Defer reception place for summer born child

[Cascada]

DS's birthday is early June. I am considering (somewhat late in the day) trying to defer his reception place (he already has a place) for September 2017 so that he starts in April 2018.

My understanding based on the information on my LEA's website is that because we're looking to do this rather than delay by a full year that this is something that we have the right to do rather than needing to request the school or LEA's permission to do. This is because the info says once you get a place you can take it:
"Immediately (from September 2017);
 On a part-time basis until the beginning of the term after their 5th birthday; or
 Defer your child’s admission until the beginning of the term after their 5th birthday but not beyond the beginning of the final term of the school year for which it was made". It then goes on to suggest you speak to the school to discuss these options.

I have not yet discussed with the school and am unsure as to their attitude towards this - they are already talking about some of the reception kids potentially going on a part time basis if more appropriate so my expectation is they view that as preferable rather than deferring the place to April. For various reasons I would prefer to hold my son back fully - he just doesn't seem to be ready to start yet. I didn't raise it when we first got the place cos I wanted to see how he progressed over the next few months.

However, I just spoke to the LEA in the first instance and they said that the school would need to agree to the deferral - i.e. it was not just a discretion of the parents. This seems at odds with the guidance pasted above.

I would be very grateful to hear about people's experience of this. I would kind of prefer to be clear about whether it's a right that I have or a discretion of the school before I approach them about it. Thanks in advance.

And for the record, SATS are not done by age, they are taken at the end of a Key Stage.

The Year One phonics test is done by age. However a school can choose not to enter a child (although the child will still count in their pass / fail statistics). If a child fails, they simply retake at the end of Year 2 (or year one, if a child starts Reception at CSA).

"So can an LEA/school legally force a child to start in year one if they've deferred a year?" A parent can request that the child starts reception not year 1 and the school/LA must consider that request rather than have a blanket ban but that is all. There is no guarantee your request will be granted which means your child misses reception.
"My understanding was that children have a legal right to so many years of education, and by forcing them to skip reception, they've then lost a year." They are not being forced to miss a year. They are missing a year due to parental choice.
In England a child must be in full time education (education not school) from the September after their fifth birthday. A summer born starting in Y1 the September after their fifth birthday is fulfilling that requirement.

Cascada, sorry for late post, but thought I'd add my experience. I have a summer born child and ignored much criticism for "delaying" his formal schooling. I took some criticism from others initially for "holding" him back and not putting him in school shortly after his 4th birthday when all his peers at nursery started school...at the age of 4. I was told so many times that the school attached to the nursery had a "play based" Reception Class and it was very similar to a nursery environment. I held firm and kept him in nursery until his 5th birthday! I am so pleased I did! That additional year in nursery was ALL play and craft based and lots of fun with free time...without any pressure to sit down and learn formally.

What a hellish shock I got when he did start Reception at the age of 5!! Our jolly expectations of "play based" was swiftly replaced with the horrid reality of 4 and 5 year old children spending much of their day either sat on chairs or on the carpet learning phonics and numeracy...and a hellish amount of religion thrown in for good measure too! The RC in that particular school was formal and so far removed from play based learning....it also had a serious issue with bullying. My happy, confident and carefree DC was crushed emotionally by that Reception Class and we were compelled to change schools. He transferred to another school with a proper Early Years Reception Class where he has thrived. Waiting until the age of 5 was so right for us.

Not all Reception Classes are "play based" so always a good idea to check out the ethos of the school for the Early Years...by listening to other parents etc. HT sometimes say what you want to hear so you choose their school.

I read somewhere above about children needing to be kept with peers at the age of 4......what absolute tosh!!! Small children do not establish the strong friendship bonds associated with older children.

As a family we are so pleased that we did not follow the trend in England by sending our DC off to school at the age of 4! He benefited so much from having that additional space and time just to play...without the addition of early morning school starts and the more formal routines of school...there is plenty of time to establish those!

You know your child best.

Our Summer born dc is starting in reception at 5 yrs old. Not because we're pushy but because I have real concerns about the expectations of the primary curriculum.

My concern is year 1 at just 5 yrs old. All my local schools talk about transition from EYFS but in reality it's homework, limited playtime and sitting at desks with sanctions and interventions for children who struggle to sit still and write for extended periods. The evidence is clear that sb children are more likely to need interventions, more likely to describe themselves negatively as learners and perform worse on average throughout their education.

If the curriculum was more child centred I would be less concerned; but the older and more resilient my child is the better the chance they can thrive rather than cope with an increasingly inflexible school system.

I never considered joining part yr as that compounds their disadvantage by reducing their time in school but with the same expectations as older children.

