I had a blinding epiphany moment today about school starting age!

[tortoiseSHELL]

Dd is an August baby, and although she has done absolutely fine in her first year at school I'm aware that there are some August babies who have struggled.

It suddenly came to me that it would make MUCH more sense for the school age cut off to be July 30th - obviously this wouldn't make that much difference, but it would mean that children wouldn't spend the whole of their reception year being 4 iyswim (dd won't be 5 till next week, and yet she's done a whole year at school).

It's fairly arbitrary to me that the school cut off is at the beginning of the school year, not the end of the previous one, and it would just mean that the youngest children were 6 weeks older when they started, and the minimum starting age would be 4.1, rather than children who have turned 4 the day before starting school.

I also think for children within, say, a month or 3 weeks either side of the date, they could be allowed to elect which school year to put their children in. Dd was certainly ready to go, others weren't, and a blanket rule doesn't work. Her cousin is the other way - would be ready to go now, but has to wait another year. They are only 1 year different in age, and had dd been born 3 weeks later, and her cousin 1 day earlier, they would have been in the same school year, and yet they are 2 school years apart.

Yes, tortoise SHELL, the system sucks I hate this game of chicken everyone has to play between getting into a decent school and whether their child will really benefit from being there yet.

And as to starting age - ah well, I guess I was in a minority area where pretty much everyone started the term they became 5 or the term after.

It is also statistically shown that summer babies do 'worse' academically - implying that some never do catch up.

In NZ they start on their 5th birthday,so the class swells in number throughout the year. No mess, no fuss. The kids are usually raring to go and it's a day of celebration.

Yup, the Scottish system does already have this flexibility! And "defer" means just that, defer, not "miss out" as the English system seems to mean,

The cut off date is end February, so most kids are between 4.5 and just about 6 - but the weighting will be towards the older end, as those kids that 5 after term starts in Augst can choose to defer (ie start) school the following year. In pracitce, most kids whose birthdays are September/Ocotber/November would start school (if their parents think they are ready) but December/Janaury/Feburaury kids are often kept on at nursery and only start the following year. I beleive that Councils will automatically continue to pay the nursery fees (the 12.5 "free" hours) for Janaury/Feburary kids, but needs an assessment/recommendation from the nurdery for the "older" kids.

Ds' birthday is mid September, so I was aware that I could have held him back - but he was ready to go. One of his close friends' birthday is at the beginning of December, so he is nearly a year older.

Works for us!

Bradford LEA allows any child born from April to August to wait another year and then go into reception.

I'm hoping my language-delayed August boy will benefit from this hugely.

Bradford tried to take away the right last autumn and I took myself to the executive council meeting to plead with them to keep it - they did, thank god. If anyone is being told by their LEA that their child must go into Year 1, and think this isn't right for their child, please fight it and point out the Bradford example.

Swiftyknickers, the people who belittle your concerns are wrong. The government now accepts that many children have their life chances diminished because of our inflexibility about starting age.

Agree with your points, tortoiseSHELL, but as I've said on other threads on this subject, July parents will start bleating if their children are the youngest.

My dcs were both born prematurely in August (dd is August 30th) and although they are both very bright, I feel that they have to be twice as clever, if you see what I mean, in order to match those bright children born in September.

Although the dcs have no problems academically, ds has always cleaved towards the younger children in the year for friendships, and dd went part-time until last month. The school wasn't happy, but I stood my ground. Just the same as other posters, she had to start last September or else she'd have had no place at any school nearby, but once I'd secured the place I started making a nuisance of myself by insisting she only attended a few mornings a week. Hee hee.

I agree the cut off date should be earlier than it is.

I started school aged 4.3 and ds1 started reception last year aged 4.3 also.

He has amazed me, he has more than kept up with the rest of the class. His reading is amazing and his writing, his maths is good too.

BUT he is exhausted from school. Lots of the other children do swimming or another activity after school. This is an impossibility for my son. He has a sleep every weekend to catch up and he sleeps between 11 1/2 and 12 hours a night. He is in bed about 6.50 - 7pm latest and I don't feel I can put him to bed earlier!

