because 1 April is the cut off for summer term, so fairest place to cut off from that perspective.

I still think it will be quite regional. I don't live in a grammar school area and I can't see the majority of parents taking it up at all. And i can't really see that much of an advantage if I'm honest. My dd is only 2 now but I can't tell much of a difference between children 3-6 months older than her so can already tell that she won't be at a disadvantage. She won't be at an advantage, no, but then why should she at the expense of others? But then as I've said, I'm not a pushy parent!

I presume the April cut off is because 1 April is the cut off for summer term
How do you mean?
Easter moves by up to 5 weeks so summer term start date is variable

What's the big deal about this? It's worked in Scotland for decades. It's great because decisions about when to go to school are based on the child's readiness for school rather than their birthday.

I just managed to defer or at least have the right to enter d s into reception out of age. He has Sen, is summer born, and just not ready for school.

But it isn't about readiness for school if your child is born before Easter Carbolic. Many September borns are less mature (ready) than their summer peers who are almost a year younger. So if your March 31st child isn't ready ... Tough! It's all about birthdays.

As in 1 April birthday is classed as summer term birthday - so funding at 3 is not available til the September after turning 3. If birthday is on 31 March, funding is available in the summer term after turning 3 so from April. Timing of easter isn't relevant as it moves each year.

Living in Scotland the system works well. It is mainly those with January and February birthdays who choose to send their children the following year. It's normally a decision between parent and advice from nursery. A lot of parents do choose to send when 51/2 as apart from anything else if you have a January or February birthday you only get 5 terms of state nursery as oppose to a April birthday where you get 8 terms.
I do know of 1 case where the parents were advised not to send their January born to school, which the parents ignored and the child ended up repeating primary 1!
There is also more leeway as regards those with Sen in Scotland, I know of a case with a child who had an August birthday and they deferred for a year. In that year there was a huge change in the child and they were able that art school when ready!

What about how the child feels when they are older? Would your teenager be best pleased to find they are in the year below? What about if a 16 year old in year 10 decides they don't want to stay at school and finish their gases? Yes they should to go into other education or work based training but the statutory school leaving age hasn't changed and there doesn't seem to be any plans to do that.

Classes not gasses :) (although both common esp in teenage boys!)

Where I'm from, the school leaving age was also 16, and it was the student's choice to leave, as it always is - our main exams weren't til 18 anyway. Those who are sensible and value education are going to stay; those who aren't, a few months isn't going to make much of a difference - if they're not on course for passing GCSEs already and are wanting to leave, chances are that being forced to stay isn't going to help either.

And kudos for being able to e.g., drive earlier might help offset it.

When it becomes an established possibility, the novelty wears off and people just become used to the idea that people of different ages can be in one year, and it really doesn't make much difference to peers. School admissions don't tend to be that affected either, as it all balances out. People aren't desperate to defer just for their child to be oldest - they do it because they feel a need for it. Nobody wants a child who is unmotivated and bored from being too old, either, and they realise that it wouldn't be in the child's best interest to defer if they are otherwise ready. It just doesn't became a huge issue. The majority go in at the correct age. A small number defer. A few end up repeating or skipping years.

But children are on average half a year older there when they start than they are here, because of the Mar-Feb cut off dates for normal admissions. And the first year is very gentle (half days) as well.

Very few other countries have the degree of competition that we have for 11+ superselectives. I think it is hard to extrapolate from what happens in other countries which are flexible about school starting age to areas of the UK where competition for secondary places is intense (greater London, Kent superselectives etc).

Since some people in these areas are prepared to tutor children for 4+, 7+ exams at preps etc, and start tutoring for the 11+ from the age of 7 or 8, why wouldn't they also hold their children back for advantage? (Although one could try and suppress this effect by introducing stronger weighting of 11+ results according to age.)

disquis
Very few other countries have the degree of competition that we have for 11+ superselectives.

Try counties rather than countries

It is NOT a national issue - the map of Grammars clearly shows that most of the country looks on at the angst with a mixture of consternation and smugness.

Are there any Superselectives in Kent?
I thought the whole county was on the 25:75 system.

Yes, I agree that the competitive nature of secondary admissions does make it somewhat more difficult, although I am not sure what proportion of pupils that applies to here.

There are areas of competition where I grew up though, but I think the general assumption is that by that age, most academic things are fairly balanced out and that it's the number of years in school that really matters - as long as children have started at an age when they're ready, rather than too young and got turned off school/fell behind/lost confidence/etc. That is, the staggered start meant that children were in a slightly more similar position when they started school, and were more receptive to learning as a result. The advantage to being older is therefore lessened somewhat, because part of what caused it was simply the fact that there were some younger children who weren't ready to learn. I think it is seen more as a way of helping the younger ones who aren't ready to start from a more level playing field - a kind of baseline of school readiness; if an older child is already at the right place to start learning, delaying that isn't necessarily going to produce much of an advantage, and even less so by upper primary. Yes, there may still be some effects of course. But I think in other places, parents consider what is best for their child overall, and it seems to work as a fairly sensible policy.

I think a lot of the problems that people foresee from implementing such a policy here actually reflect broader problems with the school system/starting age/admissions etc., none of which are going to be easily or quickly solved. But it does seem a shame if institutional/practical concerns end up being why a policy that could be helpful to some of the younger children can't be put in place.

crochet
But it does seem a shame if institutional/practical concerns end up being why a policy that could be helpful to some of the younger children can't be put in place.
But SOMEBODY will always be the youngest in the class.
Currently its late August babies
if this goes through it will be all different months depending on how fussy parents are
making pitching and targeting for teachers darned near impossible.

Scotland has a population smaller than London so its experience is not comparable.
Edinburgh is not much bigger than Brighton after all