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

We're in Scotland here.
It sounds to me as though the cut off date is very wrong in the English system. Here the cut off is the end of February. E.g. If your child turns 5 before the end of Feb 2016, they started school in mid August 2015. Therefore the youngest child would be 4 years and 5.5 months. Even then, you can still request a deferral for Jan and Feb birthdays.
DD is a January birthday. The oldest in her class is 12 months older than her (deferred). The difference was more noticeable in earlier years but not so much now in Primary 4 (equivalent to year 3). Even still, she has coped fine with the level of teaching throughout.
At JUST 4 years old she would not have been ready for school. Those 5 months make a difference IMO.

Were cut off dates more flexible for a previous generation? My best friend at school had a mid-August birthday, so should have been in the year above, and we also had people with September to December birthdays who should have been in the year below. It didn't seem to cause any problems that I remember.

Rather than have a date of April to August maybe the better date would be the last week in July to the end of August, so that a child actually is 5 during the year they start, instead of in a few cases having their fifth birthday 5-6 weeks after the school year ends?

Is deferring a year so having a sixteen month spread of ages more difficult for a class teacher than having some already five year olds who were more than ready for school alongside some only just four year olds whose needs are different? I don't know - it just seems that there are a lot of things to consider.

I think it will cause a lot of angst for a lot of parents.

I wouldn't have deferred my summer-born DD, she was totally ready for school, and benefits from being one of the youngest in her year as she's very academic - all her teachers have told me she's "top of the year" "in the top one or two of her year" etc etc across the board. Being in the year below would make her stick out even more than she already does tall poppies.

I would probably have delayed DS1 if given a choice. He should have been a summer-born, but arrived in winter, very prem, speech delay, sensory issues. He's now in year 1, but struggles with the idea of school, although he enjoys it once we get him there. I think extra time at home would have benefited him.

I don't know what I'd do with DS2 yet, he's also summer-born but not due to start school till 2017.

As a parent of 2 summer born children (August and May), I think this is an awful proposal.

In the first instance, surely allowing all parents of summer born children to defer entry to reception is just going to skew the perceived disadvantage to March born children?

More importantly, there is a significant risk that some August born children could end up in the same academic year as children who are almost 17 months older; I can see that being far more detrimental than the current set up. These children are more likely to come from poorer socio-economic backgrounds and may already be disadvantaged.

Some LAs appear to have been very obstructive when it comes to the subject of deferred entry, but I don't think that this proposal is the right answer. Deferred entry should not come down solely to parents' personal opinions, but should be something that is reserved for those children who - in the professional opinion of doctors/HCP, social workers (if involved) and teachers - would be significantly disadvantaged by being educated in the correct year group.

Whilst I agree that for many summer borns they suffer no disadvantage (3 of DDs summer born friends are sitting 11+ exams this month), for some it is a very different story.
DD2 had turned 4 the week before she started reception, against the recommendation of her nursery, who approached her new school. Whilst the school were in full agreement with her nursery they could only offer to defer her for a term.

Roll on a few years, she's just started yr6 and we are still waiting for the anecdotal 'they eventually catch up' moment. Have spent the past few years hearing this from her teachers, and 'Well,she is the youngest in her year'. It has become very clear that the gaps created by starting reception with such immaturity have just widened. The building blocks her classmates were able to absorb in the first few years were lost on DD, it took enough of her concentration to sit in one place and listen. She is always a step behind, leaving her de-motivated and detached from learning. Her only saving Grace is her amazingly resilience and great sense of fun and adventure, ironically maybe strengthened by the struggles she has faced)

We didn't want her to start reception a year later to give her an advantage over other kids, we wanted her to at least have the chance to reach some of her potential. DDs end of yr5 report was the first she had ever had which indicated she is heading toward average age reading and literacy levels, for which we are hugely proud. But what she might have achieved had she been ready to absorb all the learning available in the foundation stage.

We are already having sleepless nights, worried about her starting high school having just turned 11.

It is for kids like this that there does need to be more flexibility and fluidity. failing that, some real resources put back into schools to support those children who have had a bumpy start to their education.

Mmm.. I expect this will be overwhelmingly driven by perceived competitive advantage and the new 17 month age-range will definitely make it significantly worse for summer-borns whose parents can't avail themselves of that delayed start for one reason or another.

