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?

Deceleration can go into section F (I think) of ehcp to make it enforceable but also to ensure that nobody attempts to move the child up a year against parental wishes.

Liverpool accept all requests without question.

It is not entirely council's choice. They have to make the decision in the best interest of the child. Sac 2.17a. That child's best interest and nobody/nothing else. Since we hear so much about detrimental effect of missing just a few days of school what is so important about being educated in arbitrary 12 month groups that justifies missing a whole year. What cab possibly happen to that child if in most cases that child is just a few weeks older?

I totally agree with the concerns raised by TiggyTape at 14:44, about educated, middle class parents being the people who will try to do this, and that will just widen the already gaping gap so much further

This was common when I was a kid (over 30 years ago) but I didn't think you could do this anymore?
Really ? Where were you educated ? It wasn't happening in my part of the country.

In the 60s, you didn't start until the term you turned 5 (and I understand this carried on through until fairly recent years in some parts of the country) but that meant you only got 1 term in Reception if you were a Summer born, but still went through from (what is now called) Yr1 and through the rest of your schooling with all other children born between 1st Sept and 31st Aug alongside you.

Those taking about about those more disadvantaged are most in danger of being left behind by the system where parents decide think about the following.

Right now the decision is made by some admission authorities on the basis of evidence that is submitted alongside the request. That evidence can outline parental reasons for the decision, it also can be professional evidence - specialist reports Educational psychologists, OT, Salt, nursery or preschool. The effort - both financial and emotional- that goes into these can be emmence. Parents have to understand the law and system inside out, argue their case, pull apart counterargumets by the authorities, go down complain procedures. The financial commitments are massive - to commission private EP report costs many hundreds of pounds. Tell me, does it look like the movie st disadvantaged have fair ability to argue and financially support their case?

Then local authorities employ panels of experts to evaluate the evidence. Often it will be including the same educational psychologists, early years specialists, head teachers, all just to see if a barely 5 year old should be forced to miss a year of school. Does it look like a good way to spend public cash in the age of asterity when SEN children desperately need help? I don't think so.

Educated and middle class navigate the system as best they can already. But those who are not so well off to commission heaps of private specialist paper or don't have language or confidence to challenge the system- they really are left behind.

Tgere are other means to support the disadvantaged, for example through free extended nursery provision of childcare is the issue or other means. Not leaving the faulty system of postcode lottery as it is now. That benefits nobody but admissions departments, specialists who benefit from extra commissions and tutors for summer borns "to prepare them for school"...

Or say the compulsory school age in this country for summer born children only is not the term after five but before. Legislate the discriminatory way sb children are treated by some admissions authorities and be done with it.

I don't honestly think parents of a potentially top of class child (whether sporty or academic) would think of deferring. You don't want your child to not have peers. If they love football, you want them to be in a class with kids they'll enjoy playing football with.

I agree with catkind. If they are already above what is expected for the age, I can't imagine parents deffer so the dc can get even more advantage. It will be dull boring school life for them.

Not getting involved in this debate, but someone up thread said that Surrey definitely won't allow children to be admitted outside of their age group. This isn't necessarily true; I know someone who is starting reception this coming Sept who should have started last September, no SEN.

Thank you Debbie. The problem with Surrey is not that they won't agree any requests at all but that there is no system how they agree. So that several parents I know who were allowed reception at CSA on the basis of their child being summer born and nothing else, yet a friend with a speech delayed child with OT and EP care was refused as are a lot of other parents with children with/without Sen.

Yet neighboring Hampshire approves all requests.

" several parents I know who were allowed reception at CSA on the basis of their child being summer born and nothing else"

How can you be sure there was nothing else?

Ds is 13 and I remember how advanced his best friend was and still is! His birthday is 3rd September and my ds's is in March. The top table in his class consisted of September-January born dc.
Coincidence? Maybe but possibly not.
My dd is currently in reception and the ability range is vast according to other parents, dd is February born and very bright and a quick learner but her best friend is not five until July and is streets ahead of my dd with her reading.

In some areas of Scotland for example almost all Jan/Febs defer - not because they aren't ready for school as parents freely admit - but because parents think it give their DC an advantage starting at 5.5 and older.

Tiggy, the one doesn't exclude the other. Children who aren't ready for school at 4.5 will have an advantage by starting at 5.5 when they ARE ready. An advantage, that is, compared to THEMSELVES if they had started earlier.
And actually, many if not most children in the UK would have an advantage by starting a year later, compared to themselves starting at the (current, arbitrary) 'correct' time. Even many September-born children would benefit by starting reception at age 6 (nearly), starting Y1 at age 7, sitting KS1 SATS at age 81/2, sitting 11+ at age 12, etc. (compared to themselves doing the same at age 5, 6, 71/2, 11, etc.).

Now one might debate if this is the case because children start school too soon full stop, or if it is because school today involves pressures and stresses and expectations that are not age-appropriate. Like sitting SATS under exam conditions at age 6/7. Or like having to sit, try to concentrate, work, often independently, on science, maths, English, every morning (three whole hours) five days a week, in a crowded noisy classroom with only one break, in Y1 at age 5/6. IMHO we should either totally reclaim EY and KS1 for 'learning through play', or we should send everyone to school a year (or more) later than we do now.