I don't think that we are allowed to delay where I am (yorkshire) and when I look at how much has been covered in reception I am glad I did apply for him to go to school.

Whenever the cut off date is there is always going to be nearly a full year between the eldest and youngest children. There needs to be some flexibility for those children who are genuinely not emotionally and developmentally ready for school but I'm not sure who should decide or if we as mums are the best people to decide (hearts rather than heads) as often our children surprise us when the time comes.

That's why these fixed cut off points are silly.

I think schools should have an open roll which you sign on to and commit to having your child in that school the term after they become 5 (as per the law), with the option of having them join the school at any point before that, with suitable notice provided so the teachers don't turn up one Monday morning and randomly find 25 4-year-olds wanting to start like right now.

Schools wouldn't like that. They like to get as many children in as soon as possible because it maximises their funding. The real question to ask then is who precisely they are providing the service to? Because if it is the children on their roll, then those children should be starting school when THEY are ready, which might be any time from 3.5 to 5 or even later, not at the earliest possible opportunity for the school to rake in the £££££.

I know there would be staffing issues with having flexible enrolments. But the system as it stands does some of the children no favours - maybe it's a question of whose convenience and wellbeing is most important.

I really like the idea upthread of getting a child onto a school roll at the point when the school wants to wheel them all in, and then firmly just sending them a couple of mornings a week because they aren't ready for more. That's genius.

Great idea. I think there's something in the air at the moment about school starting ages. I heard somewhere we are the only country outside the Pacific Rim to start formal school so early. I wouldn't be surprised if it changed. My DD is August born and I would rather she was still playing. I don't think she's learning anything she couldn't learn next year. But I love your idea.

sorry but as a reception teacher I find it is (some) parents who are opposed to the idea of not having their child in school full time once term starts (free child care as opposed to education idea). I had a little girl last year who I knew wouldn't cope and had to fight mum tooth and nail to keep her on nursery hours for an extra term.

over here it's the parents choice.

ds is an end of july baby and i can put him in at just turned 4 or just turned 5, it's up to us, in fact i could even wait til 6 if i was being paticularly obtuse

the school can give an opinion on whether they think he's too young but they can't stop me enrolling him, likewise they can't force me to send him at 4.

i'll be relying on his playschool to tell me if they think he's ready or not but will send him at 4 if at all possible as i feel there's more leeway for him to stay back later on then, or to do transition year in secondary or to take a gap year before college. obviously though if playschool tell me he's definitely too young i'll leave him with them for an extra year.

should have said.... the average age to enter junior infants is 4.5 to 5.5..... some enter younger (i know of one girl who started at 3 and turned 4 a few weeks into the year!) and some start later but they all go into the same class when they start.

Right. That's it. Let's all move to Ireland with Pink

(And mrz, nothing to be sorry for. I think we all know that many parents treat school as free-at-point-of-delivery childcare.)

lol.... you do have to put up with them learning the rosary before they can read in most schools till though

It's a small price to pay!!!!

I went to a French school, where the cut off was 30 Dec. When I changed to the English system I went from being one of the youngest in the year (my birthday is in November) ton one of the eldest. Was a huge shock ! Currently expecting DC1 due in next 2-3 weeks, but as no woman in my family has ever gone past 38 weeks pg, DC could end up being in either school year .

I think June/July is the cut off in some parts of Australia. They then start school the following January (start of their academic year).

I also agree with parents of children born a month or so either side of the cut off date, being able to elect when their child starts. I'd say that in the same way that some children are too young to start Reception, others (September borns) are often better suited to Year 1 (and have already had an 'extra' nursery year).

40 years ago I started school just before my 5th birthday. They took children from the term their birthday fell in, in September, January and Easter. I started at Easter and it worked just fine.

DD started school in 1990 at 4 1/2. Had she gone to a different local school she'd have been nearer 6, because that school took them the term after they turned 5. Her brothers started in the 1990s just a couple of weeks short of their 5th birthdays. DS3 was still having an afternoon nap in the August before he went to school...

So it isn't true that school starting age has always been the same.