anyone for a summer born kids academy in London?

[FedericaO]

my dd is a late august born, she is doing fine a school (entering year 1) but we are in the private sector and the ambition of what she should be able to do to pass 7+ in 1 and half year time is high
we want her to be a happy, confident girl that is happy to do sport, feel she is clever and do not find difficult everything in the class. She is now biting her nails and eating her hair and she is not even 5!
We want top class education in a enviroment that understand the difficulties of her birth date. As they say ""she has potential" (I hate it as there is always a but after) and I want her to be in a school environment that allow that potential to come out
We are planning to keep her a year behind with the risk that many school will close the door and I found this inflexibility so frustrating as her birthday is only a week away from a different academic year
Anyway - I was wondering if there is anyone that feel the same. I was thinking it might be time that we as parent, take that inflexibility away
So I have a though to create a summer born academy - primary school from year 1 I think initially
Does anyone think it is a good idea?

"
DS born early summer (mid-April but 8 weeks premature) who has just finished Yr1is currently one of the many who bucks the trend."

I imagine that being born premature does potentially make a child a risk of learning difficulties. I am glad your Ds is healthy. However I think that describing an April birthday as a summer birthday is ridiculous.

What need us more flexibility for August and July borns. Even then I do not think deferral should be allowed unless there is significant delay or special needs. A deferral should not be done just to make little middle class Tommy top of the class by being the oldest. I also would like the flexibility to put September/ October borns in the year above. Professionals should decide which children defer rather than parents.

I am so relieved dd has an April birthday. If her birthday had been in September she would have been so bored. In fact she was easily ready to start school around the time she turned 4. She was lucky to be a school nursery class where she could start learning. It was perfect for her as she was intellectually stretched but not over tired.

Zad716 I think there's actually no way of making it more fair, I think whichever system is chosen there will always be an advantage to some, unfortunately. (White British boys are the most under performing group and its hard to get girls to do STEM for example.)

Even if every child was say, taught and tested in classes by the term in which their birthday fell, there would still be a disadvantage to those tested in September after a long holiday. Plus when do you test summer babies? August in the first term and July in the last? I can't see this working. Plus, the ability range in younger years is so great (6 years in reading ability for example, probably more in a totally un selective school) that a lot would need to be in a set outside their age range anyway. Plus Admissions would be a nightmare!

ReallyTired I only describe April / May born as "summer babies" because all the research puts them in this group, which actually makes sense to me given they'd turn 5 after the start of the third term. FWIW my DC suffers from prematurity-type problems caused by a serious medical condition. I'd love a piece of paper saying "for all purposes please treat as an August baby". But it's not going to happen!

Zed all the research shows that ability setting in primary has little or no effect

I think there's actually no way of making it more fair

There is, but it's pretty much impossible outside a world of giant super-sized primary schools, and completely new staff contracts, and fighting an all-fronts battle with parents who want to go on holiday.

You start all children in the month of their fifth (or whatever) birthday. September children work roughly the current pattern. November children work very slightly longer terms, totalling an extra three days per year. December children work an extra six days a year. All the way through to August children, who work an extra 30 days per year, getting only six weeks instead of twelve weeks holiday (you see the problem).

They all arrive at secondary school having had the same amount of teaching, at about the same ages all the way through.

You could play tunes on this and work in terms of teacher-hours (ie, a child working 30 hours a week in a 30 pupil class counts 1 teacher-hour) so that the number of teacher hours is the same by year 7, which would involve the August stream being a bit longer in terms of hours and also a bit smaller in terms of class sizes (ie, needs more staff).

it's basically impossible, outside very large cities, because it requires 12 streams, so either a super-school which doesn't exist or a federation of four to six standard sized primaries.

That was the system in the past I'm not sure it led to equality

That was the system in the past I'm not sure it led to equality

Where? I outlined the rising five policy upthread (I know the details, as my brother and I, being children of the 1960s, experienced it) and it's nothing like my hypothetical scheme.

But why should my very bright June and August born children have to have less holiday than children born earlier in the school year just because SOME summer borns are a little behind?

Some parents can't accept the idea that their darling is not destined to be top of the class. The idea of not allowing summer borns the same amount of holiday is stupid. How would that work with siblings?

If there is going to be school in th summer holidays then why not enrol the children who are failing to achieve? Certainly I think there could be a case for complusory summer school for secondary school children with low attendance. Dd's school has a lot of Sen intervention after school hours.

All children need a balance between work rest and play. The present system is better than what some people on this thread are proposing.

Nothing to do with rising fives ...children started school on their fifth birthday rather than termly so continuous admissions of course this further disadvantaged summer birthdays under a tripartite education system

Why not just move out of London, into a less competitive environment?

There was plenty of schools in places which are an hour's commute to London which fit your requirements. And in the long run children in these schools don't seem to do worse than in the ultra-competitive London private school environment.

(Or, of course, as suggested above, just transfer into the state sector in London.)

Private schools are much more flexible on age boundaries than state schools because they're setting their own rules so it should be pretty easy to find a decent school who'll consider her within the next year's intake.

not true in most cases. undersubscribed schools might consider this

Personally I'd just move her to a decent state school who can nuture in a supportive environment and allow DC to progress at own pace. Why put her in a 7+ system and watch her struggle?