Is there not a danger his place will be given to another child? You can start him later, but I'm not sure the school has to keep his place open for him. If not, he might then have to start at an under-subscribed school, ie. a school nobody else wanted?

You can start him later, but I'm not sure the school has to keep his place open for him

They do. If you defer until later in the year as the OP is proposing the school is required to keep the place open. You will only lose the place if you defer by a full year.

Is that true for foundation schools and academies, too? I know our school gives the place to the first child on the waiting list after three weeks.

Is that true for foundation schools and academies, too? I know our school gives the place to the first child on the waiting list after three weeks

Yes. The Admissions Code applies to all state funded schools.

If the child simply fails to show up and the parents don't respond to attempts to contact them the school is free to reallocate the place. However, if the parents inform the school that they intend to defer until later in the school year the school must hold the place open.

I assume that if schools agree to huge numbers of delayed starts, until after Easter, they miss out on funding for those children? Staffing becomes very difficult too if money is reduced. This may colour thinking.

What do schools do if 10 want to delay a whole year when a school is always full? How could you make 40 spaces available the following year if your pan is 30? (Assuming all 30 who would like to go don't defer of course?) How can a school manage this year on year with so many variations? Who does not get a place if 10 defer a whole year? Seems unfair on the children in the cohort below.

I would be very keen for our may 2013 boy to go a year later as would his nursery teacher and Ed psych grandma.

I'm even more keen now I realise that many people with summer borns in our borough are delaying so he won't be nearly the youngest, he will be more than a year younger than the eldest (April 2012). The poor end August 2013 kids will be nearly 18mths younger.

Unfortunately we neighbour an 11+ area and noone knows what will happen at transition to secondary. My dh thinks that it is just too big a risk to take so wants him to go with his chronological group, albeit part time.

He seems to be going to be disadvantages yet again- only 3 terms of nursery, no school nursery spot available as all taken up by kids older in the year, inherent disadvantage of being younger/smaller/less socially developed and now this

Who does not get a place if 10 defer a whole year? Seems unfair on the children in the cohort below.

The policy published in my local councils primary school applications guidance says that, if you want your child to defer a full year (this is different from deferring part of a year, so having a child start school in the summer term), you have to apply for this alongside a normal application.

If the council refuse the deferral, the normal application goes through, child is allocated a school place in their "normal" age group.
If the council agree the deferral, the normal application is withdrawn, and the parents have to reapply for primary schools the following year, with the application treated the same as for any child applying in that year.
So the deferred child doesn't get a place reserved for them or anything like that, and they seem to have written their policy to try and avoid parents having 2 goes at getting DC into favoured schools.

I guess how unfair it'll be on the cohort below - in terms of more children applying for places in the cohort - will depend on how variable the proportion of children deferring a full year is.

I assume that if schools agree to huge numbers of delayed starts, until after Easter, they miss out on funding for those children

Yes, there are potential funding issues but school funding is very complicated. Schools cannot use funding to refuse a request to defer.

What do schools do if 10 want to delay a whole year when a school is always full

I was talking about deferring until later in the year, which is what the OP wants to do. If you defer a full year you lose your place. If you enter Y1 after deferring for a year you will need to find a school with Y1 places available. If you want to enter Reception you would apply as part of the normal admissions round and take your chances with everybody else.

I imagine there would be lots of disgruntled parents in the year below if summer born DCs from the year above took a lot of places meaning children in the correct cohort were turned away but without the summer born deferrals would have got in. Every deferral could have quite a big impact on others applying and for the finances of the school. Every penny counts these days and lots of deferrals down to the year group below could be financially significant, especially for small schools. Actually, it could be a nightmare for some schools and planning staffing becomes very difficult. Sometimes rights also bring responsibility.

Not sure I understand
If 2013 summer borns delay then the 2018/19 yr classmates won't be larger as presumably a similar number of 2014 summer borns will also defer. Should reach equilibrium v quickly once the initial years deferrals happen (when it will be easier for others to get in, not harder)
Only potential spanner is somewhere down the line if they decide it can't happen any more for some reason or other

Every deferral could have quite a big impact on others applying and for the finances of the school

You still don't seem to have understood the way this works.

A summer born who defers for a full year will have no impact on finances at all. Their place will be taken by the first person on the waiting list so the school will still be full and will be funded accordingly. They won't have lost a single penny.

A summer born who defers for a full year and goes into Reception won't have a guaranteed place at the school for the following year. They have to take their chances with everyone else. They are treated just like any other applicant. They don't get any additional priority. So the only impact on children in the correct cohort is that there are more applicants.

A summer born who defers for a full year and goes into Y1 has no impact on anyone at all.

