Summer babies- delaying admission to primary school Post Reply

[Girliemum]

Interestingly in Scotland, the intake year group runs from March- Feb, rather than Sept-Aug. This means that lots of starters are already five when they begin school, with the youngest being 4.5. Maybe something to think about if the system is to be changed.

[3hotcrossbunnies]

I think this whole thing about starting school early is because basically majority of population loves that as it's free childcare essentially. Ditto the rationale for longer school day.

Yes yes! Although I don't 'blame the parents' more the fact that if a parent (let's face it, the mother) decides to remain at home with her child(ren) this is seen as a 'lesser choice' by society. Successive governments have pushed the free nursery provision as part of assisting parents back to work. Although that's a whole other debate!!

[3hotcrossbunnies]

Oh and I couldn't agree more about the loss of the time to play, explore, nap...well just be. They are still very young children. My youngest is not *that* happy about going to school - but that would be the same even if in the academic year group below.

[TraceyA]

Good morning, I would suggest you take a look at the Government guidance for local authorities, "Advice on the admission of summer born children -December 2014" and the "School Admissions Code Dec 2014" paras 2.16 - 2.17b. There should be no blanket policy of saying "no" and each case should be considered on its own merits. That said there is no guarantee of course that a local authority will agree to a request.

[TootingEd]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/summ ... hool-later

I think another poster picked up on recent press coverage but the law is changing so this will purely a parent choice in future with no school or local authority inteference.

The Education minister has said he will legislate (so assuming it passes), all April - August born children will have the option into which year they go.

He clearly states the current system is broken in that the power resides with the LA's / Schools and not the parents. He has stated that he has requested all schools to follow the proposed new rules now, but every school we have spoken does not acknowledge these new rules.

Unfortunately, I cannot see how this will be legislated and passed (given they haven't consulted on it yet) by January 2016 for the September 2016 intake, but will imagine it will be in place in following years.

It aslo removes any worry about children who have/do defer and are outside their chronological age group later in their school life, as every child will have the right to remain in their chosen year group right through to 16. (currently no secondary school is required to accept a child was has deferred a year into the year group he has belonged to at primary school.)

Given British children start school at a considerably younger age than most western nations, once the new rules are in place and it is more accepted in peoples mind, I imagine a considerable percentage of people will opt for the children to start school later, which will effectively shift the age range at which our children start school.

Our eldest (July born) is due to start in September 2016, but I am hoping that prior to the school year commencing, the law will have changed and we can reapply for him to start in September 2017.

[TootingEd]

oops, realised that's the wrong link (and can't find the original one I wanted to attach at the moment) - there is another Gov't announcement on the same day (similar to the content I linked, but actually states they will change the law, but without any timeframes.)

another link is the open letter below which was sent to all schools to request they follow the new rules which they set out in the letter

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/s ... ssions.pdf

[TootingEd]

I actually thought these two guardian articles (published on the same day!) were pretty funny:

the first - describing the changes which will be put into place

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... -of-school

the second - its only going to benefit the middle classes as the poor won't be able to afford to keep them out of school for another year

http://www.theguardian.com/education/20 ... ren-behind

(this article touches upon the long term impact of the new changes that the cut off for full time schooling will shift back from 31 August to 1 April.)

[A678]

Thank you so much for all the replies. I'm really grateful for everyone's responses - it's very helpful to hear other parents' thoughts on this. Thank you to the people who shared their personal experiences and I'm grateful to TootingEd for all the useful information and links.
I'm right at the beginning stages of thinking about this so I am just starting to talk to head teachers as I visit schools and I have made initial contact with Wandsworth to understand their current policy.
Thank you for giving me so much to think about! Happychaos and TootingEd good luck with your little ones. It would be great to stay in touch and hear how you get on, please do pm me if you would like! xx

[3hotcrossbunnies]

There is no perfect solution to this - obviously as nothing is perfect! Someone will have to be the youngest.
Does anyone have the answer as to why the current legal position (of a child starting school in the term in which he/she turns 5 not at the start of the academic year) is not applied? My understanding is that this is how nursery provision is dealt - i.e. the term after the child turns 3. This seems to get round most issues (avoids the youngest starting when just 4, not increasing the age spread to 17months within the class, admissions logistical nightmares etc etc). The solution to the problems experienced by the youngest children in the class seems to be there already - why are no schools/parent bodies applying this policy?? The cynic in me suspects its all down to money/funding within the education sector but then the financial impact on holding children back must be similar no?

[broodje]

There is a perfect solution - let the parents make that judgement call! There will be no chaos or upheaval as local authorities seem to think - at least it seems to be working perfectly fine in other countries and it's such a non-issue there...

[TootingEd]

In response to the no perfect solution - no there is not, but being the youngest in a class at 5, is very different to being the youngest at 4 - the point being the older all the children are, the more ready they all are and the more level the classes are.

The law is currently applied - it is compulsory to attend once a child has turned 5 - the only problem being is that schools currently will typically put that child into year 1, not reception even if they did not attend a day in the previous year when they would have been given a place.

(It may be hearsay, but I have read about schools being impacted if children do not attend reception year, as they have to give the place to the child but funding is affected if that child is not in attendance - thus, if 90 places were offered, but half deferred, the school would only have 45 in attendance (with no ability to offer those places to anyone else.)

If your suggestion is to effectively defer every child (which is not actually as outrageous as it sounds as this would only bring us up towards other western nations), the problem is that the whole curriculum would have to be re-written to fit it into one less year, unless everyone is going to finish GCSE's at 17 and A Levels at 19.

[AbbevilleMummy]

But how would all of this work in oversubscribed schools? We have all seen what happens at certain times of the year when people are desperate for places. Can you imagine people not getting their preferred school, but many children in that preferred school having deferred until the term after their child turns 5 and so the class in fact half empty until the summer term?

For this reason, I can't see staggered entry working....

[TootingEd]

Staggered entry exists now - every parent has a right if they want to defer entry until later in reception year - they only have to attend after the child turns 5. It is only the pressure that schools put parents under not to that more children do not. (in fact some schools claim that pupils cannot defer a term or two, or do part time, yet they cannot actually stop any child doing this - it is in the admissions code is the sole decision of the parent.)

The new rules re deferring a full year for the youngest children will in theory reduce this, as those most concerned can apply a full year later. Even so, some parent may choose not to defer a whole year but do part time, or only spring or summer term.

Changing the starting age of summer babies will not stop other children, perhaps those born in Jan-Mar not wanting to defer a term.