General support thread in relation to school starting age

[lingle]

A general thread with the aim of gathering and sharing information on the options available re school starting age in the UK.

I'm hoping that parents of summer-borns can exchange useful information on their options here and that parents who have deferred or not deferred as the case may be will report back on how things have gone for their children.

To kick things off, here is the background to the debate.

[http://www.ifs.org.uk/docs/born_matters_report.pdf]

PF says 'I had to be strong to defer, other mums thought I was being too precious - it just wasn't right to pack them off to school in a uniform and expect them to concentrate all day (pressure to go full time by oct half term) when they were only just 4!!'

I can relate to this! My ds1 was 4 in April but has not started school yet, as I know he isn't ready and I don't see any benefit in him starting formal schooling at age 4. We are, in fact, thinking of HE for at least the early years - but I haven't mentioned this to many other parents in RL (apart from good friends). When I tell other people that he's not going just yet I get looks of incomprehension, sometimes followed by comments like 'you'll have to let him grow up eventually...' Yes, I will - when HE is ready.
I have heard the argument about missing out on the settling period of reception but I know that he will settle better when he is more confident, more independent, and ready to cope with the classroom structure and busy atmosphere of a school. I'm also keen for him to carry on learning at his own pace - rather than feel pressure at age 4 to learn to write. I still haven't come across anyone who has held their child back and regretted it (although someone might come along....) We're only 3 weeks in but I have none so far!

Like the thread lingle

My ds1 can read a little and is very good at trying to sound things out but no I still wouldn't say he can read. Compared to my dd (whose birthday is Nov) he is far behind where she was when she started Yr1 but ahead of where she was when she was his age.

He loved school when he started, he did get tired in the afternoons and sometimes moaned about not being able to lie down when they sat down on the carpet for a story! But actually really enjoyed it for the most part while it was mostly play. He did really well learning all his letters through jolly phonics, much much better than I had expected and is also very good at numeracy. It was only in the last term when it became much harder in preparation for year 1 that he began to struggle. So for him, if I'd deferred him a year and he'd then had to go straight into Yr1 I think we would have had the same problems now coupled with the fact that everyone else had already been there for a year and formed friendships and learnt the rules etc.

Am writing this wirh ds2's 'help' so not entirely focused! Will try and come back later, think I need to give up now as I have lost sight of my point!!

My ds1 can read a little and is very good at trying to sound things out but no I still wouldn't say he can read. Compared to my dd (whose birthday is Nov) he is far behind where she was when she started Yr1 but ahead of where she was when she was his age.

He loved school when he started, he did get tired in the afternoons and sometimes moaned about not being able to lie down when they sat down on the carpet for a story! But actually really enjoyed it for the most part while it was mostly play. He did really well learning all his letters through jolly phonics, much much better than I had expected and is also very good at numeracy. It was only in the last term when it became much harder in preparation for year 1 that he began to struggle. So for him, if I'd deferred him a year and he'd then had to go straight into Yr1 I think we would have had the same problems now coupled with the fact that everyone else had already been there for a year and formed friendships and learnt the rules etc.

Am writing this wirh ds2's 'help' so not entirely focused! Will try and come back later, think I need to give up now as I have lost sight of my point!!

Ooopps - point proved I think!

Really interesting thread, and thanks too for the link to the IFS 'When You Are Born Matters' document. Although DD has only just turned 1 on 30th August her birth date already concerns me in terms of her educational and emotional abilities if she were to start school when she should. And the charts in that report just reaffirm my concerns.

Thankfully we will probably be going down the private route so will ensure we can work with the schools we choose so that DD gets the right education for her when she needs it, rather than when our LEA dictates.

