summer babies and school

[nattysilv]

Hi there

I am just wanting other preliminary views.. What rights do mums have if they feel their summer born babies are not ready for school at just 4? Can we defer reception for a year (and still go into reception class a year later - you can do this in Scotland and Ireland)? Can we push for part time for the year? I know the Rose report came out which seemed to be happy for summer babies going to school at just 4 - but I am not (whilst realising that he may want to go at four when it comes to the time)!

I have a bee in my bonnet that he will have to start school so young (he is July born). He is not even two yeat, so its a way off, but I am want get clear what the current state of play is, or will be in a couple of years.

Why is virtually every other european country starting kids older, and we seem to be pushing them to start younger (I know childcare costs can come into it)... I know some parents and kids will be happy to start art just 4... but what about those of us who are not.. Do we have a voice/choice?

Cheers in advance..

I don't think it has always been rigid though - there is a girl in my ds's form who should technically be a year above her

DS is end of Aug baby and if he was a day younger would have started reception the following year

He is currently in reception having started last Sept full time and loving it although tiredness in the evenings is a factor but he keeps up well and is actually one of the best readers in his year

I think its the rigidity that bothers me more than anything else. Children are all different and whilst some will be fine with an early start, others may not. Its seems very unfair that by virtue of being born in the summer, you can start almost a whole year earlier. Indeed, why can't a parent easily decide to defer a year, regardless of when they were born the year before.

I understand about the SATS and all that stuff, but that doesn't cut it with me - I mean, so what, a child does their exams at year late - or early (no-one seems to mind the mensa kids who do 25 A levels at 8 and go to Cambidge at 11)...

Also, in Scotland the cut off date is the end of february. Thus, no child is ever younger than four and a half when they start school at end of August... This makes more sense to me.

In New Zealand and Australia, all children start school after their fifth birthday (the day after for those in NZ and the term after for those in Oz - I think). And these children seem to cope with staggered intakes and making friends etc etc...

The question is, is there anything we can do about it (not necessarily forcing the age children start school up, but allowing flexibility and choice for parents and child). At the moment it all seems very geared towards the school versus the parents. It also seems ridiculous that you would have to go private (which we are not) to be able to make a choice like this about your child.

I wonder what people like Sarah Brown, Samantha Cameron etc, as parents, think about our rigid system..

i worry about this whole subject.i have a baby born august 29th.just 2 days from being able to start a year later than he now would.but of course i havent got a clue yet as to how ready he will be for school.but after looking up on it im finding more and more that summer babies especially boys , statistically do worse thatn other children.

im just worried that he might be labeled as below average for his year when if he had been born 2 days later he may well be average or above average if he were in the class below.

idealistically i would prefer to start him in reception a year later but im sure this is never going to be allowed so all i can do is make sure he is as prepared as possible for when he does start.

The montessori school near to us (in west hampstead) doesn't start them in school til their 5. I'm sure its similr with other montessori schools. So they go to nursery 9-12 til then. Its worth looking into as he'll still be getting some educational and socialization and then may be ready to go to Year 1.
Incidentally, my son was born late may 06 and is dying to go to school!!

One of my sons is late July birthday. For over a year prior to him starting school, I was heart-broken.

As it turned out he is top of the class; so much so that it feels a bit embarrassing at times.

alisonbwfc - i feel your pain as DS is 31st August and actually one of the schools we put down would not take him till the following year but our preferred school would iyswim.

I think it has taken him longer to settle in than the rest of the class. He is the only August born too.

After his first parents eve in Oct I was really concerned as teacher said he was struggling with pretty much everything but his parents eve last week was totally different and he is actually top of the class for reading & literacy

"But yet we all do it - no questions asked (usually). "

I know. Annoying isn't it? I have deferred DS2 by a year - he will start in reception (in Bradford LEA) at 5.0.

But it wasn't easy. At one point I had to run to the train station, catch a train to Bradford and practically burst into the Bradford Council exec. meeting that I heard about at the last minute where they were planning to block the deferral option.

But I had no choice. DS2's elder brother had many problems learning language. I knew by 2.0 that DS2 had the same problems and that coupled with his summer birthday this would be a disaster.

You might find the mumsnet webchat with Jim Rose interesting. I almost can't bear to read it again though, as he confesses jokingly that his own granddaughter was more than ready at 4.0 .... lucky for him, he can stop worrying about his own family and get back to his garden, ignorant of the untold damage he is doing to other children..... had my son been his grandson, I'm sure his report would have read very differently.

