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

Tiggy, really don't think people will all defer. I certainly wouldn't for DD, I might even accelerate if it was an established option. Most parents are keen to move them on to the next stage when their kids are ready. They're proud of them. They want them to stay with their cohort and fit in. The ones that worry are the ones with young and "young for age" kids, I'd assume those are the ones that will defer.

(Then I don't live in an 11+ area, perhaps that's a difference.)

I do take your point about a problem with kids who do need to defer but their parents chose not to.

But I don't think anything's ruled in or out at this stage, it's just a consultation. It'll probably be discussing exactly the sorts of things mentioned on this thread.

As someone said earlier I think it will be a regional thing. In some areas it will be virtually unheard of and in others it will be almost universal. Definitely going to to screw up the government baseline to Y6 progress data ??

I don't know what I think about this. I can see the potential for complete carnage in terms of school place allocation, and no-one being able to work out which school their child has a reasonable prospect of getting into.

DS1 is a July birthday and there is no way I would have wanted to defer him - he was champing at the bit to go and he has done very well. His Y2 teacher says that looking at him in class you'd think he was one of the oldest. However, in terms of social maturity, he's very clearly one of the younger ones - he's very easily influenced by older children and has been entirely separated from one much older child who was dominating him socially. If he'd been part of an intake where I knew almost all the other summer borns were deferring, I might have felt pressured into doing the same as I wouldn't be keen on him being part of a year-group with children so much older than him.

Under the new arrangements the potential age-range within a year seems very big. I can see all sorts of problems arising with teachers having to manage such different ages, both in terms of teaching and in terms of managing the social/behavioural side of things.

DS2 is a January birthday so not likely to be particularly affected, but I'm now pregnant with number 3 who is due right on the cusp of this change, so we may have some serious decisions to make - or we might finish up with another child who is the youngest in the year under the new rules.

Am still reading this thread and the more I think about it the more I think they should make the start date maybe in line with Scotland (end of Feb) or maybe March - so a start date of 4.5 months. But not have a deferral option - unless recommended by professionals and then with a further assessment unlike Scotland it should not be the norm. (In Scotland it is supposed to be difficult to get Sep - Dec ones funding if they defer - they need a professional recommendation - but I have never know one whose parent requested it be refused and in private schools is common for Nov and later born.)

Kungfu don't underestimate the importance of social readiness -it is as important as academic readiness. There was never a doubt that DD1 was more than academically ready for school - socially there was some small reservation - but I thought that wasn't important...I was wrong.
To be fair a much older class (lots of deferred children - inc a Nov and a Dec and Mar/Apr born and a lot of youngest siblings). DD1 has never struggled academically, started school reading well etc. Always near the top throughout the year. Socially a different story - she had a bit of a miserable time sometimes. A tough class anyway (lots of strong characters) if she had been older she would have been better placed to deal with them...
DD2 socially (and academically) no problems - has an older sibling, lots of Sep/Oct/Nov birthdays, lots of them are oldest siblings/onlys, a couple deferred but only 13 months older...she doesn't behave or look like the youngest (and was still told by school that Jan/Febs are always better deferred).

Hmm, I'm looking into my crystal ball and foreseeing some future Mumsnet threads:

1. My DC was born on March 31st and would be so much better off starting school a year later. His/her friend born on April 2nd will be starting school next year. So unfair.
2. My DC has just started in reception aged 5 and a half (April birthday) and is bored already. Why isn't the teacher making sure she is challenged? Why can't state schools look after the really bright children? Should we go private?

Unlucky some of the most socially unready kids I've taught were also among the oldest in the class.

I have family in a naice bit of Scotland where it is very much the done thing to defer.

DD2 has just started school and was very ready. But she is in a class with children up to 10 months older. If that became 15 months or whatever would I have deferred her? Probably. Because it's a different kettle of fish and I'd feel forced to.

