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?

My ds very small school has only 2 classrooms p1–p4 p5-p7 . My ds was the youngest being a feb birthday the other 2 kids were 11 months older than him when he started p1.
i think friendships can be harder but i can only give experience of a tiny school . Only now has my ds who’s in p5 made a good friend.
educational wise he’s doing really well and not had any issues

Thank you! Although I always thought until fairly recently you could only defer Jan/Feb kids. My twin brother and I were born in December 1986, started school August 1991 and my mum said as far as she was aware deferring us wasn't an option. But like I said, thanks for answering! It’s always confused me haha

I just don't think it was well known that you could and parents didn't really want to either by the 1970s
Someone did tell me that prior to the single entry in August lots of parents were opting to put kids into school at 4.5 rather than them joining in January. And it must be easier for teachers to have kids start at the same time.

There was also a thing were parents were trying to push March and April children into school early, having schools assess them for school readiness.

The nursery funding must have made the big change in 2000. Taking the financial pressure of a bit. And removing the boredom and the need to constantly stimulate and entertain 4/5 year old kids.

I went off on a hunt to get the reasons on why we start school when we do etc. I was expecting to find educational phycologist reports that 5 was the correct age to start learning.

Nope all I could find was MPs at the time wanted kids to get 5 years of education so starting school at 5. A couple of MPs argued that 6 was a better age. That was for England in 1870, Scotland followed 3 years later in 1873.

The reasons the school year starts in Autumn was to encourage parents to send kids. They felt parents would be more likely to send kids indoors when it was colder and wetter rather than over summer.

But there must have been private schools before the education act and university's are even older so I'm curious as to what their academic years would be been.

Lots of parents would have been taking kids to work with them like they had always done.
Although under 9 were banned out of factories in 1833, And under 10s from underground mines in 1842.

Ok digging a bit further, Scotland Education Act was 1872, not 1873 as I stated earlier. And Education was age 5 to 13.

So Scotland was a couple of years behind England & Wales 1870 Act which was 5 to 13, but could leave at 10 if they'd reached Educational Standard.
1883, raised minimum leaving age to 11, 1889 raised it further to 12.

It is. There’s a lot of misinformation on this thread.

In Scotland children born September-February have the right to defer. Anything outside of this can be applied for to the LA. A soundly reasoned case would be needed.

In England, summer born children have the right to REQUEST a deferral. The granting of it is still at the discretion of the headteacher.

I'll apologise if I've said anything wrong but I thought the law had changed in England.
DoE website says they no longer intend to change the law as the system is working much better than before.

But really I don't think Scotland is working the way it was intended to either. I think 18mths in a year is too much especially at the upper end of primary, kids starting P7 at 10.5 to nearly 12 is a massive age gap in a social maturity sense.

However the headteacher in England now has to have a solid reason to decline the request.

The changes brought in means that HT’s can no longer have blanket policies of “we don’t do deferrals”

Many councils and schools are still making parents work hard to have the new rules enforced though (much like several other policies in English schools that aren’t actually policy, just schoolwishes)

I truly think the same applies at P1 - there is a huge gap between 4.5 and 6.

And it shows - the older children tend to stick with the other deferred children, or try to make friends with the P2s.

And now I've just read on another thread about a child being shown the door after S4. And then others saying the have heard of similar, not being allowed or being strongly discouraged by schools to go to college.

I always knew there was more than one way to skin a cat, close the attainment gap.
But almost encouraging deferrals, only to boot less able kids out of school before S5 is a new level.
And actually it wouldn't surprise me if some schools happily let kids waltz out the gates Christmas S4.

My youngest was in composite classes all through primary.

i didn’t defer him even though he was Feb birthday (this was when deferral wasn’t as common as it is now, plus I was a single mum that couldn’t afford to keep him in nursery an extra year)

There were advantages. The composite classes were smaller. He was always in the higher class eg P3 along with P2s so his age/physical size aligned closer with others in the lower class, but he kept up with the academics of the higher class (which at primary was fine).

He had maturity issues taking exams (or rather lack of revision for said exams) in high school, but I had no issues with his education at primary level.

They should introduce exams by age rather than school year. I don’t think it’s fair kids sitting exams 18 months more mature than others tbh.

I teach in a rural English school (and have previously taught in Scotland) which has Reception/Y1/Y2 together. This isn't particularly unusual in the area and in England there is only the infant class size limit (30), no additional limits for composite classes. Of all the issues this mixed class raises, younger children being concerned about being around older children is just not one at all. It's common in small schools for children to play across the age ranges. My own fairly timid 4 year old now attends wrap around care with up to Y6 children and again is absolutely fine. I'm surprised you find it such a problem.

