holding children back a year

[royalair]

I've heard some mums in our toddler group recently saying that they would like to hold their summer born children back a year when it comes to starting school. None of these children seem overly young for their age (to me anyway) and have no special needs and seem emotionally and socially good. I can't help but think it's simply so they can have children who are 'the best' in terms of academic and sporting ability. My own children are summer born but I think they will benefit from being with older children when it's their turn to go to school rather than being the oldest by some months than everyone else.

Also I wonder if other parents (perhaps me included) might be a bit annoyed if a child who starts school a year later for example wins all sports day events simply because they are physically the strongest (ok so I'm competitive too!). And am I being naive never to have thought it necessary to hold my children back a year?

OP, why are you so obsessed with your child 'winning at Sports Day'?

I'm not at all & if they take after me then it's very unlikely they will be sporty no matter what month they were born
I simply wondered why the mums in my toddler group were considering holding their child back from the usual school start age simply based on month of birth & I wondered here if a competitive edge might be at play Especially when some of the mums were talking about it for children they may have in the future if they are summer born. I guess there's a perception that if you are summer born you won't do as well but from my reading around it today it seems that children do better with older peers so it may actually do a disservice to a summer born child by keeping them back.

I appreciate it is an accepted term but "holding back" is not reflecting current legal position. A child has to be in full time education on a prescribed day following their 5th birthday, for summer born children it is 31 August when their "peers" move into y1. The admission authority has to decide whether placing that child at that time is best in reception- to be allowed to receive phonics/maths/writing instructions with other children who are just starting school or to be placed directly into y1, often against parental wishes, and be not only the youngest in the class of established relationships but also a year of schooling behind. There is already a 15 month age span "built" into the current system , various admission authority policies do not superseed primary and EU (for now) legislation.

I cannot speculate about the past - maybe parents were happy to send their barely four year olds to school into reception or to y1 at 5 because reception was all playbased, I would not be happy as it is still largely adult-led. In addition expectations across year groups have increased dramatically and it is only natural that it treacles down into reception. I am also very concerned about lack of after school free play opportunities in our community and would prefer mine to have access to it as long as possible.

Children in my home country as well as in my husband's home country are not taught phonics/maths/writing at 4-5. They are , however, offered activities that promote focus, listening and language skills, self-regulation and ability to function in groups. Reception class in my local school focus very heavily on academic side and I personally don't think it will work for my summer born who is very outdoorsy and active child. I don't say everyone should do it neither. Courses for horses I'd say.

I deferred my January born son for a year (in Scotland). It was the right decision for my son and I was glad for the option. If it were my younger son in that position I wouldn't have needed to as they have completely different personalities (he was April though so was five when he started anyway).

In doing this there are a couple of girls in the year above him who are younger, but kids really don't notice or care about this stuff.

The headteacher took us to one side and said she had never seen a child suffer from being deferred a year but had seen plenty who were in the school system before they were ready who had struggled their way through school.

I wouldn't worry about what anyone else is planning, it might seem like some people are doing for an 'edge' but in reality they're probably just trying to do the best by their children, just as you are.

I simply wondered why the mums in my toddler group were considering holding their child back from the usual school start age simply based on month of birth

I've seen articles in various places that say that, as a group, summer born babies tend to do less well than autumn born babies.
If these mum's have seen similar articles, they may be concerned that their children starting school before they're ready may lead to a situation where their child doesn't achieve their potential because they're struggling to cope with school at first and then struggling to catch up. Whereas if they started a year later, they'd be more mature and might therefore thrive from the outset.

Obviously there's a huge amount of variation between individuals. Many summer born children are absolutely fine, some autumn born children struggle. But that might be part of the reason why they're talking about deferring, rather than simply being competitive or wanting their child to be better than the rest.

Btw, as you have a summer born child you may be interested in this study by Tammy Campbell www.cls.ioe.ac.uk/library-media/documents/0ability%20grouping%20and%20the%20month%20of%20birth%20effect%20Preliminary%20evidence%20from%20the%20MCS%20-%20T%20Campbell%20-%20March%202013%20(FINAL).pdf

"This paper lays out a hypothesis that ability grouping in early primary school may be instrumental in creating the heavily evidenced ‘month of birth effect’, where relatively younger pupils within each school year group are disadvantaged, academically and extra- academically, compared to their relatively older peers."

I think it is very useful to be aware of if you have summer borns in a school that uses ability grouping from the start.

I have deferred my Ds who was suppose to be starting this September. He now starts reception in September 17.
It's not as easy for them to start out of cronilogical age group as people think.
My Ds has autism and is non verbal etc, infact it's like still having a baby.
We was given this decision with a lot of supporting evidence.
If Ds didn't have these issues he would of started this September with his peers, as I know my oldest Ds who was one of the oldest in year was more than ready for school earlier than he could go.
Sorry if that doesn't make much sense on my phone

thanks for the interesting info bemybebe.
Judgeaway glad you got the help you needed to delay your son's start- hope he enjoys reception and gets all the support he needs.

