Deferrals and composite classes in primary schools

[SayDoWhatNow]

I'm curious about the combined impact of the referral window being widened to 6 months, plus the frequent use of composite classes in Scottish primary schools.

Doesn't this lead to potentially a very wide age range in classes? For example a non-deferred winter born (Feb) would be 4.5y at the start of P1. But a deferred P2 would be 6.5y. These children could potentially be in the same class, which feels like a very wide range to cover.

I know in rural areas it is very common to have 2 year groups in one class throughout primary school. But I think that is also generally alongside small class sizes which reduces the teaching burden a bit.

I'm thinking of the situation in urban schools where there might be 3 full classes - P1, P2 and composite P1/2. Intuitively it feels really messy, but how is it actually managed in classrooms?

But this surely is a failing of the Scottish system. I don't have an issue with them starting school later, but surely that means they should be doing an extra year at the end?

Really interesting to see that composites are almost always by age.

At my children's school, composites are done on ability and social skills.

I wasn't massively keen on the concept but my children have thrived. My daughter's reading group consists of her and then a bunch of children 2 to 3 years older than her for example. Both my children have benefitted from being pushed and exposed to harder work due to older children in the class.

To counter this, I was in a composite class and put in groups with older children and loathed it.

I was in a group with children I didn't know that well, didn't play with and didn't have regular lessons with.

It doesn't work for every child, and if mine was in a composite class I would move him.

The number of people deferring is because everyone is terrified their child will somehow be at a disadvantage if they go the year they normally would, instead of a year later.

Nurseries are full of kids who are far too big for it and younger kids can hardly get a place. With play based P1 and p2, we now have 6 year olds / nearly 6 year olds starting school with 2 further years of play-based education ahead. It is nonsense.

Everyone shouting about how the UK sends its kids to school far earlier than everyone else is wrong - kids start at 3 in France and Spain and parents have to buy textbooks for them (not saying that is right or wrong but we are hardly being internationally competitive if our 7 year olds are being held back with infant expectations) Kids need to be stretched to some degree, and I do think most kids should be starting school the year they turn 5 unless they have significant needs.Are secondary schools really suitable for 19 year olds? I think it is quite inappropriate given kids as young as 11 are there too. Another SNP disastrous policy which I think, in time, will prove to have 0 impact on attainment but high social costs

I'm not a teacher but I have a P3 in an urban school. There are two deferred children in her class (both Jan) and the youngest are December born so yes - nearly a year between them. However, the disparity in ability doesn't really seem to stem from age - it is much more complex than that. To answer your question, I believe to manage the class, they are split in groups by ability very early on for reading, writing and maths and that allows the teacher to direct work accordingly. There is continuous assessment/benchmarking goes on and children regularly move around these groups to make sure they are being challenged at an appropriate level. My daughter is late August born so likely on the younger side, but she is absolutely thriving, she wasn't 5 on her first day of school so we could have deferred - but would never have done so.

Agree another SNP ill thought out policy.

Totally ridiculous to have such age differences for no reason. There is no need for some mature and developed children to be defered. I have noted girls to be deferred who are now so tall and maturing and developed in all ways in comparison to some boys 18 months younger. Girls maturing more rapidly at primary age.The early curriculum is play based anyway so it’s just a dumb unnecessary policy and no doubt perceived aka copied from some Scandinavian country.

For comparison England you can’t not easily defer even for kids born in the summer August who are literally turning 4 when they start school. It’s a negotiation and your child may miss reception year to defer depending on local policy. There is certainly no 18 months differences.

To be fair, this happens in England too. My son is a July birthday and he has two deferred children in his class who are over a year older than him.

I don’t think your right you can only defer in England under strict criteria.

from the official gov policy If you want your child to start later
If you do not think your child is ready to start school in September, they can start later. For example, if your child only turns 4 in August, you might decide to wait before sending them to school. But they must be in full-time education by the time they reach ‘compulsory school age’.
They can start:

• part time
• part-way through the year
• in the next school year, in the September after they turn 5

You’ll still need to apply for a school place at the same time as everyone else. You can ask for a later start when you apply. If your child starts in the September after they turn 5 Your child will go into year 1. Contact the local council or school if you want your child to start in reception instead. They do not have to agree.

They only allow short deferrals in England for example summer born, August children, so maybe the age difference is up to 13 months in England not 18 months age range. As it says anymore than that they will make you start in year one not reception so no large age differences like scotlands new policy.

@Sheldonsheher no, in England any summer born child can defer - that means anyone born from 1 April to 31 August. You do have to apply rather than it being an automatic right, but the rules have changed to make it easier to defer and the child will go into Reception not Y1. In practice, it is extremely rare for April and May borns to defer (unless there are significant SEN) and much more common for August borns, but there are two children in my son’s class with June birthdays who will turn 9 before he turns 8.

