Would you send your bright September born to reception a year early?

[Triadpeta]

My Dd was born in August last year. DH and I were chatting about delaying her when she starts school (she's only 6 months so bit premature I admit!) as my cousin has done it for her son. By that I mean she starts in reception a year later, not putting her straight into Year 1.

A quick trawl on MN and it seems it can be quite a divisive topic. Many people seem to say that they're glad they didn't delay their bright August born as they are thriving in their year and would have been really bored in the year below, even though they are only weeks, if not days, older than some September children.

So does that mean that there are a lot of bright September kids who are also bored? And if so, would you want to have / have had the option to send them a year 'early' (i.e. when they were at the very end of being 3, almost 4) instead of them staying in nursery or preschool for another year?

I guess what I'm asking is it seems it's possible to delay a child but not accelerate them - would people want the system to be flexible in both directions, depending on what's right for the child? And if you have a September child who seems bored in their year, would you have done it?

Definitely, that's lovely to hear he's got great friends- I think sometimes we forget that 'school' should be about more than just academics.

Although, outside of the school system I suppose 'children his own age' could be anyone from, say, June to December - so if he had been placed into the year above he would still be with children his own age - the summer borns of that year but might be a bit more challenged academically?

(of course it's difficult to imagine if he'd have such a nice group as it's the road not taken)

I think it continued for a few years -- till the kid moved private.
They likely were ahead for reading a bit too otherwise they couldnt read the maths. So missing other bits of their proper year wouldnt matter.

Generally for other kids the school hasnt been very good at stretching them.
And certainly other kids reading several years ahead never went up to other classes.

I think advanced kids sometimes are very placid and happy to sit for extra maths etc at home

I'm a retired Reception Teacher and I would say don't do it. I doubt if any school would let you anyway. In most of Europe and Scandinavia children don't start formal schooling until 6 or 7 without any ill effect so I don't know what advantage you think they would have. It's not a race.

Bright and intelligent is great but there's more to school than academia. It's a big social change, even for those accustomed to full time nursery. I think the older they are when they start school the better, imo.

Oops meant to say I started reception at 3, 2 weeks before my 4th birthday.
(Where has the edit button gone??)

Yeah I do think the decision to accelerate or (most commonly) delay is definitely impacted by whether or not a child is already in childcare. And I can absolutely see why, but it's crazy because the core arguments - being ready or not - are the same, and possibly struggling throughout school as the youngest because you weren't quite ready, isn't going to be changed by whether or not you were in full-time childcare at 3 years old

😂. So better, eventually, to not be in the year above?

I can say that I like being the oldest in 6th form 🤣 If I’d stayed permanently in the year above then maybe that would have been fine too. What I hated was how bored I was doing Y3 essentially 3 times- twice because I repeated the year, and a third time because a move from private to state meant repeating the same work again in Y4. Considering the point was to avoid boredom (in nursery) it seems really poorly thought out and I know mum regrets it now and admits that whilst the idea came from the school nursery, she also wanted to keep up with her NCT friends as they were all August due dates and I was the only one born late, so she didn’t give any thought whatsoever to future implications!

Yes, that definitely backfired a bit 😂. Interesting, though, because if you HAD been August this wouldn't have happened (well except the private-school thing)

Not in a million years. The impact of being one of the youngest children in the class is so well documented. You already have an advantage in the shape of a September birthday. Don’t throw it away.

My Sept born girl mostly breezed through primary school. Always high achieving. Possibly not challenged enough, but did I particularly care? No! Not least because she found the social-emotional side of school life more challenging.

She’s now slotted into grammar school life and doing well.

Bear in mind that if you want to pursue the grammar school route in the future, your child would be much better off remaining with the correct cohort. If accelerated, she would have to sit the 11+ a couple of weeks after her 10th birthday.

@Triadpeta she's not unhappy at all, she loved being in nursery, but she definitely got used to being the oldest and bossiest!

She could get quite bored but they were good at setting her challenges to stretch her. I thought her getting bored would be a big downside but it's actually turned out okay - if she started messing about they worked with her on being able to listen, sit still, help others, do independent tasks, and that's definitely helped her a lot at school.

True and I wouldn’t have known any different!

I think I would personally avoid it as unlike deferral, there isn’t a well trodden path because it’s not common. Could they sit the 11+ on time, play sports matches with their classmates, start university on time if they’re still 17 on Sep 1? That sort of thing. If I wasn’t sure of any of it then they’d be best in their own year I think. And it’s easy enough to some extra learning at home to supplement nursery. And research shows the eldest do have an advantage. So all pros for staying in the correct year.

