I need a safe place to grieve and to rage for our summer-born children.

[lingle]

According to the press, Sir Jim Rose has thrown away the Government's suggestion that allowing immature summer-born children to defer their entry into reception for a year should become the norm in England as it is in Scotland.

Although DS2 is now "safe", because I have Bradford LEA's confirmation in writing that we can year-defer and start reception at 5, I am genuinely grief-stricken by this. I have campaigned for this for some time and have become every more convinced that parents need this option.

We have had contact with four health professionals in relation to DS2 now. Whatever I think of them in other respects, all four, plus the two teachers at school, have expressed strong and immediate confirmation that deferring DS2's formal education until he is 5 will fundamentally change his life chances for the better. In my view, this simple act of waiting for the child to be as ready as he can will be more valuable and save the taxpayer more money than any assessment, intervention or therapy.

As if I needed any more confirmation, the specialist early years support teacher who looks after DS2 has confirmed that her pupils consist completely disproportionately of summer-borns.

I suppose the July-August borns with mums who have followed the debate will at least benefit from understanding parents who know it is the system, not the child, that is awry, and who will shield them and remind their teachers of the issue. But the parents who don't know that 4.0 is absurdly early for so many little ones to be sitting concentrating and learning to read, write and add up will be told their child is "behind" or "struggling", if not in reception, where they can soften the blow, then in Year 1 or Year 2. From the statistics about diagnoses of ADHD, etc, it seems that there are many false positive diagnoses in summer-borns.

I feel quite sickened by this wasted opportunity. I feel angry. I feel I should have done more. I need a thread where no one says "Well mine started school at 4.0 and it's wonderful so therefore every child ought to start at 4.0". I feel safer on the SN board.

Kettlechip, we had a thread about that documentary a few weeks ago if you search for it.

My opinion - a delay in an area such as social/language skills can impact on concentration and behaviour and social experience of school - so have huge knock on effects. So although starting school a year later doesn't mean the problem goes away, I feel it gives a child who is lagging behind a better chance of fitting into school. If a child is getting good support in special school or in a language unit, then the earlier the better argument holds But for those of us in tightfisted authorities, the thought of giving a child an extra year to develop socially could be a lifeline.

Ok, I might be way out of bounds with my thinking here, but I will give it a go. Does it actually matter what we call the difference between August-borns and September-borns?

What I mean is: Some children with August birthdays are developmentally and academically ahead of their peers. Granted, taking this report into account, it is not likely to be a massive proportion. However, for the ones that are, they will not suffer for being 'young' in the year. Admittedly, it could be argued that if they were older in the year their capabilities would be even more stellar.

Some children with September birthdays are developmentally and academically behind their peers. Same arguments counted as above, although reversed.

It is agreed that we have to have some sort of cut off. Also, flexibility. A hard combination.

However, surely the REAL issue here is back to the old chestnut of PROVISION for support. If a child has SEN, be that because of developmental/language delay per se (i.e. behind their age-matched peers) or because of environmentally induced delays (i.e being younger than their year group cohort, so less mature), then perhaps it doesn't really matter in the sense of schooling, AS LONG as there is adequate differentiation and tailored support for those children.

As long as they get the support to thrive and keep up, then the impact will be lessened.

Where I think there is a bigger issue is that for summer-born children the preschool opportunity is lessened, so those children have a shorter time for any SEN/SN to be identified and provided for by the time they reach school age.

DD1 started preschool at 2.6, and by 2.9 the preschool had approached me (bearing in mind that there was a summer holiday period in there as well) to say that they thought she had SN. She is December born, so we now have 2 years of funded 1:1 before she starts school. Had that been DD2, we would have been having to look at statementing and so on straight away, with no chance to fully assess progress, etc. because the process is so long and being summer-born she would only have 1 year funded 1:1 before school.

Lou you're totally right about the provision of support. That is really the key issue. But of course such a complex and expensive one that is not being addressed properly by any of the agencies.

The summer thing is just an added punch in the face I think for those struggling to get resources and support. You say that cut off and flexibility are hard - yes they are, but they manage to do it in so many countries. So plenty of opportunities to look at other models.

And then the (few) children that do benefit from starting early can do so and the rest can wait til the time is right.