We live in a naice market town & several local friends have summer born DC2 (as my own DC2 is) who are due to start next Sept. I have mentioned in passing to them about delaying if it is an option & they have all looked at me as though I was mad and, if I have questioned it, have commented about nursery fees which, around here, are £65 a day. If I was a parent of their DC, I'm not sure I would be desperately hoping this comes into force as their DC all have clear speech, have reached many more physical milestones than my DC2 has and none of them are as "young" as my DC2 is. He is much more on a par with children about 9 months younger than his own peers.

I agree with verypunny

Bring the cut of date backwards in the year to say 1june and that way when the dc go into reception they are St least four years and three months

mrz I wouldn't disagree - I think a lot is to do with ages of other siblings and parental attitudes etc - and whether they are coming straight for home or full time nursery (although DD1 was in full time nursery from 3 months to starting school) ...a whole host of reasons.
A friend has a theory that children find a level ... that fits with their family life and/or peer group. I know with my DCs after a few years at school - DD1 seemed much older, more mature than children who had deferred (so in the year below her) that were actually older than her, DD2 seems a lot older than a couple of children who are a few weeks younger than her so in the class below... and that difference wasn't apparent when they were younger -preschool.
But in a class of children with a max of 12 months difference the difference in social readiness will average out...yes you will have young one and more mature ones but they won't be very different...

If you have a couple of children who are socially ready but deferred (to give them an advantage) it is more difficult on the ones more than a year younger to keep up...it is a much larger spread. (And I will also agree that the oldest in a class aren't always the most academically advanced...)
Also I got the feeling from a couple of posters here that they think there could be a social stigma in deferring - to have to keep your child back as they aren't as advanced etc. In my area that stigma really doesn't exist - it is very much seen as giving your child an advantage - you are lucky you had the choice etc...you are probably more stigmatised if you don't defer...you are doing your a child a disservice...

deferring my summer born child's entry was one of the best and most important decisions of my life. He had a severe language delay. Because Bradford at the time offered deferral by choice, The speech therapists, nursery leader, Headteacher And paediatrician Were able to be completely honest About the fact that they Also wanted him to have an extra year in nursery. This meant that I didn't have to fight. Anyone who has had a disabled child Knows that the last thing you need in the crucial early years is the distraction of flights. With hindsight I do not think that It is sensible to defer your child's school entry Merely because they are born in August. Good schools help to even all these things out. It is certainly not necessary to defer merely because they are a boy or shy. But for some premature language delayed children starting school at five not four is crucial. I would just like to add to that When my child was three Bradford recommended that we apply for a statement if we were going to start him at school at 4.0. This would have been far more expensive than the extra years nursery provision. Because of the intensive work we did during the necessary year My son had a fighting chance of catching up with his adopted peer group when he finally did start reception. He is now a slightly quirky but deeply happy 10 year old Who crucially does not suffer from anxiety any more. He is not even on the special educational needs register any more. The school and I take enormous pride in him because we both know that this was a real example of early intervention changing the trajectory of a child's life. I do so hope that other parents In positions as serious was the one we faced will benefit from this change.I think it will be better than the current system because at the moment you usually have to be prepared to fight to get the extra year and if you don't happen to be a lawyer there by can be very difficult

Please excuse typographical errors -a neck injury means I am relying on voice recognition

I think this is a bad idea. Now the youngest in the year will potentially be 16 mOnths younger than the eldest. Making things worse not better for the youngest in the year

MissTriggs, forgive me for not having read the whole thread as you may have said this already, but did your DS re-join his year group or stay where he was? I ask as I held back my DS2 and his dad and I are monitoring with a view to placing him back up in due course.
My DS2 was born at 32 weeks with IUGR in July instead of September, obviously putting him a whole academic year ahead of where he would have been, had he been born at the right time. He was diagnosed with global developmental delay and has had to have paediatric physio to help crawling and walking; speech and language therapy and continues to have occupational therapy. He is very small for his age. The nursery we sent him to fed into an independent primary school (which we can barely afford) who were very receptive to holding him back a year and said they do it all the time. We felt that if he had gone into his "correct" year group he would have had a double burden of being developmentally delayed AND being in reality a whole academic year ahead of where he was supposed to be. The local authority was I'm afraid crap, when approached about it, and even the well-respected head of a decent state primary we liked was non-plussed and had no idea how she would deal with it when I spoke to her about it.

