deferring for a year - my 4 yr old

[nellieellie]

Have just got a pack from the local education authority to apply for a place at primary school for my DS. He will be 4 next Aug so will only just be 4 when he starts. I have seen loads of stuff about the youngest children of the year consistently doing worse academically than their peers. So my plan was to defer a year so my DS would be just 5 when he started. However the authority have told me that if I do this, he would have to miss out the reception year and then have to start year 1 - and be with the same set of children he would have started with the following year! Their policy does not allow children to join outside their "school year". So, would still be the youngest of the year with the added disadvantages of joining a group where friendships had already been formed, and missing the reception year. I am gobsmacked. Legally I know that a child has to start school/schooling the term after the 5th birthday, which is what I want my DS to do. Has anyone else had any experience of deferring their child for a year - or experience of their child being youngest in the class?? I will have same problem with my DD who was 1 in August.

[nellieellie]

oops - sorry - meant that if he defers he will be with the same set of kids he would have started with the previous year - not following yr!

[fircone]

Dd born 30 August. I started her in Reception last year (at 4 and 3 days ) BUT I calmly insisted to the school that she attended mornings-only all year. I was always very polite, but insistent, and I know it was best for my dd.

Then she knew her peers/all the procedures but she still had the afternoons at home with me.

Ds is also August-born, and he was always fine and is top of his year.

[Buda]

Lots of threads on here about it and not a lot you can do really.

Reception IS an important year. The jump from Reception to Year 1 is huge - for a child to go straight into Year 1 would be very difficult.

My DS is an August boy. He had done a year in nursery at the same school and started Reception at 4. He is now in Yr 3. DS coped fine - is struggling a bit more academically in some ways now but I keep reminding him and the school that he is an August boy. There are 2 others in his class and they are doing fine.

The UK system stinks imho. Makes me so cross.

[Buda]

[http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/2403/610132 Here] is another thread about it.

[NotBigNotClever]

My dd is a July birthday and did absolutely fine. She was much more tired than the majority of her classmates for the reception year, but she did fine academically and socially. Now in Year 6 she is at a fairly academic school and is in top sets for everything. There are several other people in my extended family who have August birthdays who went on to do v. well academically. I think they are more likely to suffer if you hold them back when their peers have all gone to school, tbh. Unless you think there are special grounds for deferring for a year.

[prettybird]

Buda - the English system stinks, not the UK system. In Scoltand, if you defer, you do geneuinely start a year later and end up being amongst the oldest instead of amongst the youngest. Everyone has to start in Primary 1: there is no "Reception".

[Buda]

Sorry prettybird! I should have remembered that!

[LadyMuck]

If you can afford to, you can go privately. But otherwise I think that your LEA has given you a fair summary of the position.

[singersgirl]

Despite having two August boys and despite my misgivings over their starting school so young, I wouldn't have held them back and had them miss Reception. In fact, in our LEA, all the children do mornings only until Christmas, so that was the same as nursery.

There is a lot of learning through play in Reception and the work is cunningly sneaked into 10 minutes here and there. Year 1 was much more of a shock for my boys - I think if they'd gone straight into that from nursery we'd have had more problems, not fewer. They'd still have been the youngest, they wouldn't have had any friends or known the routines, and they'd have missed out on a year of learning to read etc.

But only you can decide and I really understand why you're thinking about it. Both my boys have also done fine academically and socially, but statistically they are more likely to find it hard.

[ForeverOptimistic]

I think going straight into year 1 would be difficult.

Ds is an August born baby and is due to start full time in January. I think he is ready for Reception but I have concerns with him being ready for year 1 next September, but short of home educating there is nothing I can do about it?

[nellieellie]

Well it is reassuring to hear of August borns doing well. I will definitely not start DS in Year 1 as this will accomplish nothing. However I'm fairly sure that not all LAs operate this policy, and I'm not convinced yet that they are entitled to. I will try to find the other thread Buda so thanks for that. To be honest I think that too much is expected too young in England, and if I had to confidence to home-teach I probably would.

[lingle]

"However I'm fairly sure that not all LAs operate this policy, and I'm not convinced yet that they are entitled to"

well exactly Nellieellie.

In Bradford (and I have been told Leeds) you defer for a year then go to reception if you wish.

As to entitlement: now that's a good point. I believe that there is an education act that says they must have an education from 5. And there is a human rights act that says everyone has a right to an education. And yet LEAs remove all deferral choice by threatening to place children in a class for which they are clearly not suited.

