Rose recommends all children should start school the September after their fourth birthday!

[mrz]

Recommendation 14 ii

The DCSF should provide information to parents and local authorities about the optimum
conditions, flexibilities and benefits to children of entering reception class in the September immediately after their fourth birthday.

Isn't that what happens already

That's just what I was thinking!

This is what happens in many LEAs anyway. We are in one of the few LEAs with two intakes - a January start for some. And I hate it. I cannot see how it benefits most children. In many cases the youngest children, although start when a bit older, have the disavantage of joining re established classes, with pre established friendships, and havign missed a term of the work being covered - so in a situation of being on catch up right fom day one.

Even in schools with two classes where one class is for Jan starters - there is still that element of catch up, ready for when they start Year 1.

ds will go in january, he will be 5 in april. that is quite soon enough and i wish it would be longer. i'd hate for him to start in september, cannot understand why full time school is so young in this country.

this is happening already

dd was only 4 and 2 weeks when she started

two intakes here, ds started in January when he was nearly 4.5. Didn't see any problems at all and not aware of any among his classmates.

Shouldn't be beyond the wit of teachers/curriculum designers to respond to January starters.

Ah, cheekysealion, my DD will also be 4 and a couple of weeks when she starts. My DS is even later in August...about as flipping late as it's possible to be. I do worry about them

Yes this is what happens now isn't it.

Mind you some people tink it's a bad plan...

Others say their 4.5yo was waaaaaay ready by Sept...

I agree wrt Jan starters Hula; DS1 was one too and I cannot see how he benefited, quite the oppostie imo.

DD OTOH also with a summer b/day started in Sept and was fine.

That's the system here. DD would be 4yrs 3 months or so but I'll be home edding anyway.

They had a discussion about this on Radio 2 the other day and I thought it was a bit of a mute point at the time seeing as though that's exactly what happens in much of the country at present.

DS2 started when he was 4 and 2 months. Surprisingly he's coped fine and is actually doing much better than I expected. DS1 was one of the oldest when he started so I was very worried.

The disadvantage of starting later is that they miss some of Reception.

We had the choice of the village school with one intake and the next village school with 2 for dd1.

Have just found out we got the next village school (first choice)!!As she is an Aug birthday I did not feel that she would be physically ready for full time school (tiredness etc from doing a full day) and although the village school said we could start whenever like another poster I figured friendship groups would already be established.

In addition most of her friends are lateryear birthdays so they will all be starting together.

I think it will be really harmful for some children to be pushed into going at 4, but I'm not really hopeful we'll get 2 intakes fpr dd2 (July birthday)

Of course as with so many things it depends on the child, but the system really has to have a "one size fits all" policy.

I know children who at the end of FS2 should really not have been in school yet (they were 5+ or maybe not quite 5).

Equally I know children who are well ready for school now and they don't go till September; they are 4 now, going on 4.5 maybe.

Many many just 4yos are totally fine at school in Sept; the brightest child (a boy) I knew in the FS2 class I was helping in last year was born on about Aug 15. He never seemed tired and responded so well to school and he just flew. Which proves nothign at all of course

Well, this is one of the things the research suggests should happen - at least for educational achievement (if not the emotional wellbeing of the child)...

Some recent evidence suggests summer-born kids benefit from the extra time to adjust whereas those who miss a term etc are (on aggregate, not necessarily for every individual child) likely to achieve less well.

Did you know you can defer your child's reception class place until the beginning of the summer term? As long as they start after the Easter holidays then the school have to keep it open for them.

Legally children don't have to start until the term after they are 5. For DS (June birthday) this would be the September he would start year 1. But I have been advised not to do this because I would have to reapply for his place and it is likely all the best schools wouldn't have any spaces for a year 1 child.

Also as long as your child doesn't legally have to be in school you can tell your school your child will only be going part time even if they don't have a part time policy for reception children. They will try to tell you that you can't pick your child up at lunchtime every day or whatever you want to do but legally there is nothing they can do to stop you and if you turn up to collect your child then there's nothing they can do about it.

Not where we live. Ds would be 5.2 if we waited to start at state school.

Are you in scotland Mollie?

Are you in Maidenhead Mollie? I know someone who lives there and children who turn 5 sept-dec start reception in January, children who turn 5 January-April start after Easter and those who turn 5 May-August go straight into year one the following September. Because approximately 1/3 of the children all start together either in January, April or September there isn't a problem with established friendships or whatever.

It's a poor policy to have children whose birthdays are later in the year start school later (and hence do fewer terms of pre-school/reception).

They already do....

Mrz, do you happen to have a link to this, as I am interested in looking into this for my dissertation. Thanks

I actually think it's a good idea to have children born later in the year start school later. It means they are all roughly the same age when they first start. Children start full time education too early in this school as it is. In our LEA before they changed to just 1 intake they had 2 different classes - one for the older children and one for the younger children who started later in the year. I wish they still had the 3 intakes because there's no way DS will be ready at 4 years 2 months and I think the extra 8 months could make all the difference. If children start school before they are ready all it does is shatter their confidence and make them dislike school and learning.

I can see it already in DS' swimming lessons. He used to love them so much but recently he was very ill and it's set him back a lot and as all the other children are getting better and moving onto harder things DS just can't keep up and now he hates his lessons so I am thinking of cancelling them.

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

Good credible recent research here from the Institute for Fiscal Studies which makes point that outcomes are better for summer-born kids who complete a whole year at school. Among other things. But also recognises disadvantages educationally for those kids.

Someone last time this issue came up said we should start a campaign. I think if it is policy for all kids to start at same point, we need reassurance about appropriate ways of helping them cope and catch up with their peers

Also my mum said when I started school (4 years and 2 weeks) I was so tired for the first 2 years that I didn't take anything in at all and she really noticed the difference between my brother and sister who started at 5 and 4 years and 10 months.

IMO if all children should have to start at the same time it should be January, not September.

Our authority still has three intakes, but is currently consulting with a view to changing to 2 - September & January.