I also don't know how the [bleep] you decide whether your summer-born child is developmentally ready or not, especially when in developmental terms that decision is well-ahead of the possible start. Especially if it's your first child and you have no experience to draw on. Not that I expect many will worry about that because it will take an unusually confident parent to willingly have their child be the youngest in the class by up to 17 months.

However with several years of hindsight a delayed-start can be the wrong choice in some terms and would have been for summer-born DD. It wasn't predictable at all, but she became a big ceiling-bumping fish in her cohort and it would have been perfectly 'orrible if she'd been amongst the oldest in the year below.

Perhaps we need a really good and flexible stage-not-age system?

Where I'm from, and where this is done already, it really isn't the case that everyone who can chooses to defer. It's done when parents feel their child isn't ready for whatever reason, and they can also take on board recommendations of preschool teachers. It doesn't mean that there is a whole cohort that suddenly has to be the youngest, as it's a fluid system and those who might be youngest chronologically are usually those who are ready to start; those who are the oldest because of being deferred are often less mature in the first place, so the gap between developmental levels is not as big as you'd expect.

But where I'm from, the system is also more fluid about letting children move up or repeat years on occasion if needed. It's not really common, but nor is it unheard of. And it's not unusual to have children who are slightly older or younger in the group - e.g., those who move from abroad or from a different system might not just be pushed into the exact year group that they have to belong to based on their age, but it can be a bit flexible if circumstances make it necessary.

The majority of children do go at the expected time, and stay in the expected year, but I think it is helpful to have the flexibility to adapt, and once it becomes the system, then a lot of the problems people are foreseeing don't really stay problems. Children cope with having older or younger children in a class (in much the same way they do in mixed year groups), particularly because it occurs when there is some reason for keeping them back/putting them ahead. You just learn not to assume that someone is exactly the same age as you or having the same age birthday party, or will be learning to drive at the same time or whatever.

I have a friend who opted for independent school for her 29th Aug baby as they allowed her to defer and he started the following year as oldest in the class. My ds2 was the same original year but sept born. When I thought how ds2 was rolling over and giggling before my friend was even pregnant and that ds2 was walking and had a few words by the time her DS was born. It seemed ridiculous that they would start school on the same day.
Anyway, he was nowhere near school ready but by the following year he was pretty much where my DS had been the previous year. So he hit the ground running and was mature enough to absorb all the learning rather than his little brain spending all its energy working out how to sit on the carpet and get from A to B. He's in Y5 now and thriving. She is utterly convinced it would have been so different if he had been forced to start school with my son and having known him since birth I agree wholeheartedly. So if this can offer the same benefit to those children whose parents are not fortunate enough to have the option to opt out of the state system to get deferral, then I'd welcome that.

I agree with PiqueAboo and thats coming from a parent of 3 summer born childrem.

My twins, born late April should not have been born until late July, both now in top sets in a very good school. DD3, born end of May was racing through the school gates on Day 1.

Would I have held any of them back on account of them (genuinely) not being ready for school? No. - would I have held them back if I thought it would improve their chances at 11+ (we live in a massively competitive 11+ area)? Yes.

I think there are children that are always going to be the youngest in their year - there are going to be children that do well (irrespective of birthday) and those that don't do as well (irrespective of birthday). I also think it perpetuates the assumption that all summer born children won't do as well as their older peers.

I think its unworkable.

Surely the 11 plus argument is a red herring?

The 11 plus is already age adjusted to take into account the month of a child's birth. So a September child with exactly the same raw score as an August child is in fact deemed to have done less well than the August child.

11+ Not age adjusted in Essex

11+ isn't a red herring because even where it is age standardised it doesn't account for the natural settle of a class. So the August child starts when they're not ready. They spend the first 18mths of school coping with 'school' before they can get down to the business of learning. By that time the confident bright autumn born kids have soared ahead and have naturally settled as top of the class. This means they (autumn babies) are the ones pushed and challenged and the ones that school have high expectations of. As a result, they do achieve better and by the time Y5/6 comes along they have 'settled' at a level lower than they may had done if they'd started later, been more ready and given the more 'able' opportunities.

And yes of course, anecdotally, some summer born children buck this trend but many more font catch up despite scho saying it all evens out by Y3.

I don't think the 11+ argument is a red herring but not for the reasons that Nomorerenting says.

