starting summer-borns in reception at 5, not 4

[lingle]

Is anyone out there wanting to defer the start of their child's education by a year? have you been told that if you do this your child will be forced to go straight into Year 1?
I've been investigating this in the Bradford LEA. There is a clear right here, recognised by the Council executive, to defer entry for summer-borns by a year and place them in reception. A friend of mine has just "taken the plunge" and done it and had no trouble at all with school or Council. The Council did try to remove the right (it creates admin for them). Various headteachers in the area objected: one described it as simply "cruel and inappropriate" to force children who are not ready into formal education at 4. Luckily this proposal was rejected.
I suspect that where LEAs try to force deferred children straight into Year 1 there could be a legal case: the statutory school starting age is 5, not 4.
Anyway, as you can guess, I'm mum to an August boy. I've lived abroad and seen the ill-disguised shock on faces of my old friends there (even in places like America where you would expect them to be pushy) when I tell them he is due to start school at 4 years and 10 days. I've also seen how hard the children work in reception at his school. And I've read the evidence of how few August children are at University compared with autumn-born children. So I'm prepared to fight for flexibility for my second son.

I'm pinning my hopes on Sir Jim Rose's investigation into increased flexibility for summer-borns: his report is due out in October. The Secretary of State specifically briefed him that lots of parents want their summer-borns to defer entry. And the government now accepts that, while some summer-borns thrive for starting school at 4 years, many, particularly boys, never catch up and are affected for life.

If anyone wants links to the Jim Rose briefing or to the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies on long-term affects of going to school too early let me know and I'll dig out the link. The consultation period for Jim Rose's report is unfortunately finished - I wasn't on this forum until recently, otherwise I could have spread the word. His recommendations wouldn't come into affect until a few years' time.
They have flexibility in Scotland already I believe. Let's hope we get it in England too.

Thanks for the info

My dd started school last September. Her birthday is July 19th, so she isn't 5 yet. Although she loves school, she has found it very tiring and a bit dispiriting being with children who are so much ahead of her in terms of emotional and academic development, even though she is way haead of other children her age. It would have done her the power of good to have started this year instead

This is too late for me, but I am interested. dd is summer born and in reception. She likes school but is young for age and has struggled. It would definitely have benefitted her to defer a year, but round here that would mean going straight into yr 1.

My ds is a late July birthday and started school age 4. tbh, you would never have known and there are quite a few even younger children in his class, one has a birthday 26 August. They all settled well and are now in Y2. I definately would not have waited until he was 5. He was quite tired when he first started but so were they all.

If they do have to go straight into Y1 and not able to start later in reception, I think they would miss out on such a lot of important develpment time. That's just my opinion but watching my ds grow from a fairly shy child into someone with a lot of confidence and enjoying his reception year, I wouldn't have done it any differently.

Too alte for me. DD was born in july, and although the schools round here have january starters as well as september, I do wish that we could have let her start in the september after her 5th birthday, without going straight into year 1. Yet another thing that the scottish education system gets right (along with no SATS).

even with the early years foundation stage curriculum changes, the jump is big. There is a lot of emphasis on the children bonding, becoming independent etc during the recpetion year and now that does continue more into Y1 but I still believe that reception is so importnat.

My dd will be starting in September. She was 4 this week and so also a fairly young one. However, I honestly don't see her as 'younger' than the other children at pre-school whose birthdays were before Christmas.

ds1 (July birthday) is a bright little cookie. For a number of reasons he skipped reception, and went straight into school at the start of yr1 (with a class of children who had all done a year full time).

He has done extremely well in all subjects and is now finishing primary school this year. There is no way I would want him now (or at any time) to have been in the year below - for academic or social reasons.

In ds2's class the brightest child was born mid August and was 11 weeks premature! She's small for her age, but in all respects its clear that it was right for her to be with her age-peers.

I think there should be more flexibility in the UK system, but I'm not sure putting summer-borns back a whole year is the ideal solution.

I think flexibility is the answer, too. As I understand it, in Scotland if a child is born around the cut-off (is it February/March time?) you can choose which year they go into. Something like that would work much better.

I have two able August-born boys; DS2 was born on 31st August, and actually I'm pleased that he scraped into this year group, as he is clearly in the right setting.

I do have doubts over the emphasis on recording/writing in the first couple of years of school and I think this in particular can be a disadvantage to younger children.

My ds is also 31st Aug born (at 8pm in the evening...we did try to bribe the midwives but they weren't having it). He started reception this Jan aged 4 and a quarter. Although he is not struggling with the social side, he shows no signs of being able to read, write etc. I worry about how this is affecting or will affect his self esteem, especially when he goes on to year 1. My dd (22 months older than her brother but in the year above) is a typical girl, keen, motivated and enjoys school but she has found yr1 difficult. I dread what it will be like for ds.

Has anyone had any experience of keeping a child down a year? My LEA (Lambeth) says that this can only be done at the school's discretion and our school so far has only done it for one Aug born child who has SENs.

Ok here are the links for those interested:

www.ifs.org.uk/docs/born_matters_report.pdf

www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/pnattach/20080003/1.pdf

I managed to track down the public consultation document that Sir Jim Rose has circulated also and I put in a submission (the deadline ended in April). Wouldn't it be great if public consultations on these issues were notified on Mumsnet? It took me a lot of research to find the "public" consultation!