Does anyone know what happens in terms of 11+ if a child is in the chronological year below? Do they sit the test with their year group?

My daughter started school at 4. We had the option of deferring but we felt she was ready for it and never regretted it. Academically she did well and graduated from university a couple of years ago. She even won on sports day occasionally 😄😄

I don't think that any child unless they have Sen/medical problems/disabilities should actually be allowed to start school later. I'm sick to death of parents playing the martyr claiming they have the automatic right to defer their child. Well they don't, and and far as I'm concerned most children will be ready for school and it's the parents being precious and just can't accept it. They need to stop being so mard, children grow up it's inevitable. Sorry.

I think the answer is royalair no one knows about 11 plus. Also if the schools are academies then they set their own rules. So a LA who had allowed a child to be held back couldn't force a grammar to let a child sit out of year. There is also a question of whether the child would be allowed to sit twice - so yr 5 with their correct age group and if they didn't pass yr 6. Also the local grammar to us weights by age so younger in year need lower score to pass, would the school do the opposite and set a higher pass park?? Minefield and potentially open to challenge by those who were prevented sitting a year too old or the one who lost out if an older child is allowed to sit.
Out of curiosity i've checked our local grammar and it states you need to be 11 between 1/9 and 31/8 to sit the test. Other applicants outside the normal age group will be considered carefully on the basis of the circumstances of each case.
Also you can't think oh we are not a grammar area, grammar wasn't even on my radar when DD was 4, no grammar schools where I grew up or where we lived. Moved when DD was 7 and we are now in a grammar area.

This was common when I was a kid (over 30 years ago) but I didn't think you could do this anymore?

I don't think that any child unless they have Sen/medical problems/disabilities should actually be allowed to start school later.

Problem with that is, SEN aren't always obvious at the point when you're doing school applications.

Take DS1. August born. The closing date for primary school applications was before he was 3.5 yrs. Nursery had mentioned that he was a bit behind the other children in his social / emotional / behavioural development, but had also been saying they didn't think he was far enough behind for it to be a major thing, he was the youngest so immature etc etc. So I was concerned about whether he'd be ready to start Reception at barely 4, but in a wondering if he needed more time to mature way. The possibility of SEN hadn't crossed my mind.

And now? Because of the difficulties he was having at school, having started Reception at barely 4, school have put him down a year, raised concerns about SEN, and DS1 has been referred to a developmental paediatrican. From what the paediatrician and school have said, my understanding is that not all possible SEN will be assessed in a 4 yr old - e.g. ADHD won't be assessed until a child is at least 5. Dyslexia can't be assessed until they've started to teach reading and writing.
Assessing for ASD is something that the paediatrician is talking about for DS1, but if he does have ASD, it's not severe enough to have been obvious to me or DH, and in nursery, the signs that are causing concern to school and the paediatrician were assumed to be down to immaturity rather than possible SEN.
We still don't know if DS1 does have a SEN. The assessments the paediatrician is talking about will take months to happen, and she's said that there may not be a diagnosis to be made. It's still possible that he's just on the extremely immature end of the normal spectrum.

But anyway, some of these parents concerned that their children aren't ready for school may actually have children with SEN that haven't yet been picked up on, rather than just being precious parents who are unable to accept that their children are growing up. It's not always as simple as all that.

The policy in our LEA is that summer born children can be deferred, and can enter reception a year later.

We have deferred my son. His preschool agree it's the right decision for him, given the school he was allocated.

I don't see it as holding him back a year, but holding him back 2 weeks. And it's the right thing for him, including considering the setting he is in, and the setting he will be entering.

Incidentally, he will be 4 in August. He's currently wearing shorts that are 18-24 months. He's never going to be the biggest, tallest, strongest, fastest at sports day

Hughes32 I'm inclined to agree with you where there are no special needs then I think it's unfair to all children to allow a child an advantage (perceived or otherwise) over children who just abide by the system as it is.

I think that's what got me thinking when I thought of 11+ and I would honestly say I would be annoyed if a child (perhaps mine) lost out on a place because a child from a previous cohort got the place.

InitialsError I take your point too and I think it's equally possible that where a parent thinks their child wouldn't cope with school at age 4 it might be that school would be able to help with these difficulties and provide professional help within the system and access resources and support early rather than putting off the problem for a further year.

Anyway I really appreciate all the thoughts. For now, and luckily touch wood, we don't seem to be dealing with any special needs with our two so I'll be going with things as they are and will go with the advice at the time.

I would like just to point out again that according to primary legislation children don't have to be at school at all before they reach compulsory school age. It is parental decision, not a state decision, and parents don't have to have any particular reasons or reasons that are considered "valid" such as "exceptional circumstances" or for the child to have SEN or any emotional or social immaturity or any other "difficulty" to be sent to school at CSA and not before; and once the child starts school admissions authorities must make the decision in the best interest of the child. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that missing just a few days of education is very damaging to a child, let along missing a whole year.

