Should you be able to defer school start date

[Blinkingstars]

Following on from another thread, in England I believe kids have to start school at the start of September year that they are age 4 on 31st august. So the oldest possible child in the year is born on 1 September. In Scotland we have the deferred system, where those born in January and February get to choose. Shouldn’t we just say that if a child e.g. turns 5 in 2023 then they start school in the summer of 2023, or have some other set date rather than parents getting to pick and choose?

yes some kids may not be perceived as ‘ready’ but a lot of parents just game the deferral system to suit them. Want them to be most advanced in the class - best to defer them. Nursery fees unaffordable- send them as early as possible. It can also be a big source of angst for many parents with January / February birthdays. Should they / shouldn’t they. Blah, blah, blah. It must take up endless time assessing deferral applications and appeals in councils too. One of my kids had a child so old he was a deferred September birthday, and was always bored and kicking off in class, (as well as totally dominating school sports days for years).

There's always going to be a cut off somewhere. Deferring Jan/Feb borns is not unusual. Nov/Dec less usual. Never come across a deferred September born.

When does "gaming the deferral system" become "doing the best for your child"? I think it speaks volumes that the English/Welsh system is being changed to allow parents of the youngest summer born children to defer.

If it ain't broken, don't fix it.

Kids in my region with birthdays in late Oct, Nov, Dec, Jan and Feb can be deferred. Dc1 was deferred as he would have been 4.5 years old had I not deferred him when he started school. I am so glad I did now as it's really quite evident who is the youngest in his year groups from about primary 3. He is heading towards secondary school and being older starting secondary will benefit him.

Dc2 could have been deferred but he would be nearly 6 by the time he started school so I didn't defer him.

Way back in the mists of time, I had to choose for my January born son. Nursery lent me a "discussion document" to help my decision making - it had pov from nursery staff, primary and secondary staff, and parent. All were unremittingly negative about sending him to school at four years, eight months, to the point I asked for the other half of the discussion document. It didn't exist.

I was so annoyed at such blatant propaganda (and the secondary school point that he'd be bored and disruptive when forced to do fifth year until leaving at Xmas - he stayed on throughout sixth year!) that I sent him. He did fine, went on to Uni and has just completed an adult apprenticeship.

A few years after that, my sister had to make the decision for her son, in a different local authority. Whether funding or advice had changed in that time I do not know, but she was strongly advised to send him. She didn't, because he was a very socially awkward child and she felt he needed the extra nursery time. He did fine, went on to Uni and got a First.

I do think parents need to consider their individual child, advice can only be generalised and may be political.

You're right in that's how the English system works, so some have just turned 4 in August as they start school in Sept and the oldest are just turning 5. Whereas in Scotland everyone is at least 4.5 when they start. But England & Wales do an extra year in school and no one goes to uni before they're 18 which can happen in Scotland. I don't know anyone who's deferred in England, the only one who enquired about it was told they'd go into year 1 with their peers rather than starting reception a year later so that seemed like more of a hindrance than a help.

Wow tonnes of insight in that! Yes you can defer q3 borns too. I don’t know anyone who did it to game a system - the kid kicking off, how do you know he’s bored, rather than not coping in the school environment?

I agree deferral presents challenges as the age range increases, but it’s meant to make sure all the kids have similar maturity and emotion regulation levels not get ahead of others

You can defer in England now, quite common for summer borns. No child has to attend school till the term after they're 5 regardless of when their birthday is, so a September born could start in the January after they were 5, and January born could start at Easter.

And this is Scotsnet sorry 🤦‍♀️

Sitting on the fence here with experience of both English and Scottish systems. My DD started school at 4 and 3 weeks. Vaguely considered deferring but decided not to as she's bossy and physically very competent, winning races as the youngest at her nursery sports day. We moved to Scotland during reception and thanks to Covid she just joined P1 in August, although it was a composite class where she was working with the P2s academically while being a P1 socially. She's continued in composites from this point, generally working with the older year in her class academically. Her best mate is the year above but February born.

DS is November, didn't really discuss deferring him because he is physically very literate and one of the taller and broader kids in the nursery despite being a November child.

I'd put up with there being a hard cut off at 4.5 (where it is now) but having the flexibility means you can account for personality and prematurity. There also seems to be a lot more flexibility to differentiate in the Scottish system so it's better able to cope with a wider range of ages in a class.

Cut off - meh, not sure on them. It should depend on each child individually.

I have a late October birthday who we deferred due to social skills but academically they were ready for school.

I have a mid January birthday who we likely won't defer as they are on track to "be ready" in all aspects.