Unrelated to the quote above but regarding deferral in England, yes it is getting easier but also a headteacher can put a child in whichever class they see fit. It's not uncommon for children to attend, say, maths or English in a year group different to their own. None of the children seem to find this problematic or even remarkable.

This is indeed a particularly nasty bait and switch. Particularly as deferral is billed as supportive for children with ASN.

How on earth could that possibly work?
Kids sit the exams when they have been taught the course, you can't have kids sitting exams every week and tweaking the exam paper to cover what else has been taught in the last week.

This is exactly what I did - small rural school, composite classes, attending higher classes for maths and English.

I assure you, some younger kids do find it difficult. My teachers chose not to see it too.

That would be a bonkers idea.

I worked with a child who was held back a year after spending 8 months in hospital. Making them sit their exams with their age cohort would have been pointless as they had a year of learning still to go.

Even when the system in England was at its strictest there was (and likely always will be) the odd child out of their cohort.

Agreed and yes the system should have some flexibility in it for children who've been ill, born premature etc or just not ready for school.

But the system needs to ensure those deferred kids are legally protected at the other end, not just encouraged to leave because it makes the results look bad.

I'm really upset at the thought of so many kids legally being allowed to leave school half way through 4th year and before any formal exams.

I think your miss understanding the age range that can occur.
4.5years is the youngest yes but the oldest isn't 6.5years. The oldest they can be is 6 if an end of August child is deferred.

Reality and experience is about 50% deferral and in DS1 school the eldest is an end of October birthday.

Gaps don't exist purely down to age academic gaps and capability has always varied. The emotional side of the age difference is what's more obvious.

DS1 was deferred as a Jan birthday, DS2 is being deferred also as a winter birthday.

Composite classes are common in our area there are very few issues with it and actually it allows for a brighter child to work to a higher level if they are able more easily.

DS1 is in the middle academically but deferring definitely helped him develop his social skills a lot more.

@Scottishskifun shes looking at composite classes P1 / P2 class, just starting in August.

Your youngest P1s would be 4.5 Feb babies.
Your oldest P1s would be deferred Sep babies 5 nearly 6.
Your oldest P2s would be deferred Sep babies 6 nearly 7.

I think 18mths in a year group is too much especially without good reason. But I'm also feeling very uneasy about so many kids hitting leaving age at Christmas S4 - before any formal exams.
And schools having zero interest in keeping 'difficult' children in school.

Tbh they should be protecting all kids from being persuaded or encouraged to leave just because their results aren’t the best. Deferred or otherwise, that should be being dealt with as a problem on its own as it’s not acceptable from schools.

was bad enough when I was at school and it just meant you didn’t get as good a job as someone with exams (when I left school the joke was that if you had your exams you went to work in the tax office and if you didn’t you went to the tattie factory- it was actually quite accurate!) but worse now with what employers look for qualification wise

TBH schools should morally but have you read that other thread?
A child not being allowed to stay on to S5?

I'm really upset by it.
I know 2 autistic girls who've really struggled with anxiety in secondary, and a 3rd who I suspect is also autistic. The schools have worked hard with parents to help them, reduced timetables etc, one is now in uni.
Would schools really put the effort in if they don't legally need to?
Not being accepted for S5

Because there is very little benefit to a child starting school at age 4. Very few four year olds fall into the category of being "advanced" or "gifted" despite what most parents think and of course their private rip off nursery that just want the younger kids shifted into school for profiteering reasons. It is good that parents now have a choice and yes a lot of middle class parents will make the educated and informed choice and not just based on what is convenient for them.

Your comment about booting pupils out to boost attainment is nonsense. If anything this would hurt a schools attainment data as it's based on S4 school roll. If they leave without qualifications it doesn't look as good... if they stay for S5 and get something it looks better.

In my experience there's much more of that happening. Pupils who would really be better leaving and going to college or working staying for S5/6 - in the hope they contribute to the 5@5 or 1,3,5@6 stats.

Your comment about booting pupils out to boost attainment is nonsense. If anything this would hurt a schools attainment data as it's based on S4 school roll. If they leave without qualifications it doesn't look as good... if they stay for S5 and get something it looks better.
In my experience there's much more of that happening. Pupils who would really be better leaving and going to college or working staying for S5/6 - in the hope they contribute to the 5@5 or 1,3,5@6 stats.

Well why else would the schools on the other thread be encouraging the kids to leave?