deferring for a year - my 4 yr old

[nellieellie]

Have just got a pack from the local education authority to apply for a place at primary school for my DS. He will be 4 next Aug so will only just be 4 when he starts. I have seen loads of stuff about the youngest children of the year consistently doing worse academically than their peers. So my plan was to defer a year so my DS would be just 5 when he started. However the authority have told me that if I do this, he would have to miss out the reception year and then have to start year 1 - and be with the same set of children he would have started with the following year! Their policy does not allow children to join outside their "school year". So, would still be the youngest of the year with the added disadvantages of joining a group where friendships had already been formed, and missing the reception year. I am gobsmacked. Legally I know that a child has to start school/schooling the term after the 5th birthday, which is what I want my DS to do. Has anyone else had any experience of deferring their child for a year - or experience of their child being youngest in the class?? I will have same problem with my DD who was 1 in August.

Has anyone noticed that the reasons the LEAs give for not deferring are always along the lines of "if you do this, we will punish you later by screwing things up for you somewhere else in the system"? and never "it is in the interests of this child to start reception at this early time"?

I have an August born boy, he has SN caused by CP (and other things) but is of average intelligence but has communication and processing problems.

I want him kept back a year in m/s education LEA say he has to go to a sn school (entirely inappropriate for DS)

I am going to tribunal, which is time consuming and costly (am employing legal assistance).

Yes, lingle they do threaten with 'there may not be a place for you' and mention 'it's to do with age at exam/finishing school' (two of the many excuses I've heard) BUT my point is... I took several exams early, several of my friends did retakes our age was not a factor when we were doing this. Adults can take GCSE/Alevels no one ever mentions their age, do they?

I think their reasons are flawed for making such a sweeping judgement on the suitability of children to start all at the same time. What ever happened to 'every child matters' and treating them like individuals.

dd has really struggled with yr one. huge change from reception. i would not start a child straight into year one as i think that will cause problems.

maybe start him in january? then he will be 4 and 5 months which is ok i would think

I don't understand why people think that defering a year 'causes' problems. Loads of kids have problems who have been there from day 1!

There are no right answers and it's not really even about avoiding problems - a good school and a well-supported child will weather the problems. It's about knowing that you have certain options available to you and not being scared to take them if they feel right for your child.

I kept my ds out of school till he was ready, I can't entirely explain why I felt that this was so important for him. He has gone in late and it's all fine.

When he was ready for school, it became blindingly obvious, he was scaling the walls with boredom and frustration and ploughing through worksheets like crazy.

I think there's a lot to be gained by waiting till they're ready. [grin}

[grin}

OMG

Marmaduke,

best of luck with your tribunal. Has the preparation given you any sense of the general legal background? (I mean only generally - not specific to your LO's SN).

Also, what kind of lawyer specialises in this area? Public service? Or a litigator? Or are there such things as education lawyers?
I'm an ex-lawyer but very specialised in intellectual property and never worked in a firm doing this kind of thing, so don't really know.....

Lingle, Thank you.

I have an education lawyer that specialises in tribunal work.

The preparation hasn't given and insight into the legal background, because at £400 per hour (and £40 to recieve a fax or email, before even reading it) I ask him only what is absolutly essential!

It has, however, made me discover much about my DS as we have had lots of independent assessments (and put me in the poorhouse due to excessive outlay!).

£400 per hour . This is one of the reasons I stopped being a practising solicitor and became a consultant instead.

I will look in the Legal 500 to find some "Education Lawyers", then google their names to see if any of them have written papers..... it's amazing what's out there... thanks Marmaduke.... I still suspect Bradford will try to muck things up for DS2 and want to be ready for this if it happens.

I really don't think it is all about the age but the actual child.

DS1 started at just under 4.6 and DD at 4.1.

Both had tears a handful of times, DS1 is in middle groups for most things, top for science while DD is top for everything.

DS2 will start when he is just under 4.3.