This has nothing to do with being the youngest in year - which someone, after all, is always going to be. It has everything to do with school expectations being out of sync with children's development. Being youngest in year, IF school is at a level appropriate to your development, is probably barely a disadvantage at all, and may even be an advantage.

I say this as a mum to a late August born (didn't get home from hospital until September) Y1 DS who is in his 'correct' year and on top tables. In our home country however he would not be at school yet. He wouldn't be starting this Autumn either, he'd be starting in 2017 (as one of the oldest in his year, as the cut-off is different), with children who will barely be able to recognise their names, and count to 20; when he will be going into Y3. And I have no doubt that this would have been better for him on all levels including academically and socially.

How about changing it all around? Everyone starts school a year later than they do now, but parents can request that their child starts a year early if they feel it would be in the child's best interest?

(Losing a whole school year cohort - by making everyone from cohort x onwards start a year later - would also take a lot of pressure off school space - for the next 7 years every school would have a spare classroom, to use as they wish! )

irvine I know because the parents told me. Don't misunderstand me, I don't believe their cases any less "deserving", I think it is parental choice when to send to school and the child must not be penalised by the admission authority for denying a year worth of academic instruction and support during social and emotional transition.

tiggy you mentioned you don't know what UN and EU laws I refer to when talking about obligations to act in the interest of individual child only. It is European Union Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 24, Clause 2) states that in all actions relating to children, “the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration.”

UNCRC states The best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration in all actions affecting children (article 3). English case law also determines that this includes learning opportunities.

So, just to make it clear, if a parent sends their sb child to school at CSA and admissions say the child has to go into y1 because there is not enough evidence- it is unlawful, they must provide clear reasons why y1 entry is in the best interest of that child (sac 2.17a) ). They also cannot say it is parents fault for sending "late" and therefore being admitted into Y1 because that is where "chronological cohort" children have moved into.

What I find really sad and hypocritical is that some local authorities FINE parents of CSA child who miss a few days of reception due to unauthorised absence, but if a CSA sb child is requested by parents to start in reception they are denied it. Source - council responses to FOI requests on whatdotheyknow

I'm from a completely different perspective - South African, and formal schooling starts in the year a child turns 7. (It's easy because it goes along the calendar year).

I was sent to school 'early' - I was 5, turning 6 in March. In primary school it didn't matter, but in high school I felt very much less mature than my peers. Back then it was in vogue to send kids early, and many people my age (40s) have said they thought they were disadvantaged by it.

A lot of research shows how beneficial it is for children to spend as much of their early childhood education just being busy with free play. That develops social skills and physical strength, and provide the building blocks for academic success.

I'm glad my kids aren't expected to go to school at 4, and if I could choose, I'd delay the process. It would have nothing to do with being competitive, but for the emotional wellbeing of my children.

Personally, I'd never be miffed if an older child beat my child at a sporting event. I would never expect any child of mine to win a sporting event in the first place. Age alone would not be the reason they won!

I agree with posters who say that this policy will simply increase the advantage that already advantaged children born into articulate, middle class, living in stable accommodation families have.

Deferring school until after 5th birthday should be mandatory for all children or none.

Someone I know doing it says that the school is obliged to hold a reception place open to her son, and offer him another one next year, meaning that they will have an empty space with no funding for this year.

If that's true, it means that this particular heavily oversubscribed school will have an empty place in reception which is a crazy situation.

Someone I know doing it says that the school is obliged to hold a reception place open to her son, and offer him another one next year, meaning that they will have an empty space with no funding for this year.

What, so her child has a reception place offered for September 2016, and she thinks this means the school has to offer her child a reception place for September 2017???

If I've understood that properly, I'm sure that's wrong.
The way I understand it works - at least where I live, who knows, perhaps it's different in different areas ?? - is, if you're offered a reception place for September 2016, your child has to start reception in that academic year (so summer term minimum) or you forfeit the place at the school. Which could mean skippIng reception altogether and having to make an in-year application for spare year 1 places. Risky if the schools you prefer are typically oversubscribed.
If you want to defer entry till September 2017, you have to have that agreed with the LEA and apply for reception places for September 2017 on an even basis with all other applicants for September 2017. Whether your child would have been offered a place for September 2016 is irrelevant.

It would be better for most children to start formal all day schooling at five, but it's based more on opinion than facts. A term or two of nursery would be enough to learn social mores. Two years of nursery seems like a lot, especially if the chikd comes from an home with attentive parents.
My brother fell asleep in first grade at six with his head on the desk. He does have dyslexia, but school days are long for little ones.

As for deferring because a chikd is small for his age, that's not a good reason at all. Sports are good for fitness and to learn good sportsmanship, but are a very small part of life. Except in Texas, where people have an unnatural obsession with American foitball

I live in one of those countries where school starts at 6 1/2. Parents still say their child is not ready for school and put in requests that the child stays and extra year in kindergarten ( which is normally 3 years). They then start year 1 at 7 1/2 . I personally think this is a little late to start to learn how to read and write. Primary school here is also only 4 years of which the grades for the last 2 years count towards gaining a grammar or middle school place.
I have been told that the problems when educated out of year group usually show up in the early teens.