Put it this way, if I didn't live in Bradford, I would be researching this and putting together a letter to my LEA.

Please do join the other thread. We feel powerless because mothers of August-borns don't form a natural community - but that's where mumsnet comes in!

[singersgirl]

It is ridiculously difficult in our LEA (Richmond-upon-Thames) to be placed out of year group and generally only happens with summer-born statemented children ie there are several children on the autistic spectrum out of year group at our primary. But there is no hope with a typically developing child. There are also problems with secondary transfer; the secondary schools will not accept applications from children out of year group, apparently.

[pop1973]

My ds is August born and started reception. Youngest in the school but is really enjoying school. Very tired in the afternoons but socially finds it is what he needs. Totally accepted by the other children and school. It is hard, we did think about postponing until he was 5. But just found out that he would start school in Yr 1 and therefore would have missed out on some schooling.

He has a little trouble with pencil control due to age and being so little compared with other child, but is getting so much other stimulus that he would have been bored at home or in nursery. Socially some children need the school environment of mixing with peers. Don't worry too much. It is hard when they are young but teachers will take this into account when they do reports and assessments and if they don't remind them off the age difference between other children.

[nellieellie]

Thanks Lingle for referring to other thread. I've had a look and posted there - the Institute of Fiscal Studies report that has been linked there about the effect of current education system on summer-borns is v shocking. A late school start should be a campaign issue. I do intend to take this further.....................

[lingle]

"Tbh there has to be a cut off point somewhere"

Why?

I've heard no complaints from those in Scotland about the flexibility that they have.

Is the concern that parents will hold their child back a year so that s/he can be top of the class?

[pinkteddy]

Other countries work without this cut off point. I believe NZ for example they start on their 5th birthday no matter when that is. I am pretty sure I personally did this in England too in the early 70s. I distinctly remember having to wait a few months after my friend who had a January birthday. So I think the system hasn't always been like this.

[lingle]

"So I think the system hasn't always been like this."

Does anyone know the history behind this mess? Given that I've never, in my two years of following this debate, ever, heard an argument from anyone remotely connected to education that it is better for an immature 4-year-old boy to be taught to read at 4 not 5 - I'm at a loss to know how we ended up here.

[nellieellie]

Totally agree Lingle. Some parents - not all would opt for deferral if poss. As the FSI report concludes, if there is a body of children - ie summer-borns who consistently do worse than their peers , by virtue of nothing other than the birthdate, this is inequitable and needs to be addressed.

[lingle]

Have you read the brief to Sir Jim Rose yet Nellie? If not I'll dig out a link. I'm sure the tide is turning....but those LEAs need a push.

[Buda]

"There are also problems with secondary transfer; the secondary schools will not accept applications from children out of year group, apparently." - Haven't the gov brought in rule that you can't leave school till 17? And is the plan to change it again to 18 at some point? (Or did I dream that?) Won't that have an affect on starting age too?

[Maria33]

I think they should be in a far more play-based environment till the end of infants and that those long weeks are too long for all 4/5 year olds, even some 39/ 40 year old

I felt that my ds was too young to start school at 4 so put him into a Steiner KG for 2 years (no reading or writing at all). He's now 6, gone straight in at year 2, he's having a blast - really ready to learn.

[Maria33]

Also, just remembered - my friend homeschooled her ds for hi reception year and started him in year 1 and again, no problemo!

Not all reception classes are the same - in my dd1's first school it was super-schooly and year 1 was a positive relief . The one that my dd2 will go into next year is really play based and I know she'll be fine. I just knew with every fibre of my being that starting school at 4 1/2 (even in the most play-based environment) was not going to work with ds1 and I was lucky enough to not be working at the time, so there were certain options available...

[Saggarmakersbottomknocker]

My ds1 is a very late August birthday. There's no question that it is often a disadvantage especially for boys. ds1 started fulltime on day 1 (they did in those days). Emotionally he was fine, academically he was most often close to the bottom of the pile, although the class was strong academically. He left secondary with above average GCSEs.

I work in school and IME there are some LEA's who will start a child late and in reception. However the child will at some point join their age appropriate peers and leave with the chohort. They do seem to have this thing about going to secondary at the same time. Starting late can therefore mean disruption throughout primary. Also state schools can't keep a place for your child so your choice of school may be limited if you don't take the place at 4. If I could go back I would have started ds1 part time and done a mix of school and HE.