Has anyone had success requesting early Reception admission for a September born child?

[edelweissss]

Just wondering if anyone’s had any luck getting their child into Reception early when they were born shortly after the 31 August cutoff. We completely understand the rules, but it feels tricky when a child seems ready and just misses out by a few days. I’d love to hear from anyone who’s tried this with either state or independent schools was there any flexibility? Also, is it possible to ask for an assessment outside the normal age group, just to see if the school agrees the child is ready, without it affecting the usual application process? Any experiences or advice would be really helpful

This

There is a reason the rule exists to hold summer born children back to the following school year. Being the youngest can be a huge disadvantage for some children l. Not all. My dd is August born, we didn't defer and she excelled. However, a friends June born child who was always very prem and should have been an august/sept baby deferred and it has been the best thing ever for her.

My child has suffered a lifetime of education boredom because this happened to him.

there should be more leeway around cut off dates, it’s bonkers. It means some kids are permanently struggling to keep up, others are bored to tears. Literally.

I’m not trying to challenge that system at all just trying to understand what flexibility (if any (!)) exists, especially since every child develops at their own pace. It’s been interesting hearing how schools view it in practice.

For state schools general policy is there has to be an exceptional reason for them to consider a child starting early.

And in practice it's an incredibly, incredibly rare thing that is done.

I’m really sorry if anything I said came across the wrong way that was never my intention. I was genuinely curious, not trying to make comparisons.
The UK is such a culturally diverse place, which is one of the things I love about it, so I was a bit surprised that my comments were seen as offensive. I truly meant the discussion in a spirit of openness and learning.

I can only tell you my experience, @edelweissss. Ds1 was one of the youngest in his year group, all through primary school, and into secondary school. When he was 15, we moved to Scotland and we actually put him back a year - mainly because he would have missed far too much of the first year of his Standard grades curriculum (the Scottish equivalent of GCSEs).

Ds1 really benefitted from going back that year - he matured, he did really well in his exams, and went on to read Law.

I can’t say that he really struggled being the youngest in his year, but I am sure he benefitted from being the eldest in his year.

Summer born children ARE at a massive disadvantage. There's tonnes of research showing that the lower attainment follows them into later education, they are more likely to report bullying, and more likely to be diagnosed with learning disabilities (which is actually down to expectations being unattainable as they're a year younger than some of their peers).
Don't deliberately put your child in that position. Send them to school in the correct year and do lots of fun and challenging things in your spare time. Or homeschool them and follow their interests at their pace. But don't intentionally put them in a position where they'll struggle.

I have an early Sept. DD now age 17. At nursery she'd been happily playing with children a few weeks or months older than her and it was a bit sad for her when they all went off to school and she didn't. She effectively had an extra year in nursery (2 days a week), which wasn't a problem while she was there as they could tailor the activities to the age and ability of everyone there and could start reading etc. At home it was a bit more difficult for that last year because she'd long grown out of a lot of classes like toddler groups. When she started school she found reception very easy because she was easily able to handle the practical side like getting changed, listening to the teacher, taking turns etc. which can be a huge deal for very little ones.

I'd say she and I have found that she's a lot more emotionally mature than her year group as the oldest in the year. That's been a huge advantage in teenage years when it comes to things like dealing with disruptions in class and just getting on with work.

I was a summer born and, while I did well academically, I was always one of the last to do things like driving. Several people in my class had already passed their driving test before I could even start learning. Maybe that's a minor thing, but it was every little thing like that.

Someone in my year had gone through primary school a year ahead but ended up having to do the first year of secondary school twice because the school they wanted wouldn't accept her early. As PP have said, it can also impact when you can leave school and when you can take exams.

I was a child in this situation (birthday 7 days after the cutoff, academically precocious, in a system that enabled early entrance - I'm not British.)

Both my mother and I really regret that I went early. Academically it was never a problem. But socially and maturity wise it was unnecessarily tough. Being the youngest in the year when we start kids so young means that, even if they're ahead in one area, they aren't going to be ahead in all and some of the impacts of that really linger.

On reflection, those impacts meant some miserable times and school and definitely immaturity in my early university years.

Given the choice I'd always aim for my kids to be the eldest, not the youngest. I have an early September baby who's very bright and I'm glad there was no pressure - financial or social- to have him start early even though he would have been ok academically.

I’m late 50s and was moved up a year at a private school - not common but happened with a couple of others too plus some went down as well - this despite being a selective school anyhow.
I’d never recommend it - I was a bit slower at sports, not massively and not great anyhow, bit young for social stuff earlier on - and later too young for the pub when peers started going! Sounds minor maybe but it’s there. Academically ok enough but some thinking around things probably not matured as fast, and I chucked it all away in probably a ND huff (not recognised till recently) or maybe a kiddie type huff as I couldn’t leave or go to college after o levels as I wasn’t 16 and I really really wanted to but had to stay anyway to 6th form - either way huff I did and not really succeed in academic/my school terms nevertheless. Though the good grounding allowed me to do a lot later tbf.
2 of my grandkids are the youngest in their years - birthdays - and it doesn’t do any favours imo even then being a near year behind some In maturity.
I will say I’ve known some that thrived academically on it too, but they were really exceptionally bright all their school life at least.
My view is biased on my experience but thought I’d put it out there.

My daughter’s birthday is 13 September and I did start her early but it was a private school. I am sure, having worked in a state school for years, that a state school would/could not agree to this.

