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).

No I think that the point that’s being lost in the age discussion is that most deferred kids socially and emotionally are a better fit with younger kids. That’s the main reason people defer, not to increase their chances of Oxbridge.

we need tonnes more flexibility in the educational system to look at each child and what’s right for them.

Yes I was concerned re reading level as mine was reading before school. But again she wasn't the only one and one of the others in the upper reading group is a girl just turned 6.
I understand now with the reading scheme they do, the books are focusing on the skills being learned like syntax, different spellings fir sounds etc. We read at home for variety and more challenging text. I'm not sure reading books are meant to be riveting.

Yes both of my DDs were good readers and one was young for her year and one deferred. At the end of the day if you defer them and they are ‘advanced’ you have to go with the curriculum being taught and the top group is only going to be so far ahead from the rest but you do that for the other benefits.

Agreed totally. Thanks for putting it succinctly!

None of ours started until the term after they were 5. Which meant one skipped reception and went straight into Y1, one did 2 terms of reception and one only 1 term.

From our perspective, there was no need to rush them into the ‘system’ especially as we’d considered home schooling.

Equally, and an important factor for other people, we weren’t worried or affected if they didn’t get a place. We’d have waited due to me being SAHM and having the luxury of choice. And I use the word luxury specifically because most parents don’t.

Personally, I’d completely overhaul the education system and would be making it easier for a parent to be at home until a child reaches 5 for the sake of the child rather than a policy that pushes away from the family dynamic for money.

And they wonder why we have such a fractured society and lack of community.

Oh goodness don’t get me started on funnelling more and more kids into nursery for more hours earlier and earlier to maximise tax take…

I can see why families like it of course but there are unseen trade offs to those choices

I deferred my Sep born DC1. No regrets so far and she is 10 years old.

I have been a primary school teacher for nearly 25 years. I've never met a parent in all that time who regretted deferring. I have met plenty who wished they had when faced with the P7/S1 transition.

I'm glad I'll be able to defer my now-toddler when the time comes. She's October born, although was a few weeks early so would have been November born if she was born on time. To me even 5 feels very young to start school, no matter 4. I want her to be able to take part in 6th year holidays, and freshers week etc, which she would be too young for if she came out of school at 17. Not to mention the potential academic disadvantage of starting school at 4. We are planning on a private primary however so I suspect demographically that cohort will be more likely to have other deferred children. As previous posters have mention I believe that higher SES families are more likely to defer.

I’ve often wondered whether the option to defer hinders closing the attainment gap. It seems to be the more affluent, educated parents who defer their kids. Of course it is to the advantage of individual children to be deferred, but it is possibly not to the advantage of the whole class, school and system. I think I’d be more in favour of a later starting age for all children. I do wonder whether the current system will turn into later school starting for all?

I also don’t understand why sporting competitions are not done by actual age, as it’s such an advantage to be the oldest.

We’re English but living in Scotland. Dd2 started school at 5 years and 4 months the same year DN started school at just turned 4, they seemed so different at those ages!

But surely if you took the funding implications away from deferral you’d achieve the goal of not limiting it to a middle class choice.

forcing all kids to later starting age does nothing for the kids who are genuinely better off emotionally and socially with a younger cohort, again, if you’re thinking about sports competitions you’re not really getting the reasons most people defer.

And oldest doesn't mean biggest or most physically able necessarily. Many children with increased social and emotional needs are also behind physically as well.

Back in the day when mine were deferred, Jan / Feb children got the extra funding automatically, others had to argue why the child wasn’t ready for school. Some parents of August - Dec children, who had decided early on to defer, opted to start their funded places a year later so they weren’t taking any extra.
Funding always discriminated against the youngest anyway because it started the term after the 3rd birthday, so Feb children got a year and a term while March children got 2 full years. Not sure what the situation is now.

Sports especially football goes strictly on DOB so deferred children can be in a different age bracket from classmates.

An unintended consequence is it’s worsening the childcare crisis.

Without kids moving on to school, there are fewer spaces for younger children to move into, so babies are staying in the baby room longer (now until age 2). It means there are even fewer places for new children

I do think more affluent parents are MUCH more likely to know all about deferral, which is why deferred kids are much more likely to come from affluent backgrounds. It would be interesting to see the stats.

I didn’t defer my child as I was relatively new to the country when applying for schools here and I didn’t know it was a ‘thing’ people did. The nursery didn’t say anything about it. I think it might have been a good thing for my child but unless you are in the know you can’t take any action.

Half the kids who are born 1 January - 28 February are deferred. They can’t all be rich / affluent / Oxbridge hopefuls / Tory voters / gaming the system / whatever other slightly pejorative stereotype you wish to use.

Heres a radical idea - what if they are just parents doing what they think is best for their child ?

Yes, nursery aren't allowed to suggest deferral but they can support the parents request for it.

It’s not a secret. Every single council has a website which tells you about how to enrol your child in school. They explain about early entry and deferred entry. here’s an example chosen at random ( as I don’t know where you live).

https://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/downloads/file/30876/information_for_parents_and_carers_about_enrolling_their_child_in_a_school

I clearly never got told that I wasn’t allowed to suggest deferal to parents. I’ve always informed the parents of any child who falls in the dates about the fact they could have an extra funded year. This year we only have 1 eligible and the parents haven’t decided yet as they may be moving.

Obviously I'm just going on what I was told by our nursery. They said they couldn't suggest that my child would benefit from a further year in nursery but" if I decided to defer" they would support us in that request to the LA.

It may be that it's LA nursery that it only applies to.

Well meet one now. I'm so not convinced deferring was the right thing.

Now he's fine, P7 but further down the school I'm convinced he was bored and switched off to half the stuff that was going on.

Throw in a bit now dyslexia books that were verging on being too young. Learning to read was torture.

I was completely dreading more Biff & Chip with my youngest who's a December baby. He's flying through them and enjoying them.

If I could turn back the clock would I defer the oldest - possibly not

I definitely wish I’d deferred my October born. He seemed ‘ready’ and coped well-ish with the transition to p1, but the difference between oldest and youngest was really obvious (academically and socially) by around p4. We actually switched to home ed in p5 (for other reasons), but I’m very glad he didn’t have to transition to a busy secondary at 11, because he really wouldn’t have been ready. At the other end of school, I’ve been able to opt for him to sit exams at 16 in s5 rather than 15 in s4, which is obviously better.
I would actually be in favour of all dc starting later, as research shows starting formal academics at age 7 is statistically the better option.

Someone made a comment about 18mths gap in a class being fine as teachers are used to composite classes. And now I can't find the post.

18months is a huge gap when you are talking about the top end of primary 10.5 & 12 year olds in the same year.

Thow in a composite and you'd end up with nearly 3 years between the oldest in the older class and the youngest in the younger class. That's a huge gap.

@Sugarfree23

I use meet in the sense of actually teaching their child and meeting with the parents in real life.