When pregnant, with a due date of 6th Spetember, I was praying that DD would be born on or after 1st September. Over the 10 years or so that I have known him, I have seen my DSS, now 18, struggle terribly at school and his birthday is 27th August. I know that if he had an October birthday he would have flown. Instead he struggled in the school year he was in, and did terribly in his GCSEs the first time around. Retook them a year later at college and did brillantly

My ds is a summer born and could not read or write much till Y2 - he's very much a 'late developer' and it wouldn't have made any difference if he'd entered at Y1. He's in Y5 now and catching up.

Both DH and I are summer borns and by time we left primary there was no difference between us and older children (though this was a Very Long Time Ago).

Tbh I'm ambivalent about whether they start in Reception or Y1 - I feel more strongly about the new govt proposals that children should be able to read and write etc by age 5. That's ridiculous - they all develop at differnt rates.

I think the best thing we can all do is give our children the self-esteem and confidence they need to cope at school. they can then handle not being totally on top of things (which happens to us all doesn't it?).
It didn't take too long for my deferred boys to settle in but they had attended a local preschool with the same children who started in reception.
It was certainly not easy as they still couldn't read and write in year one but as earlier said we are now ahead of some boys in class (yr 4).
Lots of mums here do, unfortunately, want to get rid of their kids and school is just a dream for them.
But some of us will always question this starting age and I wish more parents realised that they have the choice.
As a school governor I saw admissions talked at meetings in terms of £'s per pupil. Have this at the back of your mind when the school try and persuade you that you should start at reception.
After all, nurseries (said above, sorry) provide the same level of education and far better care and it's FREE!!

Jollydo.

Keep the faith. If you feel right about this then you are def doing the right thing.
I did have my wobbles but now 4 years later have absolutely no regrets. Others will admire you one day for being so gutsy!!!!

crumbs - rant of solidarity over you'll be relieved!
going to clean the car out...

back again.
Lingle,
Boys now in year 4 and yes there are boys in the same class who still have huge problems with reading and writing and just doing basic maths.
I do put alot of this down to parents though who are not very interested in their kids. One Mum was very accepting that her youngest of three was on Special Needs register as her others were there too!!! GAWD...

Must say that my boys were put on special needs (gulped) but this has been so that they got a bit extra help with literacy. Still, no diff from others in class and now streets ahead. they always would have needed to catch up and thankfully now that is happening.

I agree that it can be problematic in reception/year 1 etc. But I also think that summer born children catch up and the differences iron out over the years. I speak as someone born in August who started school at just 4, a twin sister in the same position (obviously), a younger August-born sister, an August-born father, and two August-born nephews.

All of us have gone on to do well academically.

it depends a lot on the child i think...i have an august born ds and he was fine starting at 4+ 2 weeks....settled right in and learnt loads!

All my other children are dec/jan and march babies...i didn't see any difference between them and august ds academically but the August ds really dosne't like school now (age 13 now, but from year 5 wasn't interested anymore), he hates learning and finds it naff...all of the others absolutely love school and won't miss a single day. Could be something to do with starting young?? don't know.

however nursery teachers had always said that they were very independent for their ages so i was lucky.

Well, anecdotally, that's fine, and it does appear that the age effect lessens as the children get older. But if you read the links on this thread you'll see that statistically the difference remains all through schooling. So the fact that I was born in July and went to Cambridge is interesting, but statistically irrelevant.

yes, very interesting.
If you read all the threads you will see that we made our decisions based on the individual child.
Of course some August kids will go to Oxbridge!!!!
However throwing my particualr kids into school at 4 y and 2 weeks was just WRONG.

I'm just going to plonk one of my letters to Bradford Council on the thread: it's a bit of a specific context (they presently allow year-deferred kids into reception the following year and I was responding to published plans to withdraw that right) but it might be useful for someone....if only to add to our collection of LEA-speak, as reported by the newspaper...fascinating use of the word "choice"....