The "standardisation" of scores in the 11+ makes very little difference to the actual score (certainly where I am). You're talking less than 10 marks (the headmaster at the grammar school in our area suggested it might be 2 or 3 marks - and given that the highest possible score is 423, its so minor that it wouldn't make a difference). Even if the scores were adjusted for age if children defer, its not going produce a "level playing field" regardless of age.

But on the basis that my children would be taking it at the start of Year 6 - either as 10 year olds (if they go into their normal year) or as 11 year olds (if they are held back a year) means they'll have covered all the same work at school, but their reading ability will be higher, their language / vocabulary will be more advanced, their problem solving / analysis will be better. It stands to reason they will do better. That's not fair for anyone who sits the tests.

How would it actually work - would parents apply for the current "correct" year and then request deferral, or would parents apply for the next year? I could see it being very confusing if it were the former - when would the application for a deferral happen? What happens at the moment in Scotland in terms of timing of the decision to defer?

Some great replies on this thread. Have August born DD and of course I would have started her later to give her an advantage - as will all middle class parents. Even those parents who think their child is ready for school will be thinking "I can't let her be in a class where she's the youngest by 16 months", so the only summer borns in the class will be those whose parents simply can't afford to defer - and they will be even more disadvantaged.
There should definitely be an exemption for those born prematurely and perhaps also those with special needs - but otherwise this will cause as many problems as it solves

Forgot to add to the above - would be much better to delay starting school until 6 or 7 like most of the rest of the world - but that would mean politicians putting children first so won't happen.

HPFA
would be much better to delay starting school until 6 or 7 like most of the rest of the world
Red Herring

because such countries often have incredibly structured, long hours nursery provision in place of what we call Year R

the difference is in the name not the content

Obviously there has always been a year difference between the oldest and youngest in a year.
The difference is children now start school a year earlier when the differences are more pronounced and some of them simply are not at all ready for school.

I think the only poised to make the decision about school readiness is the parent. It's more about emotional readiness than academic readiness. In the U.S. Parents can defer and some do, especially with summer boys. But it's not as pressurised because it's quite common for the school to hold a child back in kindergarten or reception if they feel he or she isn't ready to progress. It takes the problem of only those who can afford benefitting from the advantage. I think it's absurd that kids are just shoved through the system here whether or not they are ready. Repeating a year can make all the difference and is the missing piece of the puzzle here.

but the outcomes from the US system are not better than the UK system

I'm yet to see the system that gets it right to the satisfaction of all parents

No child ever went straight into year 1, so no-one is starting a year earlier. At least not in recent memory. Even a summer born started in April or after half term in June, as used to be the case where I live. This led to parents of summer born children complaining their children had less education than the older children which was borne out by the outcomes for summer born children. Then summer borns were allowed to start earlier and now that is wrong too! Just no pleasing some people.

I agree with tiggytape in her first post. This is a way for deferring bright summer borns who will then benefit all the way through to applying for university. What summer born child will start at the normal time in Reception knowing they will be disadvantaged? By all means defer significantly behind children but not others. Spring born will be the next disadvantaged group!

I pity the Local Authorities trying to sort all this out. It will only work if the odd child defers or the whole of the summer born cohort. Planning will be a nightmare and children will not get into schools because they will be full of derpferred summer borns who will get priority. Who will then not be admitted? The next cohort of summer borns presumably. There is just no way to please everyone.

millymolly
No child ever went straight into year 1, so no-one is starting a year earlier.
I can name two, both achingly WC - disorganised parents

This is a way for deferring bright summer borns who will then benefit all the way through to applying for university.
Except that Unis will have 15 years to get clever to it.

But YYYYYYYY
There will always be the youngest in any class for whatever reason.

It shows the weakness in the maths teaching at the schools that Tory ministers attended that they think that

• all state schools can be above average
• all Year R kids can be in the middle of their ability set

maybe the IGCSE is not so great after all

We used to start school the sept after we turned five. Now it is four. So yes kids are starting school earlier!

It is crazy that da is expected to start school before he can speak

DD is summer born and I should be applying for her reception place about now. She is not ready, I can tell this now even though it's a year away as she has always been very young for her age and clingy to me.

I am planning to home educate for a few years, this is quite interesting as I may now apply for reception in 2017. It will suit DD to start reception at 5.3 so much better than 4.3.