If only....

Lou, I hear your logical argument, and agree with your first three paragraphs completely.

What I'd like to throw in to the mix - turning to your paragraph 4 - is that what differentiates England from almost the whole of the rest of the civilised world is the rigidity and inflexibility of our cutoffs. This inflexibility is itself a major factor in stopping schools from differentiating and tailoring the curriculum.

Have a look at the introductory section of the report. You'll see the authors say they would have liked to do a comparative study between England and other countries - but they couldn't find another country as rigid as ours to do the comparison with! So there is no need for such inflexibility. There must be some England-specific financial/political reason behind it - it clearly does not come from the teaching profession.

I'd agree with what you say about provision, but our early start and inflexible cutoffs make it much much harder to differentiate and tailor support for the children. The additional absurdity is that there is no evidence whatsoever that following an academic curriculum from 4-5 rather than 5/6/7 gives even the mature NT English children any advantage compared with their European or American or antiopdean cousins (I'm not saying there's no child in England that it benefits, I mean that overall we do worse than countries where they start later, and our children seem unhappier to boot). My nursery manager states in plain and simple terms that the majority of summer-born children are not ready for school (she can only be this outspoken because she knows her parents have a choice, you see).
So we are damaging the most vulnerable without even giving the less vulnerable any advantage. It's daft.

Now, if some children with SN are being helped by their summer birthdays, as you found in your case, then that is good news and it has actually altered my attitude somewhat!

But on average 170 August-born girls have been put on the SEN register by age 11 for every 100 September-born girls. I conclude from that that we don't tailor and differentiate the experience of the immature August-born child. So I decided to defer. If I'm advised later that my boy does have ongoing SN, then my current scepticism will be greatly reduced because I'll have eliminated the other big variable which is his birthdate. Because he's in a high-quality school nursery, he's still getting help right now with his talking and communicating - thank goodness for the problem-based approach.

DH was young by Scottish standards when he started Primary School - about 4 when all the others were 5 - 5.6 or so. It did not affect his academic career but he did feel that he was socially behind his peers. When he went to Uni, he was only 16 when most of the others were 18 - so an early start can affect your life in other ways.

lou, I can identify with your point about being rushed into support due to a late birthday. Ds1 is due to start school in September and I've felt that the dx process is being slightly rushed through of late in order to accommodate that. Now that they've decided a statement isn't necessary for him, things have calmed a little and his progress is being assessed at a more steady rate. We're now wondering if a dx will be necessary at all. It was becoming stressful for us all with 2 or 3 appointments and observations every week.

Ds has changed so dramatically in the past 6 months that I'm not sure that a dx given now would actually be appropriate in another 12 months if he continues to improve at the same rate. However, I do feel that an extra 12 months in his nursery would give him the time to mature and everyone else the time to assess him regularly and without time pressures. If a dx is necessary it can be given with the fullest possible knowledge of him.

As someone mentioned earlier, I would also love to know the number of children who are assessed in their early years but whose issues then resolve themselves without dx or need for further intervention. DH was certainly one of these, a June baby who had severe S&L issues which then resolved themselves by the time he reached 5.

Ds1 has made some fantastic progress, but ironically it has revealed more of the differences he has in his speech and language. Eg he can now sometimes tell us some things that he has done or seen in the past, but he will place them out of context and be unable to explain further. It also shows what he sees as important. Eg a few weeks ago he came out of school saying "I go up the stairs". The school photographer had been in that day. He focuses on numbers and counting as being very important, when talking about the Christmas show he's taking part in he told us how many shepherds, angels, kings and innkeepers there were in it, rather than what any of them had to do.
The difficulty is, is that whilst he has progressed, so have other children his age and so his needs have shifted as well. There are still some things he can't do that he couldn't do when he was first diagnosed (eg he has never told us when he feels ill or scared or tired and has never asked a "why" question and still does not usually understand the reasons behind things occurring or any abstract things as far as I know) but he can now ask for things and tell us what he's doing in a fairly concrete way, think of like a toddler talking - "I go on the bus", "I play with W". He is very gregarious now and loves running round and following other children. However - as was witnessed this weekend - when another child tries to start a conversation, or suggest some sort of pretend play he can not manage, he will often not even be aware that what the child is saying is directed towards him. This is the same with adults, but adults - especially those aware of his difficulties - are more patient and understanding with him.
He does have other issues and differences as well, he is now more anxious at going out, especially when it differs from his usual routine. He is almost certaintly hyposensitive in some ways, touch and movement I think being two of them. He also has very uneven skills, in some ways - like maths - he is at least average and probably above his age, in other areas like his communication and his social and emotional development he presents more like a two year old.