It is important to be able to defer but there's a lot of work to be done on it. We need more working class families to take the option up.

One thing which we're encountering are 7 year olds in P2. We use age-related expectations in our assessments (spelling, reading, numeracy) and a majority of them are technically behind because they've only had two years of school.

I agree actually that they should just change the cut off. Now that you can automatically defer any child who is not 5 when school starts it must be costing an absolute fortune paying for the extra year funding for all the extra kids who are being deferred. It also seems to have increased inequality rather than decreased it.

For example, in my sons class there is a child who was deferred as his parents felt that children start school too young and he’d have an advantage being the oldest.
His birthday is 26th of August so he was able to start nursery with the school year at 3 as the cut off is end of August here but because he wasn’t 5 on the day school started they were able to automatically defer him. This means he got three full years at nursery (12 terms).
Compare this to the January and February kids in the same class who got 5 terms at nursery.
I was speaking to his mum the other day and she was saying she is so pleased they deferred as he’s so advanced compared to the other kids and I thought well yes, he’s 6 and is in a class with 4 and 5 year olds.
The age range within a class can be huge now.

Most deferrals aren’t an attempt to out compete though and some kids do much better with a younger cohort because they’re socially and emotionally young for their chronological age.

I feel you still need flexibility whatever the school start age as kids really aren’t a uniform mass, and don’t need uniform amounts of educational time to achieve.

I take your point about working class families and cost though - ideally deferring or not sponsor have funding and cost implications and would purely be down to what’s best for the child.

I think flexibility is better surely?

I had a September deferred child and he is doing brilliantly at school. Best decision I ever made.

I don't think it should be a hard cut off. I did lots of research before deferring my Feb child. And came across ridiculous situations in England where twins - yes twins - were split a year apart because of being born either side of midnight.

That and kids being premature could mean kids are pushed into school are too young.

I think Jan / Feb deferrals are OK a little flex in the system and a bit of a grey area. Some kids are more ready than others.

But I think Sept, Oct, Nov, Dec should need special circumstances. It would be nuts for a baby born. 3 months premature to be forced into school because their birthday is Dec.

The only research I could find on oldest vs youngest was a Scandinavian country where the youngest statistically out earns the oldest in a class by the time they are 30.

I deferred both of mine and absolutely do not regret it. One was very late through puberty and the other was a late reader despite both being amongst the eldest in their classes.
Neither of these could have been predicted.
4.5 is too young to start school and at the other end you are faced with a 17 year old going off to university, unable to sign a legal document and unable to have a drink. Boys in particular can be very immature and this can have an impact on socialising and studying.
The system needs to be changed.

But similarly being the first in a year group to go through puberty is also traumatic.

18 month age gaps in a school year are concerning

The private school sector is keen on deferrals. In my experience most of the children are November to November, with Dec-Feb being deferred.
It's not starting school they're concerned about but they have eye to the child being mature enough to cope with secondary school, the exam years and starting university.

My now 7 yr old in P2 was a deferred Sept birthday. She's not the oldest in the class. She was a special request to LA but this year is meant to be the roll out that deferrals can be parent choice from August.
My child is doing great on track for beyond expectations in subjects and more importantly for us, not struggling emotionally.
My friend in another LA chose to defer her Oct born with no additional needs and also has no regrets and she wasn't the only one in her class. I do think it's going to become more common.

My dd was 4.5 when she started school same as I was and my younger one will be 5 when she starts.

However she was at a party last week for a boy turning 7 in p2 and she won't be 7 till November in p3.

Uni at 17 should be avoided at all costs.

I went to uni when I was 21 and there was a vast difference in me and the 17yos straight from school.

There are always 7 yr olds in P2 in Scotland it's just that the first ones to turn 7 would normally be the march birthdays. We've had 2 turn 7 this year and 2 turn 6 in Feb or beg March.
The benchmarks for the c of e for first level go from p2 to p4 or later for some so all deferred children and young in the year children are catered for within the academic benchmarks, according to the curriculum.

@GrandTheftWalrus
A child turning 7 now in P2 won't have deferred they are just one of the oldest in the year. March is after the cut off.

12-14 months is already a big age gap in a year group. Making that 18 months of a gap must make it really difficult for a teacher to target material at the right level for everyone.
For example Biff & Chip books could be very babish for the older kids, as in the actual story, even if the reading level is right.

Yes my oldest was born in the first week of March so was not deferred and was 7 by this point in P2. I don't think having a greater range of ages in the class will pose an issue for a skilled teacher. Composite classes have been around for years and teachers manage to group the kids for literacy/numeracy and then they all work together on art or something.