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

Theresomething it is indeed a ridiculous statement. But those who shout loudest gain legitimacy for their crackpot theories. Month of birth may have a small impact on how a child performs at school but there are other factors which are far more significant.

I wonder what the new 'reason' will be when some of the kids who have deferred go on to underperform (as, statistically, some will be bound to do).

My late April born DS does not do as well academically as his sisters (he doesn't do badly but he isn't reaching his potential that's for sure). Following the logic put forward by some people in this thread I should be blaming the month of his birth for this - but his sisters are both genuine summer borns (not spring borns) and neither of them, actually, is more intelligent (in the way measured by Ed Psychs when evaluating for SpLDs) than he is. Attributing every problem a child has to the month of their birth (and indeed attributing every success an old in year child has to the month of their birth too) is very foolish and not a little insulting (to the old in year kids at least).

I'm totally gutted for my ds who started school last week age 4 yrs 3 weeks. He's to young for it and had I had the option of him starting in R next sept I'd have jumped at the chance.

I think that educationally being held back/deferring will be the thing that potentially confers a disadvantage, for high performers anyway. They aren't going to change the curriculum to cope with this. Kids that are ready for school at the 'normal' time will not magically cease to be ready for school. But if they defer a year at some point they will be kicking their heels waiting for the others to catch up - if they go to a decent pre-school that lets them run with it in terms of school work, reading etc, they will arrive in reception well ahead - but they will reach a ceiling at some point as they go through primary school. They will be ready to work at (old money) L7 or above when they are in Y6 and they won't be able to because they will still be at primary school. If they don't go to a preschool which lets them work at their own pace they will be bored and frustrated and kicking their heels at a much younger age.

It's a really badly thought out proposal which won't even fix the 'problem' it is designed to fix and will cause many more genuine problems for kids and parents.

Yes, I have a September (the 10th) born ds who is broadly average, at best. He doesn't care, we don't care. He loves school, sport and uses school more to socialise with his friends! Teachers and other children love him, he is witty and tries hard. His 2 October born sisters are doing very well academically, far more advanced than him. People comment on his advantageous September birthday, he has just turned 9 and there are children in his class who have just turned 8, doing considerably better academically than he is.

Actually this would be an ideal time for us because if it DID apply to children currently at school then he could go into Year 3 at his current school with his current classmates and then move schools (which is our intention) at the end of Year 3 to stepo back a year and go into Year 3 (again) at a different school.

Would probably never notice.......

However some kind of clarification as to whether this is for new starters or for existing pupils would be good.

MyIronLung
My son was 4 years and 6 days when he started school.
If I had been able to drop him down a year I am utterly certain that it would have been the worst thing to do.
It would have resulted in him being bored and disruptive later in his school career, rather than striving.
He's in Year 11 now BTW

I have read that it is for new starters only. The disruption and potential class size issues of moving children born between April and August in all current school years would mean it would not be viable option.

I agree it would cause chaos were it to be implimented within a school, and realistically only work on a change of school where the new school had a full intake.

However it would be good to have the option.

letsgetreal
Why have you just started another thread on another board about this?

Other thread is closed now

I do think this has the potential for disaster written all over it if the system moves to being based on parental choice to defer as opposed to deferring based on medical / social reasons as validated by a third party.

I've got a late May born child who was ready academically but struggled a bit socially. She would have really struggled if she was in a class with kids over a year older than her. So I would have joined the ranks of the people deferring my summer born child to stop her being disadvantaged by the changes.

Like many others, I live in an area where the schools are hugely over-subscribed and I cannot see how the local authority would be able to forward plan if this actually comes into place. Last minute bulge classes and children being sent miles away to the only available school are already a feature of many areas of London.

However given the way this government consults, I presume this is consulting to show the loud (and middle class) summer born lobby group that they are listening. I'd be quite surprised if much changes in practice, given the educational system doesn't have the money necessary to accommodate this additional flexibility.

Given the way this Government consults - as far as I can tell, they consult and then don't take a blind bit of notice, but make policy on the hoof. It doesn't affect many of them because they can opt out for Private education if they wish, where it's already easier to move to a different year.

LaVolcan
They do not consult. They make it up as they go along : Look at the decision making process behind the "living wage" FFS

This is Kite Flying.
It won't happen because Academy schools will not be ordered around by LEAs
and LEAs do not have the resources

What makes you think he will even need to 'catch up'? My DD2 didn't need to (academically. Size, that's a different matter! And I suspect she never will catch up since all the women in our family are small).

Yes, some children never do!

Ds had the mortifying experience of being ushered to the front of the dinner queue by a well-meaning teacher who thought he was a new Year 7. He was 15! I would have had to defer him by about four years in order to gain an advantage for him.

I think it's a great idea, as long as it's left to parental judgement rather than forced.

Before I became a teacher, I'd never even heard of there being a disadvantage for summer born babies. But over 8 years of teaching, I can't deny that even well into KS2 there is a very strong correlation between month of birth and academic attainment. In my year 5 class there is not a single summer born child in the top 2 ability groups for either Literacy or Maths (out of 5 groups). This trend continues all the way through their academic life as far as university, with obvious likely impacts on their chosen careers and earning potential. The significance is more notable with boys than girls, generally speaking.

So I think it's good that an attempt is being made to attempt to improve the life chances of the children born from April-August and hopefully help them catch up with their peers. Yes, of course there will be some issues, especially with school places etc but something should at least be tried despite possible obstacles.

Yes, of course there will always be exceptions, and I've come across some high achieving individual children born in July and August over the years. But they tend to be exceptions to the rule. It would obviously be wrong to hold those school-ready children back, so they should of course start earlier as per the existing system. It should be decided on a case by case judgement as to how school ready each child is.

Exactly 17 months younger is ridiculous. This is so short sighted.

And still not sure if and when it is happening. Will it be for next year?

Thanks, hopefully they will see sense.

Completely speculating here, what are the arguments against a system that lets schools hold kids in reception an extra year if they seem to need it? Then it would be down to the school rather than the parents, and it really could be used to narrow the range within a cohort rather than widen it. I'm thinking probably mixed nursery/reception EYFS so that there's always a mix of kids moving up and kids staying.

tiggytape I don't think that would happen - currently, if a child is given permission to enter reception a year later, they just apply again in the next round with everyone else. So if the admissions code changes soon, and people want to start 2017 instead of 2016, I'd expect they would have to give up their 2016 place and apply again next Autumn. So there shouldn't be places held over til the next year. Also it would hardly be 'half of all places' - not the April-August birthdays and unlikely to be all of them.

On the plus side for non deferring kids, if people do decline their allocated places for next year, they free up spaces for others on the waiting lists, so there are pros and cons.