bullet, can I ask how old your ds is, out of interest? It's interesting you say about your ds not being able to say he's feeling scared, ill or tired. Ds1 is also unable to communicate those things, he's only just started to say if he's hot or cold (he's 3.4) and also likes to focus on numbers, colours, labelling items rather than the bigger picture iyswim.
Will mention this at this week's SALT appt.

Hmm.

DS2, is 3 next May. I was initially concerned because he is autistic and non verbal and he is immature in a lot of ways but because of his birthday he would only have received a year in nursery.

Reception is very gentle, though, even if it is a whole day. If a child has a statement for any reason, then it can be put into that statement that they don't have to start full time until the term after their 5th birthday, since the law actually allows that. We did that for DS1, just in reception, turned 5, this month, though it turned out we didn't need that clause since he was so keen to be with his peers all day.

Anyhow, with DS2, we've just (all done bar the shouting and LEA cheque signed) acquired an early nursery place for him with the 2 year pilot scheme, so he'll get more than a year of nursery, after all. He'll actually be in the same area with the same teachers and other staff as his 5 year old brother, since the small local school has an all inclusive foundation unit. I'm not thinking that we'll be worrying about him starting reception "too soon".

Ds1 is 5 years and 5 months.

Lou, I totally agree. We don't have an education system where children have to pass each year to move onto the next. he ability of a child to cope with the demands of school in general are so strongly affected by the level of support received, though. Academically, DS1 wouldn't be out of place in year 1 or 2, but at the moment, we're fighting with a pretty good LEA to get him enough 1 to 1 support to get through reception without too many tears (wet) and tears (injuries).

kettlechip - DS was exactly the same at that age re:labelling, talk about colours and numbers - I've always felt it's partly a confidence thing - talk about the things you've got a firm grip on. 18 months down the line - things are much improved, as his speech has improved.

ouryve - yes, it makes it much easier when you have an all inclusive foundation unit - DS's school does to - as you know the teachers will be used to differentiating work. am getting twitchy already about transition into year 1 though

lou - I take your point that if the support was there then early starts would be much less of an issue - but I still think the cut off should be 4.5 not 4 for start of reception (with parents of summer borns getting to choose whether to start them at 4 or 5).

I can totally understand
At schol starting age, ds3 (laate july baby) had a 2 year @ delay.

I fought to get a deferral, no chance.

In the end we h-e'd for a bit, started him p-t at Christmas then F_T at Easter (unluckily the day ds4 arrived almost 2 weeks late- dammit!)

He seemed OK for a year but the decision has been taken to move him to sn school now, something I also asked for and was refused. Had we been allowed the deferral I feel the whole wrong school transition thing would ave been skipped

Our local authority does do that cut off TotalChaos, Ds1 started at 4.5 as will his cousin in January. Ds2 just gets into the September intake and will be one of the oldest in his year as he was born on 13th September.

So does that mean a full year in reception if you start at 4.5? Things vary so much from area to area , it really irks me. Just this morning I was kicking myself for not moving out of my city when we had the chance last year (I stayed because I was worried about DS going to bottom of paed waiting list in new area), as I feel that most places could not be any worse for waiting lists/supports/statementing.

No, he went into Year One in September.

I'm still thinking about those statistics of girls/boys born in August compared to Sept. on the SEN. 170 to every 100 is an extraordinary difference.

I've had a thought - and it's just speculation so will be happy for Amber or Jimjams or someone who knows what they are talking about to correct it.