I did however get Sir Jim to acknowledge that he had never meant there to be no exceptions to the rule. Anyone who is prepared for a big fight might like to read that and communicate the point to their LEA.

Very few children would suffer from an early start to the extent that my son would have suffered, and our neighbour's little girl will be raring to go at 4.0. Like you say, the issue is the rigidity.

I used to get my knickers in a real twist over this. Both dcs are August-born.

Dd was really not ready for school at 4 and 2 days. Her playschool was prepared to keep her on and support a delayed start at primary school. However, the school is very oversubscribed, so as others have said, your deferred place could be goodness knows where.

So what I did was I sent her mornings only. All year. Her class teacher was fine and said that more people should do this. The head rumbled on all year, but I just brazened it out and turned up every day at 12 noon to take her home.

She's now in year 2 and, ahem, has to go to special classes because she is so far in advance of the others (shameless boast but defendable on grounds of waving flag for August-born children!).

LOL re flag waving, sounds entirely justified .

The mornings-only option is going to be a widespread choice following the Rose report.

For children whose main issue is stamina/exhaustion, it's a good solution.

Hi, My DS5 is a late August born. I've seen 4 other boys through school, oldest now 21 and have never before experienced the problems i'm now having with number 5! Started school this sempetmber and has been full time since christmas. He is exhausted most of the time, has had problem intergrating into class as many of the intake were autumn born and are so much more mature than him. He is fine academicaly but as he gets tired his behavior gets worse ( i do believe he is ADHD anyway but school refusing to deal with this saying he is too young to tell! ) His behaviour has then seen him labled as been the 'naughty one' by teachers helpers and other children. I'm now at a loss as what to do, I wish i had defered a year (based on my child's personallity and maturity level) but now i'm stuck! My child is unhappy and says he hates school (heartbreaking to hear a 4 year old say this)

I'm concidering approaching another local school and asking whether he can repeat reception (not sure if we can do this?) or moving to a much smaller school miles away where reception and KS1 are all in one class.

AS far as being a year behind when they get older goes, to be honest does it really make difference im the long run.If he has a happier and more fullfilled school life?

( btw my ds2, now 19 was also summer born did not experience quite so may problems but it was always very obvious with his year group that he was one of the youngest, especially when he started secondary )

sorry to hear about those problems koonelly.

for a child with developmental immaturities, forcing them into reception at 4.0 is just a nightmare isn't it? reception demands a level of maturity they don't have - but might easily achieve if just given more time

Ds2 has used this year to practice his immature social skills (they are understandably behind given that he only started to really understand language at 3.0 then had the language explosion at an incredibly late 3.4 - 3.10).

I have my parent-teacher meeting tomorrow, but I'm pretty optimistic from comments made through the term that DS2 will be good to go into reception this September. he can have little conversations with other children now.

I've had similar concerns. My DC are both aug borns and my youngest starts school this sept! My DS has coped okay I think. He has always had LOTS of energy (I kind of hoped school would tire him out, it did, but only made him more crabby). He is now in Yr1, and being set against standards I feel mach older children, but heigh ho. I mean the EYFS is supposed to give them a profile at 5. He is 5 now!! Some of the children were marked on this profile when they were neary 6! at that age a whole year does make a difference... that said DS has been holding his own at school and is by no means struggling (well only with handwriting).
His main issues are with emotional and social maturity, but I think he has always been a bit immature (even for his age), so this is a area where he does struggle.
DD is more capable than DS with holding a pen etc, and is able to socialise fairly easily, so I think she will be okay... She is my baby tho and I will miss her. I am green with envy at the mums of children less than a mth older who get to keep their LO's a whole yr longer!!

Oh and on the point of leaving before exams... I always thought sept/dec borns could do this? deferring Aug borns to the next yr would be very little difference to having a sept child in the class (one mth only).

IMO the cut off should be the school yr. So if you do not turn 5 IN the school yr, you go to the next one. That would mean the end of July would be the cut off. I never made sense to me that my DS didn't legally have to start school till the following Sept but would have to start in yr one!! I just thought, "if he isn't legally required to start school till next yr, then why don't they make THAT the way it has to be, why can't he start reception THEN?".