There are plenty of admission authorities that allow children to be admitted out of chronological cohort without any evidence - Herts, Liverpool, Southwark, Devon state they will admit any summer born child into reception at 5 should their parents request it; Hampshire allows the same, they just don't say it is automatic, Brighton&Hove allow vast majority. There is nothing in legislation that constitutes a statutory barrier to be admitted out of chronological cohort. You just have to be in possession of the postcode that will allow it (so Hampshire and definitely not Surrey). How is that fair?

I think England needs to clear up this situation. Either ,please , lower the CSA and stop kidding everyone that children start school at 5 in this country and parents have any say over it or stop the admission authorities arbitrarily forcing children who just turn 5 to miss a whole year of education. And btw, it is not just reception, but they can and do force children to "catch up" against parents wishes - eg "by the end of KS1" as Surrey told me - only for the reason of preserving "bureaucratic neatness".

Tiggytape, of all issues above you overlook one that it is

1. Parental choice when to send to school.

1. Decision about year group must be made at the point of entry in the best interest of individual child.

All the rather questionable issues of gaming admissions system and gaining competitive advantage are not relevant when considering what is in the best interest of individual child. This is the current law and not just SAC, but EU and UN that we still must follow.

Matthew effect is exactly what inflexible admissions authorities subject children when they force them to miss a very important foundation year of academic learning, settling into the structure of school and building relationships.

Btw, I have never looked into 11+, but don't children take it in the autumn of the final year of primary, so year 6? If so, would not those, who are summer borns who enter primary at CSA be just over 11 and definitely NOT 12?

Correct me if I am wrong about my summer born age calculations...

Reception - "normally" just turn 4, but if admitted at CSA just turn 5.
Y1 - "normally" just turn 5, but if admitted at CSA just turn 6.
Y2 - "normally" just turn 6, but if admitted at CSA just turn 7...
...Y6 - "normally" just turn 10, but if admitted at CSA just turn 11.

So, for summer borns who sit 11+ with adopted cohort they will be aged 11, not 12.

bemybebe test is for for children turning 11 between 1/9/16 and 31/8/17 so correct yr 6 age for our local grammar school. A held back child will have turned 11 April/May/June/July/August 2016 falling within the eligibility dates for the previous intake. I assume you would have to let them sit exam start of year 5 which is a hurdle to overcome knowing the yr 5 and yr 6 syllabus when you are just starting yr 5. Then apply under the special circumstances if your child fails the year after? or don't let them sit yr 5 and take your chances on the grammar permitting to sit out of year. Difficult and open to challenge from both sides, child who hasn't been permitted sit out of year and child who has missed out on place due to older child.

This sort of issue needs clarifying as does the situation if you move area or want to enter an academy. It is all well and good saying x area lets you but awful if you then move to y area and suddenly child has to go to a new school and the year above.

FWIW my DD is at a private school and there are a couple of children out of year. It isn't encouraged due to hassles it can cause. One child left my DD's class, she was a mid August birthday and EAL, she was actually only 2 weeks older than the next oldest child. It was intended she would go private at secondary. Family circumstances changed and she went into state and skipped yr 4.

Thank you, really useful. That said, my calculations were more directed at tiggy who is worried that parents of sb are outmanuvering others and sending their children to sit 11+ at 12.

Devils advocate out of year child is allowed to sit and pips correct year child to place. Child who loses out is sent to private school as that is the only other academically selective provision locally so potential financial loss of £80,000 plus. You can see why some grammar schools may say child must sit at correct age, why open themselves up to challenge. The admissions info makes no reference to what school year the child is just born between x and y date (some could be from overseas, HE etc) . So your out of year child can sit the exam with their correct birth year so you have no complaint. Particularly as there are moves to make test untutorable in some areas so it is to test the raw ability of every child born in that 12 month window.
Not many areas are grammar, more often I suspect will be schools refusing to accept children out of year at secondary yr 7 or if you move area that will be problematic.
I've read on here before there may be issues with kids aging out of some apprenticeships/eligibility for college courses too. So not a simple thing to change and massive potential repercussions.
Sports too would need looking at - if the rules state child must be x age they wont be eligible to play with the rest of the class and implications for Risk assessment etc if kids compete out of age - if your child is badly injured playing rugby by a big child 15 months older who shouldn't be playing for the under 15's it is the school or sports association who will be criticised/sued.

I appreciate there maybe some changes necessary, but 12 month year groups are themselves completely arbitrary, they actually don't have any legal basis. The legal situation NOW is that parents can send the term after 5 and the admissions authorities NOW have to make the decision in the best interest of the child.

Don't forget , some children do have SEN and inability to admit them into reception at CSA will be viewed at failure to make reasonable adjustments and viewed as disability discrimination at tribunal.