Presumably being the youngest in your year (mainstream only here folks) couldn't change your underlying biological differences - such as those sensory differences that Amber describes. But surely the negative experience of being the child least able to cope anyway with the curriculum/demands of school due quite simply to your age could increase the degree to which you manifest your traits? Your anxiety would be higher if you were constantly being set up to fail. Being more anxious, your behaviours might be more apparent.... so you get put on the SEN and sometimes also statemented. Whereas being the oldest in your year, you are still very vulnerable but one less factor is taken out of the equation. I'm assuming here that anxiety tends to increase the level at which you present your ASD traits. So two children who are as different from the "norm" as each other might have very different outcomes according to birth month.

This has slightly depressed me and made me feel it is very important for parents of a child who might be HFA or Aspergers to be able to defer for a year to avoid the double whammy of the ASD itself combined with the exposure to curriculum that's pitched for above your age anyway, which in mainstream it always is because of the pressures of a competitive world.

My best friend at school was the youngest in our year and was always conscious of it, although she was fairly bright and it never really held her back academically, socially she took some time to find her feet.

My sister had a serious illness as a child which in reality wiped 2 years off her age when she recovered from a coma and was left with the abilities of a newborn at 2.1. My mum fought tooth and nail to get her deferred but to no avail and she struggled throughout school to make up the difference with her peers. Her GCSE results were probably as you'd expect a 13 year old's to be. She is now fine, and very bright and articulate but didn't properly catch up and mature until around 18.

I think my point is that being a summer born baby probably shouldn't be too much of a challenge for the average NT child, but throw anything else into the equation and that age difference becomes pronounced and exacerbates any other difficulties which are going on. There needs to be flexibility within the system to accommodate this.

For me personally having 2 very different ds' with Aug birthdays, I worry for ds1 it will be tough as his language skills are already so delayed. On the other hand I get the feeling that ds2 may cope well with being a mid Aug baby (although at 16 months it is probably far too early to say!)

And to be painfully honest, I sometimes wish I'd actually planned them better. Honestly, I do feel guilty that I've inadvertently made life more difficult for ds1 than it perhaps needed to be. Although I guess a ds1 born in September wouldn't be the same little boy I adore so it's academic really..

I understand the guilt factor about planning better. I knew my Dts were going to be born at the latest at 38 weeks. Because this coincided with the cut off date my doctor asked me if I wanted them to go to school at 4 or 5. In my blissful ignorance days I opted for 4 as I was young going to school and did fine. It completly bypassed me at the time that the reason DH did poorly at primary school was possibly because he was the youngest in his year. As it turned out I didnt have a choice as my Dt's were born at 36 weeks and so had to start at 4 despite being premature. I am so glad I didnt make the choice myself as I know I would be plagued with guilt that i didnt opt for the later date. I actually agree with you kettle and others about the age difference adding to something else going on. I think before this thread I would have said that the age difference would have highlighted issues earlier but this thread has made me think about the possibility of the age difference being more than that. And kettle - I dont think anyone thinks about school age when planning a baby or even just after a baby is born. Whenever friends have babies my first thought is always - when will they be starting school and they always lok at me as if i am a freak to be even thinking along those lines.

When I started school, (Ok I admit it was several decades ago!) there were 3 intakes a year, ( Sep/Jan/April). Children were scheduled to start the term before/of their 5th birthday, but there was some flexibilty, due to lack of nursery provision. (Ie they could start earlier as I and dtsis did)). The school I attended had 2 classes infants and juniors. We were therefore educated in a very mixed age group, with children working at different levels, and benefitted from this.

In our county now there are 2 reception intakes (Sept and Jan,) but no flexibilty. ( Ds had to start with older Sept group even though he was functioning at a much younger level - and was so premature he should have arrived at a date consistant with the Jan group IYSWIM) The biggest problem for my sn child was the lack of differentiation ( no support with very early skills)and 'personal' care. In my day an adult would have helped a child to change after a toileting accident ( not sent for their mother), and sat with their class at lunch to encourage and assist. Thus younger children and those with mild sn were still supported and cared for in a way that is lacking today. It is vital to care for children as well as educate them (Magso on high horse again!)

I think ds was autistic well before he started school. However the exstreme stress of ms did make his underlying autism more apparent (unmissable) in that setting (and after school).

That difference in number on the sen register and birthdate is supprising but needs further analysis. I presume SEN include a very wide range of needs.

