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
Interesting to see your side of the argument, I've read a lot of your posts on admissions and I know you know what you're talking about.

1. Personally, I think summerborn should only really be July-August and that would cut down the age gap.

1. 11+ is weighted according to age already to stop all the autumn born getting the highest scores. Surely this would make no difference to actually passing although I agree with your point of some people trying to take advantage.

1. We're quite poor yet considering this for my youngest, born 29th August. An extra year in preschool compared to an earlier year in school won't make much difference to my ability to work. Certainly not enough to impact the decision.

1. This is something that shouldn't be allowed as it is unfair and should be dealt with.

Tiggy I have read your thoughts on this before and found it really interesting as you raised many things I hadn't considered. Instinctively, I agree with you and think "there will always be a youngest" but I am still torn about what I would do with DS who is due to start next September if I am given an option. He has hit all of his developmental targets within the "normal" range but only just and is a summer born. DD hit hers early and is autumn born and has just had a really positive reception experience, a lot of which was due to maturity & school readiness. I have joked for a while that, based on experience to date and the fact he is a summer born, DS will be ready for reception the week that he finishes... but now I may have the opportunity for him to be ready for it when he starts.
In the back of my mind, I keep thinking of me & my brother. I was autumn born, my brother summer born. I think he is more intelligent than I am but I have better GCSEs, A-levels and degree and I think a lot of it is down to him having had to always play catch up.
As I said, DS starts in a year. He can name about six colours and two shapes, recognises 1 and 3 but no other numbers or letters or his name. He had very little speech until his third birthday and, whilst it is improving, it is often garbled and unclear. So many people, including HV, GP, speech therapist and nursery staff, have said "that's how it is with summer born boys" but perhaps it doesn't have to be like that.

I selfishly very much hope that this goes through quickly - ie August 2012 babies can start in 2017 not 2016. Should take a lot of the pressure of school places in the first year.

Is the point of this to enable children to learn?
Age shouldn't come in to it, it should be about learning, and when a child has learnt what they need to learn at that level, they then move up a year and start learning the next level.
Why does it have to be a competition?
Why can't people of any age just be educated at a pace that suits them?

My DD is a mid-August child and wasn't even speaking when she had to start school.
She wasn't emotionally mature enough and hadn't really much of a clue what school was about.
If I could have deferred her till she was ready to learn, we'd be in a much better place now.
As it is, she has low self esteem, few friends, and is struggling with the work expected of her.
BUT looking at her as an individual, she has grown and achieved so much at her own pace. She's doing great for her.
But next to her classmate who is 11.5 months older than her, she's 'not reaching her expected targets'.

Just let children learn, when they're ready to learn.

Poster - I've been thinking more about the timing & I just don't think it can happen by then, much as I would like it to. The papers for the public consultation have to be prepared, there will them be the consultation, consideration of responses, writing up of report & that is all before it gets to Parliament. I think that that would take the best part of a year and the 2016 process will be largely completed in April which is only 7 months away.

Boo ds is due to start in 2018 so I guess it's more likely to make it harder to get him a place than easier to get dd one then.

I would not get that excited that this is anything new. It is not and in theory what is being proposed is possible now. The problem is that the current regs say that the LA and the head teacher have to consider an application to delay starting school by a year. The reality is that previously all admission authorities said no to such requests and the number allowed to do this is still very low.What is being proposed is a change to the regs to make it far more difficult for the admission authority to say no.
The other associated issue is when the child gets to year 6, they are being told they cannot go in year 7 but have to go in year 8 and this loophole will apparently also be closed, so that you just keep going up one year.
There are going to be problems and the first one will be that there will be the potential in the first year for there to be a big bulge of pupils not going to school, which will then cause a major bulge the next year as these out of age pupils do start school.
It is not clear how the system will work but the assumption is that you will still apply for a school place as for normal start and then somehow ask for the deferral. Not sure how well that might work. This will not become law for a while, probably September 2016, but the minister has written to all LAs and very clearly indicated what is expected, so there is nothing to stop anybody requesting deferred start now. I suspect that the LA will only allow it when it is for starting in reception and not for all currently already attending school.

I think it should remain the way it is now, that delaying a year is possible depending on individual children where there are exceptional circumstances.

Something to add to the mix www2.warwick.ac.uk/newsandevents/pressreleases/delaying_children146s_school/

What do you think of that report, MRZ? I don't feel it is comparing like with like. From my reading of it, children in Bavaria will be at least 6yr2mth by the time they start school which is 2yrs older than my DS will be.

I don't see how it would create a bulge at the start - the children who defer, defer into the next year which children will also defer out of. There would potentially be a lull for the first year which children can defer out of but not (as easily) into, then back to normal numbers with some deferring in and some out. Though tiggytape's point about change years is an interesting one.