FWIW, I think the way we ended up with this system was that previously, when all children started school on or around their fifth birthday, some children got 3 years in the infants, and some only 2 (this was certainly the case when I went to school). Parents of summer born children (my mother included) argued that their children were disadvantaged because they only had 2 years in the infants and so "3 years infants" became the rule - with the ensuing problems of children just turned 4 starting school before they're ready.

I think the Scottish system sounds very good - it would be great here if children who were June, July or August born say, could opt to defer a year if necessary. I think that schools are opposed to keeping places open for children to join later in the year because then they don't get the full funding from the LEA for that child that year, but why LEAs are so opposed to deferring places is beyond me!

Marmaduke - it works in Scoltand and no-one seems to have a problem with it.

The "year" is from March to February. That means that technically there should be no-one younger than 4 years 4.5 months whe they start school in August (remember, we don't have Reception).

If you are not yet 5, you can choose to defer until the following year. In practice, this tends to happen with an increasing probablility from November babies onward - but even my ds, whose birthday is 10 Spetember - I would have considered deffering if I'd though he wasn't ready.

For the September to December children, the council will only pay for the 12.5 hours nursery for an extra year if the deferral was supported by the nursery. I understadn that they will automatically pay for Janaury/February children who defer.

So the oldest child in the class could turn 6 just after term starts, but in practice, the oldest probably only turns 6 in October, November, December.

Whereas the youngest could be 4 years 4 years, 4 months and 18 days on day 1. Although there are parents who still seek to get exepmtion and get younger children to start.

So in practice, there is a "drop dead" cut off date - the fact that the child has to start school the year after the school year that he/she turns 5.

It seems the Scottish system is getting close to 100% support on these threads.....

The thing is though - it means that there's a bigger spread of ages in the Scottish system, which means that life might be even worse for the youngest ones & it might be harder to teach the classes? [devils advocate emoticon].

My DS was born on 31 August - I feel sorry for him!

Message withdrawn

There is such a broad spectrum of ability (and maturity) within any class that an August-born is likely to be well within the "normal" spectrum. By Year 6, an average class could range in ability from 7 to 14 years old. Both my DCs are August-borns, and very soon slotted into the groups they were still in at the top end of the school.
Yes, in the UK (England?) we start them with formalised learning too young, but relax. Go with the flow. Keep the after-school part clear for unwinding and resist the temptation to fill it up with "activities." He'll cope. They nearly all do.

There are times to go with the flow, and times not to go with the flow.

There is a bigger spread of ages - but one that has a better spread of maturity. We as paretns are the best judge of whether our children are ready for school. If they are not ready socially - or intellecttually - they shouldn't be disadvantaged just becasue of their ages. "every child matters" and all that

In any class there will be wide range of abiities anyway. Ds, who is right in the middle of the year (September birthday - remenber that the cut -off is March to Febrairy in Scoltand) took until near the end of P2 to "get" reading - but we were reassured by the schol that some children - boys in particular - are just not developmentally ready until they are 6. And guess what - he was 6.5 when he finally clicked.

ANyway, it seems to work anyway. The proof of the pudding is that you never seem to come acorss any of the angest about "my child is the youngest in the year" or "my baby isn't ready, what do I do" that you seem to get in England. In fact, you get total disbelief when you try to describe how the English system of pseudo-deferrment works. It took me a number of iterations of asking the question on Mumsnet until I finally realsied that it was as crazy as I thought.

My DD is June-born (she was 4 in June), and I've deferred her starting school until she's "ready" (her headmistress-to-be is happy for her to start any time we like until she's five).

Since the start of the month, though, we've had endless tears and misery from her about wanting to go to school with her big brother and all her friends - so we may well start her after half term after all. So much for careful parental planning!!!

(She has already been sleeping in her uniform...)

Dottoressa - have you got the option to take her back out again if it is too much for her and will she start with mornings only?