Actually it really does bother me... They say they can defer because they don't NEED to be there, but don't put them into reception, which suggests that in actual fact they DO need to start school before they are legally required to...

Mrsdoasyouwouldbedoneby

"IMO the cut off should be the school yr. So if you do not turn 5 IN the school yr, you go to the next one."

i totally agree!!

"they have to somehow define what a year group is and have a cut off"

A cutoff should never be so rigid as to risk damaging the life chances of a child who happens to have the double whammy of a summer birthday and a significant immaturity, that's the point. Someone has to be the youngest - but for god's sake don't let it be the child who is still struggling to speak, and desperately needs to practice socialising with appropriate peers.

England is almost alone in having such a rigid cutoff. There is no basis for it and few precedents for it.

There is always going to be a youngest child in the year and they are always going to be at risk of being immature developmentally compared with their peers. Thats really bad luck if your child is summer born and immature emotionally but by giving parents the choice to defer, one simply raises the school starting age - a different debate entirely!!! My friend in Australia has experienced this. Although one can start at 5 in Victoria any parents with any aspirations for their child simply don't. This means most of the class are six at starting and there are still youngest ones not as developed as their peers. Immaturity is relative surely. After all reception in England is designed to suit 4 year olds, being play based, normally with a part time option and not much different from many kindergartens on the continent.
The discussion of deferring entry seems to ignore that in practice this simply means transferring the rotten luck from your child onto a different set of parents whose children have different birth dates.
I have a friend whose child has very severe developmental retardation but is still viewed as a candidate for ordinary school. For her I feel very sorry and think there should be more flexibility but it just doesn't work to defer the 'least mature' as judged by the parents as in practice virtually everybody follows suit. Of course that is except the children from homes that prepare their children for school least. In Australia these children still go at school start date, creating a bizzare gulf between themselves and their defered peers.

trust me beezmum, there is no queue behind me. Perhaps there should be, but there is isn't. I have endured parent after parent respond with "oh yes, jonny's born in August too, but he's very bright so we didn't want to hold him back" and I have borne it with a smile.

I cannot help every child in England. But I have a duty to protect my own, and I have campaigned for the children of others too in relation to this issue. Are your children directly affected?

I will admit now to not having read all of the posts, but will add my bit anyway .

My (last day of) July born baby will be starting school this september. Legally, they do not have to start until the term after their 5th birthday, but would then (in my case) go straight into year 1 - missing out on the crucial play based learning (and lots of fun!!!) in reception.

As a reception teacher, I am happy for my child to start school and she is VERY excited about it!

Should add, speak to the school about your concerns.

I don't know how you would go about deferring school placement for a year, but the school isn't your enemy - speak to them, express your concerns and send your child to school when they're 5 - if that's what's best for them.

Teachers do make allowances for lower PSED in the younger pupils and a good school will have strategies to help your child integrate.

DD (3) born in July, is staying at the brilliant nursery school until Easter 2011, and then an integrated approach to reception. She would cope quite well at Reception, but just feel that a bit more time at nursery school where the staff numbers are better, would make her that much more confident.

Lingle - yes I'm sure not many parents would defer if it means simply joining the same year group later on. I'm talking about being allowed to start reception a full year later. I do sympathise with someone with a child really quite clearly different from their peers. I just don't think allowing anyone that wants to, to start reception a year later is a wise solution.

But Beezmum, Bradford LEA did allow anyone who wanted to to defer right up until the ghastly Rose report was published, only a tiny tiny percentage took them up.

Deferring until year 1 isn't much of an option really, is it? They'll still be nearly a year younger than some in the class, plus will have missed a year of school.

My boy was born on the 28th of August. I now understand why people were telling me to cross my legs for a couple of days!

Have just come back from a parents' consultation at his pre-school (which he started at only-just-three) - apparently he doesn't show any interest in writing and they need to work on his pen skills.

He is three.

Arrrggghhh.

There is no later start option here, he'll be full time in reception straight away at only-just-four.

I think he will cope with the long days, but I shall have to keep gently reminding school that they are expecting rather a lot of him - it doesn't help that it's a small village primary with combined classes - he'll be in a class with nearly-six year olds, including his older brother!

I teach in an independent school, so we are able to be less rigid about year groups. It seems to work - we have had a few bright sparks a year ahead (although this is generally discouraged as it's not ideal to go to university at 17), as well as some who are doing better in the year below for various reasons.