School starting age, please advise

balancelife

bestpud wrote: »

'The teachers said...'. Must be right then! :rotfl:

Most of us teach our children to socialise - not sure who leaves that to schools...?

Fabulous life skills and I'm so glad your daughter has learnt all this at four. Good grief!!! Just imagine
she didnt know what the school bell meant until 5!!! She could have ended up in prison by the age of 14!!! Thank goodness for great parents like yourself! Give yourself a pat on the back for letting someone else teach your daughter life skills! :cool:

I won't even start on the damaging effect of not being able to carry a tray of food at 5! :rotfl:

Seriously - get over yourself!!

There is more to being a parent than putting them down for school at 2 and carting them off to learn things you could teach them yourself! I realise you wanted shot of your dd ASAP but not all parents do, and it doesn't make them a bad parent!

Apologies OP, it appears I got it wrong when saying you had attacked my parenting in my first post - it was bestpud initially. I should have gone back through before I wrote my post. I feel in all posts you did still reply rudely, but not firstly and for that I apologise.

Bestpud I totally forgot that it was actually you who was first so very rude about something I posted. OTT or not, I didnt deserve that little mouthful from you really. Paticularly when you aren't even the OP. And while I know you dont really care as Im an internet username and not a real person - just so you know I was actually quite upset about how you replied to me so I hope it made you feel good.

I admit my first post may have come across as OTT though I was airing on the side of caution that the OP seriously knew little about schools having already said that she had never dealt with such things before, being her firstborn, it being easier to keep her in nursery for timings mainly, and not being made aware enough about how to apply. At that point I thought that the OP may need it clarifying that next academic year her daughter will join year one not reception, and also that whether they moved house or not they would then need to send the child every day at set times and follow school rules. unless they chose to home school obviously. I was also trying to point out the things other than academics they get from school, using positive rather than negative admittedly, esp as you'd already started with the "non stop academic treadmill" stuff.

My daughter isn't five yet, two more weeks to go. Shes just finished reception. If I could have delayed the start and put her in reception this coming year I think I would have done. but it wasnt an option. knowing she would be young in her year maybe thats why I started looking into it early, and I did wonder about keeping her out until year one, so I dont speak blindly having just gone with the flow 100%. I made my choices to send her when she should have gone to give her the chance to catch up with her peers in her year group and to settle ready for year one. Between school and home shes done well thankfully and is a happy little girl. 50% of the year group are "summer born" in her year, so from April-August, and there are actually 4 younger children than her. I was suprised at that but its good emotionally for her

bestpud

balancelife wrote: »

Apologies OP, it appears I got it wrong when saying you had attacked my parenting in my first post - it was bestpud initially. I should have gone back through before I wrote my post. I feel in all posts you did still reply rudely, but not firstly and for that I apologise.

Bestpud I totally forgot that it was actually you who was first so very rude about something I posted. OTT or not, I didnt deserve that little mouthful from you really. Paticularly when you aren't even the OP. And while I know you dont really care as Im an internet username and not a real person - just so you know I was actually quite upset about how you replied to me so I hope it made you feel good.

I admit my first post may have come across as OTT though I was airing on the side of caution that the OP seriously knew little about schools having already said that she had never dealt with such things before, being her firstborn, it being easier to keep her in nursery for timings mainly, and not being made aware enough about how to apply. At that point I thought that the OP may need it clarifying that next academic year her daughter will join year one not reception, and also that whether they moved house or not they would then need to send the child every day at set times and follow school rules. unless they chose to home school obviously. I was also trying to point out the things other than academics they get from school, using positive rather than negative admittedly, esp as you'd already started with the "non stop academic treadmill" stuff.

My daughter isn't five yet, two more weeks to go. Shes just finished reception. If I could have delayed the start and put her in reception this coming year I think I would have done. but it wasnt an option. knowing she would be young in her year maybe thats why I started looking into it early, and I did wonder about keeping her out until year one, so I dont speak blindly having just gone with the flow 100%. I made my choices to send her when she should have gone to give her the chance to catch up with her peers in her year group and to settle ready for year one. Between school and home shes done well thankfully and is a happy little girl. 50% of the year group are "summer born" in her year, so from April-August, and there are actually 4 younger children than her. I was suprised at that but its good emotionally for her

I didn't mince my words as, by that time, I was fed up with people chuntering on about the OP not knowing about the regulations.

And I was also getting miffed with people saying children miss out by having a delayed start, so when you came along and started saying you were a better parent for signing your dd up at 2 1/2 and feeling proud she knows how to conform to the school routine at 4, I'm afraid you were fair game!

I apologise if that upset you, but please bear in mind that some of us feel upset at the thought of four year olds starting in the school system.

What you cannot do is assume it is best for every family just because you are happy with it.

It is perfectly acceptable to delay the start until 5 and the OP is happy with that decision, so neither you or anyone else has a right to make them feel bad for doing so.

Torry_Quine

bestpud wrote: »

I didn't mince my words as, by that time, I was fed up with people chuntering on about the OP not knowing about the regulations.