"Dear Councillor X, I am an [lingle's town] resident and mother of an August born child who is due to start school in 2009. Should my child (as I strongly suspect) not be ready to start school in September 2009, my husband and I have every intention of deferring entry for a year with a view to starting him in reception in 2010. I am writing in response to a piece I saw today on page 4 of the [lingle's town] Gazette of 3rd April 2008. In particular, a section reads: "There are also proposals to change the summer-born primary school primary pupils admissions to help ensure children are taught with their chronological age group. At present parents have the right to defer reception entry for a year if they feel their child is not ready to start school. The new plans give those parents the choice of deferring and have their child starting in Year One a year later so they are with peers of the same age". As I understand it, this article reflects a proposal to remove parental choice to send deferred children to reception class for the sake of the minor administrative convenience of keeping all children within the September-August cut-off dates in the same year. I believe that it would be a very costly mistake, as well as directly against the interests of my child, if, when he entered school at the statutory school age of 5, he was to be put into any class other than reception. I have an older child and have seen the education provided during reception year. The idea that an August-born child could simply "slot-in" to Year 1 without having had the benefit of this reception year education is absurd. Clearly, if, as I would require, my child was to be properly educated, then I would expect that at least one teaching assistant would be spending a large part of their time helping my child to catch up, to the detriment of the other children. Children who are not ready for school at 4 are mainly immature summer-born boys who may be as much as 18 months behind September-born girls in their stage of development. Starting them a year later in Reception is the obvious and cost-effective solution to the summer birth issue, requiring not a penny of extra resources. It is highly likely that this choice will be enshrined in law very soon as Sir Jim Rose is presently conducting a review of the primary school admission system, with a particular remit to widen the choice for parents of summer-born children He is due to render his interim report to the Secretary of State in October this year. This report was requested partly because there are now accepted findings that summer-born children, on average, never catch up academically with their September-born classmates - August born boys are far less likely to go to University, on average, than thos born at the other end of the year. The Institute for Financial Studies' background report on the issue can be seen at www.ifs.org.uk/docs/born_matters_report.pdf and I would be very happy to point you in the direction of other reports. I am now writing to request: (1) urgent clarification of the section of the Gazette's report that I have quoted to you and (2) a meeting with you as soon as possible. I apologise for requesting a reply at such short notice, but given that there appears to be a threat of parents' choice being taken away at next Tuesday's meeting at City Hall, please may I ask you to reply to me before then - at least I will know whether I need to turn up at the door! I should also perhaps mention that I have been thinking for some time that it would be sensible to start a support/lobbying group for parents in my position to contest any attempt to reduce parental choice in relation to this issue. I do hope that on receiving your reply it will be clear that there is no need to do so. I eagerly await your response.

Yours lingle"

[PS, I did have to turn up at the door but the councillor came through for me in the debate - so far so good]
Anyone else got anything useful to show and tell?

Great letter, Lingle. Nothing to add that will be useful, but another anecdote, now fuelled by a couple of glasses of Friday-night wine.

Friend's DS has just started, aged 7, into Y3 of a highly competitive prep school in SW London - entrance by exam and interview last January. Today she showed me the class lists with names and dates of birth of the 50 new starters into Y3. The youngest boy was born on 19th May. There is not a single boy born in the last quarter of the academic year. Half of the intake were born in September to December of 2000, the other half in the six months after that. Not one June, July or August birthday.

They're clearly not standardising their scores.

I have not managed to read all the replies on this thread yet, but just wanted to let you know that I have posted in education warning about holding children back a year.
I have a DC in year 6 who has to go up to secondary school next year, he was held back in reception (basically did it twice) so is out of year.
So far it is proving to be rather complicated and is making me really worried, all I would say is make sure you know what you are letting yourself in for if you go down this road.
I did not and have to now live with the reality of this choice.

We've just had a Canadian lady to stay. She teaches in a special school, and we had the following dialogue.