I thought it was very hard to defer in England? I have a friend whose son was born very late August and she wasn’t allowed to defer him.

It's absolutely a stupidity though out policy. 18mths in a year group is too much.

Yes in a composite P6-P7 class in the September you could easily have P6 Feb children who are just 9 & 7mths and P7 referred Sept children who are turning 12.
2.5 years is a massive age gap at that age.

Even more stupid when you consider the deferred children can legally leave school Christmas of 4th year, before they have even sat Nat 5 exams.

I deferred my February baby when only Jan / Feb babies were guaranteed the extra year nursery funding, Sept-Dec needed to justify the reasons.
It was written on the deferral request form that you were aware that deferred children would be able to leave school without sitting exams. Almost to discourage parents from doing it.

The policy in England changed maybe about 8/9 years ago. After I deferred my now 15 yo.
Prior to the law change deferred English kids could end up skipping reception or be forced to skip the last year of primary so they were in the 'correct co-hort' for secondary.

I did as much digging as I could before I deferred my oldest. I came across a lady with twins born either side of midnight who ended up in different school years in England. She and other campaigned massively for England to change the policy.

Its also very difficult to get long term oldest vs youngest information the only study i could find was on 30 or 35 year olds in one of the Scandinavian countries, those who'd been the youngest 10% of the year out earned the oldest 10%

The deferral window is ridiculous now.

It's actually worse than that if you get the right Highers in S5 as a February baby you are still only 16, meeting uni entry requirements.

March - August children can leave school in the June the summer they turn 16, so end of 4th year after Nat 5s.
September - February children can't leave until December of the winter they turn 16. So S5 for non-deferred but S4 for deferred.

I await the massive fallout when kids who aren't getting on well in school decide they aren't going back at 16 and their is nobody to force them and schools aren't interested (why force Giles to sit exams legally he doesn't need to, isn't interested in & will affect the schools ratings)

I deferred my January born child, she was not ready for school and it turns out she has ADHD. Even without that factored in, she would only get one year and one term at nursery, whilst a lot of others get two full years. It wasn't enough to prepare her.

I don't think kids outwith Jan/Feb should be deferred unless they have possible ASN. I am also a teacher, I don't know any children who have been deferred who are not January or February born. This is maybe area specific but it doesn't seem to be the norm where I teach or at my child's school.

In my local authority, classes are split by age only, it's the policy.

I am January born myself and was always in a composite class with the younger year group. It worked out fine for me but my own child was nowhere near ready (especially emotionally).

Which LA are you?

I was told by school splitting by age was the worst possible way to split classes. They much preferred to do it on ability and have a mix in each class.

But I guess thats one schools opinion. It would be good to see if theirs been any actual studys on the best.

We have loads of schools in Scotland that only have 50 pupils so just 2 or if you are lucky 3 classes. So wide age ranges are common.

I would rather my child being in a composite class made up of say P1-P3 in a very small school rather than P1, P1/2 etc. the composite class split for the next year is the number 1 stress of kids from Easter onwards. It’s the main source of chat, and it’s simply not fun. My children regularly spent the first few days of the summer holiday really distraught as the school usually told them at the very end of term in order to be able to close the school office to any parental complaints, then claim it was far too late to change now when school started after summer, despite there having been zero time to raise any concerns.

It’s much more common to have composite classes in Scotland than in England due to our system of strict catchment areas, but I really don’t think it’s helping our kids.

Common doesn't mean good

It was because it used to be completely at the discretion of the head teacher. And it never used to be guaranteed that the secondary school would agree later so there could be issues further down the line.

Its now easier and, for example, if the primary school agrees the secondary would have to show how it benefitted the child to miss a year to not follow suit.

It is still made very difficult and with the way school allocations work in England some schools still get away with saying they just don’t do deferrals as people just apply elsewhere.

I was always curious as to why the cut off was in February, why was it not August?

My son is 20 now but when he started school he was 4.5 and in a composite class with children 2 years older, he really struggled to settle into school but I don’t that being in a full P1 class would have made any difference

That's historic going back to the 1873 Compulsory Education Act.
Children started school at 5,
August intake was March - August kids
January intakes was September - Feb kids

Leaving age was 10, so 5 years of Education, finishing either June or December depending on age.
The leaving age jumped to 13, then slowly crept up to 16.

Around 100 years later 1975ish they changed to one entry. Which meant the March - August kids didn't change but the September - February kids had a right to defer.

Prior to nursery funding very few wanted too defer and beyond that for a long time they would only guarantee an extra year of nursery funding for the January/ February kids.

For 3 or more year groups in a class the max class size is 19 children.
So very small classes.

Scotland also has a fair number of primary schools with 500 pupils in them don't be fooled into thinking tiny schools is the norm