The LA EYFS SEN coordinator told us we would be very likely to be turned down for a SEN (now EHC Plan). We live in a relatively deprived London borough with pressure on LA resources and global developmental delay doesn't seem to cut it here!
We gave up and have stayed in the independent sector, which is unlikely to better for DS, but the class sizes are much smaller and he is certainly socially better suited to his peers.
Part of me thinks let him stay where he is (in his "delayed" reception year group), but if we move to another area the in year application for a year below his age is going to prove challenging...

Hello love to dance. We have a similar situation in that if we ever leave the Bradford area we might be forced to put up a year. Bradford were careful to warn us about this. The selective grammar school in north Yorkshire would not be an option for us for instance.
It comes down again to the seriousness of the need for deferral. Like you, we had to reorganise our lives around his needs. But I will have to look at the changes to the legislation! Maybe we would be free to move to Leeds now!

As for you, I know there are various action groups on Facebook. They build up detailed knowledge about the different local authorities. As the years go by, they are gaining experience about transfers between schools. Sounds like would be well worth you keeping an eye on the situation. Also TIGGYTAP E who has posted on this thread is a reliable source of expertise on the details of the current position so she might do to help

Thanks so much MissTriggs. I will certainly have a look at your suggestions. I am also in touch with an SEN charity down here which advises parents, so hopefully that will help too. I should have added, for some of us, these proposed changes are very welcome!

I come from a country where you can choose when your child starts school. There is guideline age, and most children start within that age, but some parents decide to put their child into school much earlier or later. I.e. in my class the age gap between the oldest and the youngest child was 21 months!

Obviously I've not done any research but just based on my own experience and observation, age has very little to do with academic abilities. Some of the youngest children did very well in academics and sports, and some of the oldest ones were the lazy ones. You either have talent/ability, or you don't. Or, most likely, you are somewhere in the middle. It also depends on parents - ours were very militant about homework, etc, so me and my sister did very well. Others were much more blase about it, and then were shocked when their 16 year olds were at threat of dropping out of school due to underperformance. Age has nothing to do with it.

If it's so important that the children are roughly same age, and there is a cut off point, why don't they just move the cut off point a few months earlier? So instead of 1st of Sept it would be 1st of May for example. This way the youngest child in Reception would be 4.4, not just turned 4, and oldest 5.3, which isn't that old. I think that would be a much better solution to children starting school when they are not ready.

I think that your suggestion about starting everyone a bit later is a good one. But for various reasons our system is not set up for that. I think that the age has crept down overtime as more and more mothers have gone back to work (me included!)

MissTriggs
In countries with a higher school starting age, most kids are in Full Time nursery/kindergarten from 3

the children are in the same situation, just with a different name.

Not in all countries - for example, where I'm from, children start in half-day programs at between 4.5 and 5.5 (some of them offer full-day programs now as more parents work, but not universal and not compulsory). Quite play based, too. And still allow a deferral for the younger few months if needed.

AutumnAnne, apologies for the delay in replying. I was talking about Scotland.
The statement that there is no additional early years funding for deferred September to December birthdays came from the Scottish Government's own website here.

Liberties

I'm in Scotland I would disagree that "it's very much the done thing" to defer school.

The last time I looked at the stats it was 2012 25% of January babies and 49% of February babies. Within that there is a higher ratio of boys to girls.
The deferring months very much becomes a buffer zone with parents taking the decision on a case by case basis. Parents also worry about kids becoming bored in preschool so tend not to do it without good reason.

MREB I have to disagree ...it probably is very dependent on area but in our naice area most Jan/Feb deferred.
In all those deferred children there are 2 that deferred for seemingly good reason, rest because it was expected/gave them an advantage.
In fact ime the stats for Jan are the opposite - about 20% don't defer.
For both my Febs I was encouraged to defer - as in we have no worries if they don't defer - but children always do better if they do ...
And actually thinking about it - I've been involved in a preschool group for the last 6 years and I can think of only one child that didn't defer - every other Jan/Feb has...