It's not an unreasonable question to ask OP, especially as you've grown up in a different system. One of my nieces is currently working as a teacher in the US and she's found it quite a culture shock going the other way. I'm sure there are advantages and disadvantages to both systems but most people tend to favour what is familiar to them unless they have had a terrible experience.
It's actually quite logical to think that if there is a system to defer Summer born children maybe should there be one for accelerating Autumn borns as there is indeed likely to be significant overlap. But as I understand it, there's evidence to support the idea that being the youngest in a year group is a disadvantage but not an equivalent body of evidence that there is harm in being eldest. Again, this obviously only applies to populations, not individuals. Of course there are Summer borns who thrive in their original year group and there must be some Autumn borns who would have been better a year up. But there isn't currently evidence to support regular movement in that direction, rather schools should be looking at extending their more able children where they are. There was a long campaign to bring in deferral options for Summer born children as lots of parents and teachers felt that these children were disadvantaged, but there doesn't seem to be the same push to accelerate Autumn children which suggests to me that most parents and education professionals aren't seeing problems there. In all likelihood your DC will be absolutely fine in the "right" year group.

@edelweissss Technically, yes you can request an early entry to maintained schools. This must be backed by evidence. The headteacher/LA/governors do not have to agree this and it would be ‘exceptional’ if they do. Nothing to stop you trying, though you would need professional evidence to support your reasoning.

This LA (Staffordshire early/delayed entry) includes the details in their admission policy.

Early admission / delayed transfer to school (admission outside the normal age group)
Parents wishing to apply for their child’s early admission to school will need to make an application alongside children applying at the normal age of entry, with supportive evidence as to why an exception should be made in the case of their child. In the case of community or voluntary controlled schools, only in very exceptional circumstances will applications for admission earlier than the normal age of entry be agreed by the Local Authority.
Where early admission is requested to a community or voluntary controlled school, the application should be sent to the School Admissions and Transport Service in the first instance who will make the decision in conjunction with the headteacher at the preferred school.
Where the school is an academy, voluntary aided or foundation in status, the application will be considered by the school trustees or governing body who is the responsible admitting authority for this type of school.

I think the point PP’s are saying is that if at the start budget is an issue, it’ll only get a whole lot harder!

When DD started prep 8 years ago the annual fees were around £12-13k per year. Our fees are now well over £30k per year. Over 150% increase in just 8 years.

Definitely don’t go down the private route from such a young age if you are unsure about affordability.

I think it would be a terrible idea. DD is a September baby and was 'school ready' throughout her last year at preschool but she loved going and playing with her friends. There's absolutely no need to rush in to school imo, they are very young. Who will it benefit?

Please don't do this to your child. My middle child is end of August and the baby of the class. She was clearly behind a lot of her peers and struggling. They balance out eventually, but they're only little once.

Honestly I'd never consider private school unless I could afford it very easily and with plenty to spare. I'd much rather have spare money for enriching travel, living in a nice area, top-up tutoring, funding uni, cash for house deposits and weddings and think all of that sets the average child up much better than private school alone.

If all of that plus private school (including price rises) is easily paid for fair enough but I think it's madness to cut corners elsewhere.

I started mine in a private preschool as it was the same price as the nursery he was in but did loads of extras. I enrolled him in the local state school for reception but ended up keeping him in the private school as at the end of preschool he could read, write and do basic maths. The private option continued his learning rather than starting again with basic phonics.

He was moved up a year as he was v very quick learner. However I decided to put him back with his own age group when we relocated and he started a new school in year 2. Although he was academically far in advance of his age I didn't see the upside in being the youngest on the sports teams, or unable to drive a car or go to the pub when all his peers could. This was absolutely the right decision. He was bored repeating a year's work, but he's excelling in all areas and really happy rather being physically a year behind his peers.

I'd counsel against moving up a year. Think long term, it might feel right at 5 but it won't be right at 13 plus.

I skipped a year of school and I wish I hadn’t. I felt socially behind and I always had to keep explaining why I was younger than everyone and why at my next birthday I was not going to be the same as everyone else in my class. It was just a lot of hassle for not really any reward.

There’s other ways to ‘stretch’ children.

Same as this poster really.

I understand the argument for flexibility given how differently children develop.

But given how expensive child care is, if it was a flexible system, any canny parent is going to use it to their advantage to skip a year of paying for childcare. Whether it benefits the child or not.

And where would the new cut off be? Anyone born in September gets flexibility? What about an Oct 1st child?

I'm just playing devil's advocate but these are the immediate reasons that sprang to my mind as to why it wouldn't be workable. It's different holding a child back, there's no financial gain that would mean floodgates open.

OP do you have any flexibility in location? The British are married to the rigid idea that you can never go up a year (only down), but we’ve just moved abroad, put the DCs into an international school, and my DD is now in the equivalent of Reception aged 3 (almost 4) because she tested so well in the placement tests. Just wanted to give you another creative option as it’s doable outside the UK beyond the US, and if they were thriving, I would expect that they wouldn’t hold them back if you returned to the UK in the future.

I have but only once 30 odd years ago. Twins, one born 31st August the other just after midnight on 1st sept

I was this child (birthday end of Sept), albeit 40+ years ago and even then the LEA said no.

I went to a private school in the end.

In primary years it made no difference to me (I was a proper swot and was pretty much top of the class even with kids nearly 12 months older than me) but once I got to secondary, that year made a huge difference in terms of emotional and physical maturity.

My dd is an early Sept birthday and there was no way I’d even consider it for her