I am really torn on this one. DS has a summer birthday, is pretty bright and easily kept up with reading and numeracy, and socially as well. In year two he is in top groups, a free reader etc.

BUT

His writing is really, really poor. Everyone says "he's a boy, he's a summer baby, he's bright, it'll be fine", but I can't help feeling, as he lags further and further behind, that a year's more physical development might have been useful for him before he started school.

It's good to hear that some "just 4s" do thrive from the start in reception and of course there's no one "right" answer for every child.

And I expect that the children whose parents feel they were "forced" to start early will still thrive because they've got articulate parents who are aware that it's our inflexible system that's wrong, not their child, so their child will be protected to some extent ....

Lots of people have said to me:
"he'll cope"
"he'll catch up"
"he'll be fine"

But I want him to thrive, not "cope".

Other seem to confuse the idea of not being ready with not being bright. Several mums have said to me: "I didn't defer because I think mine's bright...". But my little one is bright too. That doesn't mean he should be forced into formal education before 5 or be penalised by being placed in Year 1 if I wait.

He can't use two words together yet. I took him to a speech therapist who reassured me that this is still normal at his age. So the idea of him being able to access the curriculum in a year is absurd to me.

I wonder if Bradford is the only authority that accepts parents' rights to start kids at 5 in reception if they want to.

Actually, that's exactly how I feel, TheFallenMadonna. The physical development would have helped both of mine. They both have poor handwriting, and in DS1's case especially this led to him producing very little. DS2 finds it a bit easier physically and correspondingly is a bit neater and produces a bit more.

I think that's more a curriculum problem than an age problem - ie the cut off for starting school might be fine as it is, but it's what they do there (particularly from Y1) that isn't.

ScarletA, DS2 was born at 8.15 pm!

lingle, my DD was born on 6th August and was completely ready for reception. She thrived from teh word go and was soon top of the class - still is in year 4 . SHe was a bit less emotionally mature than the other children, but she had a wonderful teacher who understood that and was brilliant with her. I can honestly say that she thrived, not coped.

DS is a March boy, due to start in September. I am glad that he wasn't born in August as I really don't think he would hav been ready for school a month after his 4th birthday.

I think it mostly depends on teh child.

This baby is due in October so will be an older child

I agree singersgirl, about it being a curriculum issue. It has only really hit home to me that it actually is a problem as the KS1 SATs have reared their ugly heads. He has to write for these, pure and simple. His verbal contributions and other work isn't sufficient. His school have dealt brilliantly with him so far. But now he has to write...

I don't doubt that he will catch up with his peers over time. But until then I don't want his academic and intellectual progress held back by his physical immaturity.

Interesting Lingle, thanks for that. DS2 is August 25th and having seen my May born DS1 struggle with reception (and I thought he was more than ready to start) , I'm already thinking about what we'll do with DS2 - he's not even three yet, but like you just can't possibly imagine him in formal schooling in just over a year

singersgirl - wow! Which year was your ds born? Mine 31/08/03. Somehow (for me) it makes it so much worse that he almost, almost made it, just missed having an easy school life by 4 hours. If I could have held on, I would, believe.

Lingle - you speak so much sense. I too have read the fiscal studies thing, it is awful. But what on earth can we do about it? It makes me feel so powerless and angry. Ds reception teacher says he'll be fine, he's bright, supported etc. I KNOW ALL THAT. But I want him to just like school and find it easy and get all the good self esteem that comes from that. Is that too much to ask?

The benefit of the Scottish system is that they have an end of Feb cut of for the Aug start so the youngest child will still be 4.5. Whereas in England a child could theoretically start on Sept 1st having been just 3 until the day before.

There is a big difference emotionally and physically in Reception (although there are exceptions). However, by the time they reach Y2 it has mostly evened itself out.

Teachers plan autumn term babies for both this reason and to tag the summer hols onto the end of their maternity leave.

Meant to add that I think summer born girls adapt quicker and are often as ready as those born earlier in the year.

DS2 is a couple of years older, 2001, so coming to the end of Y2 now. I do feel a bit torn about it - DS1 is August 15th and there is no way he would have hung on till September, so somehow it seemed to make more sense for them both to be young in their year.

DS2 is lucky in that he finds lots of things very easy, schoolwise, so the writing difficulty is not as crushing as it might otherwise have been. But that is just chance and doesn't make the policy right.

www.dfes.gov.uk/pns/pnattach/20080003/1.pdf

lingle, I have a late August DS with developmental delay of around 1 year who is currently being statemented. The Ed psych agrees that actually he is a bright boy and should be in m/s education, although he will not be ready this Sept or Jan 2009. His neurologist firmly believes he will benefit from m/s education as learning from NT children essential.

But my LEA won't have it that he should be kept back so it seems it may be special school or nothing! At the moment we pay for him to attend an Independent school where the class sizes are tiny and staff supportive (I also pay for his 121) but he cannot go there after yr 7 as becomes girls only.

So I am very interested in this, agree that public consultation should be more public. Thanks for posting the links and info.

www.ifs.org.uk/docs/bornmattersreport.pdf

I mean age 7 /Yr 2