Me: "I've heard that special schools have a disproportionately high number of August-born children in them? Is that true?"
Her: "no, not at all, if anything they cluster around Christmas birthdays for some reason"
Me: oh.
Me: actually... when is the cut-off date for school entry in your state?
Her: 31st December.
Me: oh.

singersgirl - DS's (not at all selective) independent pre-prep has, in his year, two early June birthdays, and no July or August at all - and then DS who is the following November (so more than a year younger than the oldest in his year). Interestingly but probably not relevantly there are no September birthdays either - eldest is in October.

In other words, I am not sure your anecdote proves an awful lot - not that you should let that stop you using it if it serves a useful purpose

What is confusing me a bit is the Institute of Fiscal Studies report - referred to in this thread seems to say that for summer-borns, it is better to start them in the September - ie just after they are 4, rather than delaying the start to say, the spring or summer term. There is less of a difference if they do not miss out on school. Obviously best scenario is they just start in the following September in reception, but so many L/As insist on starting yr 1. So, I was thinking of lettting my DS (Aug born) start in the following Jan or April. He would miss 1 or 2 terms but be a little more mature when he did start, but now having 2nd thoughts.

What is confusing me a bit is the Institute of Fiscal Studies report - referred to in this thread seems to say that for summer-borns, it is better to start them in the September - ie just after they are 4, rather than delaying the start to say, the spring or summer term. There is less of a difference if they do not miss out on school. Obviously best scenario is they just start in the following September in reception, but so many L/As insist on starting yr 1. So, I was thinking of lettting my DS (Aug born) start in the following Jan or April. He would miss 1 or 2 terms but be a little more mature when he did start, but now having 2nd thoughts.

Stealthsquiggle, you're right, by itself it doesn't prove anything, anymore than the Oxbridge success stories for summer-borns do. It fed right into my prejudices though, thinking of this thread. It would be interesting to see if other year groups at the school follow the same pattern. If your children's school is not selective, the situation isn't comparable.

In another friend's daughter's class at another selective London prep school there is only one child born after April. Another friend tried to register her July-born son for a nursery when he was 4 weeks old only to be told that the list for that academic year was full, as it had opened in September.

Oh, and guess what? The percentage of children nominated by primary schools as Gifted and Talented ranges from 12-ish% of September-borns to 3.9% of August-borns. Not gifted, then, just older than the rest.

Axe to grind? Me? Never!

I think what I was trying to say is that non-selective schools can have these funny patterns too.

As a June baby I have to say I was no less (or more) academically succesful than my November-born DBs - and I have a matching axe to grind in that sometimes autumn-born babies fit better with the year above than with their 'proper' year (like my DS)

...to each his/her own axe, and the freedom to grind it

I'm not sure I follow the point of deferring. If you defer and miss Reception then surely your child starts school in Year 1?

I can only see that as a disadvantage as they will be getting used to school whilst those who started in reception will be learning.

My ds is summer born and started reception this year. If we had stayed in the state sector then we would have had no choice but to start him in Year 1 (they don't do rising 5s in my borough). I built up his nursery time gradually over the preceding two terms so the day length wasn't a shock.

The hardest thing for him has been the change in structure and the sheer number of other pupils in the school - over 200 compared to 36 at nursery, although only 13 in his class.

I'm all for axe-grinding freedom!

I agree with you about autumn-born children, in fact; there is at least one very bright child in DS2's class who wouldn't have struggled in the year above. And if DS2 had been born a day later I'd probably be on these boards moaning about the inflexibility that kept him down a year. Honestly, for DS2 late August worked out perfectly.

So I think the inflexibility is the thing that gets me most, and the fact that I see children needlessly struggling, even if my own DSs are not necessarily amongst them.

MollieO, you're quite right - deferring may be counterproductive if the child is forced into year 1 (though some people have had a positive experience with this).
The key point is that children who defer should be able to start in reception - it's a very neat solution because the least-ready children in the class will nearly all be those born between April and August. So it fits in with the existing law that you have to start your education the term after you are 5.
So my son born August 2005 will (Bradford council willing) start reception in 2010, not 2009.