I don't get the Bavaria study. So children who've been in education for 2 years at 8 years old are more educated than children who've been in education for 1 year. And this is supposed to prove what exactly? Also not clear how they've normalised for the fact that the children being delayed will be delayed for a reason, compared to children of a similar background who aren't delayed.

Is the intent not to cut the red tape for those parents who's child is not quite mature enough to start at 4?
Not every "summer born" will need to request a delayed start, I suspect the numbers would be very few.

No it's not comparing children of the same age but it is comparing children who defer entertry to education a year. Similar findings have been reported from the U.S.
We won't know if there will be an impact here for a number of years.

I think if it happens, there also needs to be a consideration in how preschools would manage - with an age range of 2.5 - 5.4, and a bulge in numbers (considering there would also be an increase in free hours from 15 - 30).

Head teachers are already warning they won't be able to cope with the 30 hour free child care plan.
We have a 26 place nursery and currently 26 children attend for 15 hours in the morning and a different 26 in the afternoon, meaning 52 children each day. If we have to offer 30 hours it will mean only 26 children will be able to attend.
I don't think having the option to defer a year will be a problem for us as on the occasions we have suggested a child would benefit from extra time in nursery parents have insisted child starts with their peers.

DS is late summer born, doing well, on one of the two top tables for all his subjects. He's in juniors now.

Would I have deferred him if it was an option? You bet your life I would.

I have two August borns. Obviously I would have delayed my HFA boy who didn't have a diagnosis but was clearly struggling socially, baffled by nursery and not toilet trained. But my socially competent NT top of the class girl also wasn't reliably toilet trained despite coming out of nappies at two. I might have delayed her too given the choice.

I think the answer might be to lower the barriers so that summer born children with (IDK?) statements of "not school ready" from nursery could defer but stop short of providingdeferral on demand purely based on birthday. Children with an EDD of October should definitely have deferral on demand though. And yes the pushy middle classes would still take advantage but you could say that of many things which are worth doing - like HFA diagnoses.

It's a really good idea. I always feel for the summer born premature children, and wondered if their age should be taken from their due birthdate rather than their actual birthdate.

Dd1 was April born and is gifted and talented in most subjects at her secondary school. She would have been bored if I had delayed her. Dd2 May born has really struggled and would definitely have benefitted from a delay.

Could be terrible. the middle class will do well out of it, the campaign will next step up to push back the flexible boundary to January at least, and kids from poorer families will not feel they have the option so will just send kids soon as they can, anyway. Kids with SN who are in care and most could benefit from the delay will be the least likely to be deferred.

The April immature child who got delayed a year will be hugely mature compared to some of the August birthdays they're sitting next to. The oldest ones will be bored in a few yrs of school putting pressure to move the targets to what the eldest can do while the youngest feel demoralised. 18 months range in one class, hard to socially cater for, too.

I think allowing all parents who had an EDD of, say, 1st October onwards, to defer by choice would be a simple, one size fits most, solution.

I would actually prefer to move the cut off date to end April or whatever so that no child starts at just 4, that would address the maturity question without creating any bulges or huge age ranges.

DS started school at 4 years and 1 week : he was tiny
He did not cope with reading or writing till year 2
but I would not have held him back the year even if I could.
He's year 11 now.

Somebody will always be the youngest in the cohort.
Now it will be pretty random - and thus scramble the statistics for who needs support.

Its a silly move.

I'm sorry but I think it's a ridiculous idea. Unless your child has a medical condition, SeN etc then parents should not have the right to defer their place, if you apply for a particular school and you are offered it then you accept the "terms" that go along with it. To me this just screams ott parents playing the martyr over their "precious" children and there's just no need.

There are no perfect solutions but I don't support this change. I'm another pushy middle class mum and I'd push for my summer born children to move down. I also have a very late march and slightly built child with speech and language needs (who has had a support team since she was 2) and I'd push for her, too. The result is a class of children spanning 20-22 months or more, the old August-July becomes the new March - December... Poor teachers. What they should do is give good support for children currently in school and allow a select number to move when educationally appropriate.

DTs start tomorrow 4 a couple of weeks ago, they should have been on October 4th. They are more than a full year younger than the September birthdays.

The thing is that there is always someone who will be the youngest in the class - whenever the cut off is. I could have held mine back but couldn't see the point, lots of kids do full days in nursery and cope fine from a much younger age and I wanted them to be with their cohort from the beginning.

Unless there is a developmental delay, SALT issue or SEN then I don't think it a the right thing to do.

The only way to make it 'fairer' IMO is to move to a later school start age overall, say 6 for formal schooling.