That's assuming the school is over subscribed. In rural areas it could make a huge difference to a single form entry school.
It would also have implications for the following year meaning four year old children who would normally be guaranteed a place in their village school having to travel many hours to the nearest school with places.

From a funding point of view, if the school is undersubscribed a pupil deferring a full year will reduce finances but the school will also have fewer pupils so it cannot really be described as losing out on funding. If the pupil goes into Reception the school will still receive the same funding over the time that pupil is in the school as they would if they had entered at the normal time.

Four year olds the following year will only be impacted if the school is oversubscribed as a result of people deferring and being allowed to enter Reception. I think the idea they would have to travel "many hours" is a bit of an exaggeration. Anything over 45 minutes each way is regarded as unreasonable for this age group.

But I was mainly responding to BubblesBuddy who seems to have got hold of the wrong end of the stick about what happens when a pupil defers for a full year. And, just to be clear, I am not convinced that people deferring for a full year and entering Reception is a good idea. Whilst there is plenty of evidence of problems related to summer born children, there is little evidence that deferring for a full year solves those problems. Indeed, there is some evidence that it may actually make the problem worse.

"Anything over 45 minutes each way is regarded as unreasonable for this age group." So what's the alternative if there isn't space in the local school and the nearest school is over 45minutes bus ride away? My friend's children had over an hour journey to their nearest village school and the next school was another half hour away ...it's the reality for rural communities.

I sort of got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Although not entirely! If a school should have 30 in YR but has 20 because 10 have deferred, they have a financial black hole. There is no guarantee every year has the same number of deferrals. They can only take 30, so the following year you may not have anyone wanting to defer so there is competition for places. Say 40 wanting 30 places. The school continues to lose funding for 10 "missing" children. Is that incorrect?

I am aware that sometimes 45 minutes isn't possible but every effort should be made to keep to that. I still think that "many hours" is an exaggeration but maybe we have differing opinions as to what constitutes "many hours". However, one of the faults with the system as it stands is that it relies too much on parents pushing to get problems like this resolved. And even if they push they may still get the wrong result.

If it isn't an infant class size issue the school can choose to go over PAN and admit an additional pupil (assuming it isn't so full that it really can't handle one additional pupil). However, many admission authorities won't do this unless the parents go to appeal. If the parents don't appeal they miss out and the children are faced with a long journey, the only saving grace being that the LA should be providing free transport. Even if they do appeal, some appeal panels will get this wrong.

If it is an infant class size issue it definitely has to go to appeal. Pupils are excepted if there is no school with places within a reasonable distance, but that only applies if the child has moved into the area outside the normal admissions round. I think that all children facing a long journey should be excepted. However, even without them being excepted on these grounds, the parents can appeal and argue that the decision to refuse to admit is unreasonable because of the length of journey. Ideally all appeal panels would admit in this situation. Unfortunately some don't. And, of course, many parents don't appeal.

The system is definitely broken.

If a school should have 30 in YR but has 20 because 10 have deferred, they have a financial black hole

If a school should have 30 in YR but 10 have deferred until next year they have 10 places to fill from the waiting list. Provided there are at least 10 people on the waiting list the places will be filled and they will not lose out at all.

If the waiting list is empty they will only have 20 pupils in YR. They will therefore be in exactly the same position as they would have been if only 20 people had applied in the first place. They have 20 pupils in YR and they are being funded for 20 pupils in YR. To me, a black hole implies that they are not receiving funding for all their pupils. That is not the case. They are receiving the right level of funding for the pupils who are attending the school.

Of course, if they were expecting 30 pupils and only got 20 they will get less funding than they were expecting so they may need to juggle things around a bit. But that can happen to any school at any time regardless of deferrals.

" they have 10 places to fill from the waiting list."

In small rural schools waiting lists aren't that common so isn't always possible.

Hence the next paragraph.

Personally I am not convinced deferring for a full year and going into Reception is a good idea. Whilst there is plenty of evidence that summer born children are disadvantaged, the evidence that deferring for a year helps is somewhere between limited and non-existent. There is at least one study that suggests deferring actually disadvantages summer born children further.

It's the only way I would consider delaying entry to school. Missing one or two terms further disadvantages a summer born child as they are playing catch up from day one.

Everyone starting reception full time is recent(ish) isn't it? In my area pre-2009, children had to start either Sept/Jan/April depending on when their birthdays fell.
Any teachers on here that taught children that began later in the reception year? Did it make your job harder? Was it harder for the late starters?
My summerborn DS is starting reception this Sept but will only be doing a 4 day week. The Head accepted my request and was lovely but I felt that part time requests / delayed starts are not common at all now.