No.

Children should go to school with their age cohort.

School is not just about academics but learning how to deal with others socially.

While I lived, so grew up, under education authorities who insisted you did each stage at the prescribed age, I met adults and have friends who didn't have this restriction. They were put a year ahead and suffered socially until they were in 6th form or university.

I should add I have summer born, including late August born, nephews and nieces plus my own DD is the oldest in her year. In the end it is you as a parent with the help of those around you, who encourage and educate your child.

I’ve just re-read your OP and realised I got myself confused. You were talking about sending Sept borns a year early because you have an August born and you’re weighing up whether to defer or not.

I’d got things completely garbled and told myself you had a Sept born and you were consisting school a year “early”.

OK, that changes things slightly. In your shoes I would still think carefully about deferring.

@InTheRainOnATrain they can go to university at 17, as English universities accept Scottish students who are under 18.

However they will not be allowed into some venues due to age requirements.

It is also an issue with playing some university sports as they aren't adults and there are different rules depending on age.

Yes, my bright September is bored academically at school. She learned CVC phonics from her nursery when she was 4 (So not ahead really by age). She's reading way ahead of the class, finishing the reading levels very on in Year 2. The school ran out of books for her in Year 2. We suspect she is on the spectrum, and she would not let us just tick she's read the books. So we diligently read all the reading scheme books even though she's already reading chapter books like Tom Gates.

This is similar in maths. She's completed all the times table in Year 3. She still did timestable rock star in Year 4 because her teacher said they need to do it.

However, she's not unhappy at school. We just stretch her in other ways. She's learning two instruments at school small group lessons, another in her whole class lesson, and I'm teaching her piano myself. She actually practices them all every day. She's also in the school and county area orchestra. She's doing parallel maths by Simon Singh at home too.

One of DC1 good friend is a late August child. She's also one of the brightest in class. I think don't assume they can't cope with the school work just because they are young in their year.

Dd was a September dc... On the gifted and talented register at 7. Did some work apart from other dc... Went to the local secondary school.. Wasn't pushed enough. Left with mediocre exam results. At 15 ASD became apparent.. We all missed it.. Wish we had been more aware of her ASD than academic talent.. Now at college with no diagnosis so assume basic results going forward.. Lots to consider when dc start school. Research how they deal with the non generic dc whatever that difference may be..

There is absolutely no way I would send a child who wasn’t 4 to school. Developmentally it’s the wrong environment for them, unless perhaps they are actually an Einstein, a once in their generation intellect. If school started at 6 I would happily send a bright child earlier but not in the current uk system.

Even if they were Einstein you would just ensure they were academically stretched.

Summer-born, clever DS did go to school with his cohort in the UK, but we moved countries a few years ago to somewhere with a more flexible school/starting age policy, and though we moved him to the equivalent class in terms of years spent at school, he’s now by far the youngest in his year (still 11 for some months, while his friends have already turned 13). He’s struggling with friendships for the first time in his life as they’ve all hit puberty before him and feel psychologically much older, and I’m far more worried about him starting secondary than I would have been otherwise

No. Absolutely not.

I have a very bright early September born, starting reception this September just a few days before her 5th birthday. She’s already on a par with some Year 1’s but who cares?

I would not have started her early. We start school too early in this country as it is.

On a practical note, nursery far easier to navigate with work than bastard school holidays. Sod doing that any earlier than I have to.

Yeah I started my post talking about my daughter so I think that's confused the issue - I was actually asking about September borns. Mostly because it seems a lot of MNers are quite anti-delaying a child born in August because they'll be 'fine' but also the general feeling I get is that very few people think putting a September child in a year early is a good idea even though those children could be literal days apart in age.

It started as just a general thought experiment for me and DH but I think it actually HAS swung me in favour of delaying which I hadn't really considered before (other DC are Nov and March)

Knowing what you know now would being in the year above have challenged her more and maybe a better outcome?

I would stick with the current cohort because I don't think academics is a problem. If they are struggling socially, I don't think being in a different cohort helps either. I have two DCs, in secondary and junior. The one in secondary is struggling with teen friendship. She was not fine at the start of primary but after a bumpby start, she settled in a really great friendship group by KS2. She's born mid year so it's nothing to do with her being young or old. DC2 also struggled last year after falling out with a friend, but she's oldest in her year. So being the most mature didn't help either.

This is the case where I don't think being in either cohort makes any difference. That's what my post was referring to. She's got undiagnosed ASD. It's much more likely being neurodiverse makes the biggest difference.