Here's the Rose report itself (now some of you might think that message 148 is a little late to introduce the actual subject matter of the thread).

www.numicon.com/Assets/Downloadablefile/IPRC_Report-15707.pdf

See page 48 on. You'll see Rose actually wants to reduce parental choice. Despite citing the evidence that summer-borns benefit from deferring for a whole year (as opposed to deferring for two terms which some mumsnetters have found brilliant but which statistically speaking seems to result in worse outcomes).

Some good news. There is a consultation period on this interim report until 28 February. lingle's new years' resolutions are now decided on.

I find this very interesting because I hadn't realised that there is so much pressure on kids in England & Wales (and I say England & Wales, because in Scotland kids don't have to start at 4...). My DD has a social communication disorder and started school at 3...in French, which she doesn't even speak. She absolutely thrived and loves school. HOWEVER for the first year she did only 4 mornings a week. She now does 4 mornings and 4 afternoons and comes home for lunch - nothing to do with being SN - mothers who don't work only have the right to one or two lunches per week and I haven't applied for any. Plenty of non-SN kids go home for lunch. Wednesday is not a school day. I find it hard to believe that if we were in England she would be doing 5 full days at school right now and that they would already be trying to teach her to READ. Here, kids don't start to read until they are 6. Sure, they do "pre-literacy" stuff and kids who want to learn certainly could, but it's not part of the curriculum until they start primary school. It seems to me a lot to expect of any four-year-old, let alone SN kids.

Exactly, People here think the English system is normal and it isn't.

The starting age of 5 was decided on, so far as I can tell, in the 19th Century because MPs who privately opposed the idea of universal education thought that the earlier the children started, the sooner they could be out and working in the mills. This is not a joke - it made sense in their day.

I havent read the entire thred but I agree with the OP that there should be some facility for children who will be young in the year to be allowed to defer for a year.

My DS isn't SN but is very high-mainteneance and highly strung and I am currently wondering if he has Sensory Perception Dysfunction.

He is a June born and started school at 4 and 3 months. The school we go to historically had one intake, eg all children born 1 Sept 02 to 31 Aug 03 started school on 1st Sept 07 (approx). The year we were doing the admissions they dithered and dithered about going to a rising-5 3 intake scheme where each child would enter in the term during which they turned 5. So for my DS he would have started Reception in April 08 and then moved to Year 1 in September 08. They went with 1 intake in the end that year and he started in the September having just turned 4, but from this year on they are doing the 3 intakes.

At the time I was desperate for him to start ion the September, he his horrendous with trnsition and doesnt settle into new scenarios at all well. His toileting is terrible and if he hadnt started until April I would just see 6 months of h3ll as he struglled to settle in for a term and then had 6 weeks off and then returned to another new environment.

As it was he did great in reception. He had a fantastic teacher and although the toileting wasnt fantastic the teacher was supportive and helpful and together we and the scholl guided him through the first year. It went better than I ever could have hoped for.

Now however is a different story.
He is in Year 1 and though academically he is fantastyic, socially he is ok, but behaviourally its not that great. He struggles with playtime as they are mixed in with some older kids now (in reception thay had their own playground), he strguggles to concentrate and complete tasks on time, and he struggles with the toileting.l The teacher is fairly new to teaching and very young, she hasnt been at all supportive or helpful, merely defensive of her methods. She didnt bother to note that he was young in theyear and was surpirsed when I pointed out that he is at the age now that some kids were at during the middle term in reception when they were still allowed to "play" and not expected to concentrate for so long and dd not have deadlines to complete tasks. His teacher says he is disruptive and metes out discipline accordingly causing him to miss playtime which is bad news because then he gets even less opportunity to learn to socialise. She started off not letting them go to the toilet until playtime which was catastrophic for him and has set us back a full year. We have had several meetings with the school and have had a few changes made but for him the damage is done ths year.

I've been really shicked at the difference a few months and a different teacher can make.

I firmly believe that if we'd been allowed to defer for a year he would have managed a lot better and his self confidence would have been vastly improved.

I agree there has to be a line drawn but I fel there should be a choice for parents to make, an overlap if you like where you may end up with some of the older children in reception being older than some of the younger ones in Year 1.