Summer babies- delaying admission to primary school Post Reply

[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.