And I was also getting miffed with people saying children miss out by having a delayed start, so when you came along and started saying you were a better parent for signing your dd up at 2 1/2 and feeling proud she knows how to conform to the school routine at 4, I'm afraid you were fair game!

I apologise if that upset you, but please bear in mind that some of us feel upset at the thought of four year olds starting in the school system.

What you cannot do is assume it is best for every family just because you are happy with it.

It is perfectly acceptable to delay the start until 5 and the OP is happy with that decision, so neither you or anyone else has a right to make them feel bad for doing so.

I'm with you, if anything we need to put the age up from five, four is far too young.

shirlgirl2004

I think most people have a desire to do the best for their children and none of us manage to go through life without making mistakes. I think we all need to remember that when we are replying to posts.
I think we all ought to remember the saying.
"Let him who is without sin cast the first stone"

squoog

I kept my son at state nursery for an extra year (for very different reasons than the OP). He is autumn born. From what I remember, deferring
a place is at the discretion of the head of the school.
Personally, I think going straight into yr 1 would be hard, as they learn a lot more than reading in reception. Maybe at the OP's nursery they use a lot of equipment that the schools also use. That was not true for my 4 kids.
My son went into reception a year later at the age of 5. I didn't want him to miss that foundation year if we were going to use the state system.
My twins who have just finished reception (also autumn born), went part time until christmas at my request. I had the whole socialising argument thrown at me, but with hindsight both decisions were the best I could have made for my children.
I wish more parents realise that they do have a choice. I feel for the summer born children that often struggle.
I have found that it is highly unusual to do something different and often the authorities and the school are confused about how to administer this. However this doesn't mean that it can't be done!
My children are at the (recently merged) biggest primary school in the city, 850 children, and yet my son is 1 of only 2 children in whole school that is out of chronological year and my twins were the only autumn born children to go part time at first.
Everyone needs to feel they are doing their best for their whole family and decisions often have to be made based on numerous things.
Good luck OP, with the bureaucratic maze that is education!

balancelife

bestpud wrote: »

I didn't mince my words as, by that time, I was fed up with people chuntering on about the OP not knowing about the regulations.

And I was also getting miffed with people saying children miss out by having a delayed start, so when you came along and started saying you were a better parent for signing your dd up at 2 1/2 and feeling proud she knows how to conform to the school routine at 4, I'm afraid you were fair game!

I apologise if that upset you, but please bear in mind that some of us feel upset at the thought of four year olds starting in the school system.

What you cannot do is assume it is best for every family just because you are happy with it.

It is perfectly acceptable to delay the start until 5 and the OP is happy with that decision, so neither you or anyone else has a right to make them feel bad for doing so.

Well I didn't think it made me a better parent as such but apology accepted, thank you

I think we should all be made aware early on of ALL the options available to us and how to go about them, advantages and disadvantages. Then we can all make informed choices about what is best for our own children, not just go with the flow, miss deadlines and have choice limited, know what is involved in home schooling and how to make that work, understanding as to whether the school offers more than academics and how each individual school works, options for starting at different parts of the year, missing years, going ahead of the year, going reception late etc. That would be good, particularly if the info was given to all parents and not just those who research it.

With regards to the ops situation, if they thought 4 was too young and understood they wanted to miss reception and go to year 1 next year then that's their choice, and I wouldn't criticise it, like I don't criticise people home schooling or delaying and wouldn't want criticising for informed choices I make. Right it wrong I believe that the op didn't initially think that, they simply didn't know when to send their child, and that limits and changes the decisions around education which to all parents is very important. Right now info on all choices is not routinely given and the onus is on the parents to make their choices.

bestpud

balancelife wrote: »

Well I didn't think it made me a better parent as such but apology accepted, thank you

I think we should all be made aware early on of ALL the options available to us and how to go about them, advantages and disadvantages. Then we can all make informed choices about what is best for our own children, not just go with the flow, miss deadlines and have choice limited, know what is involved in home schooling and how to make that work, understanding as to whether the school offers more than academics and how each individual school works, options for starting at different parts of the year, missing years, going ahead of the year, going reception late etc. That would be good, particularly if the info was given to all parents and not just those who research it.

With regards to the ops situation, if they thought 4 was too young and understood they wanted to miss reception and go to year 1 next year then that's their choice, and I wouldn't criticise it, like I don't criticise people home schooling or delaying and wouldn't want criticising for informed choices I make. Right it wrong I believe that the op didn't initially think that, they simply didn't know when to send their child, and that limits and changes the decisions around education which to all parents is very important. Right now info on all choices is not routinely given and the onus is on the parents to make their choices.

Quite agree that information is a bit hit and miss.

The OP said they'd have opted for school had they realised, as they wouldn't then have moved house.

Clearly they regret moving house but are now doing the best they can with the situation they are in.

jellyhead

squoog wrote: »

My son went into reception a year later at the age of 5. I didn't want him to miss that foundation year if we were going to use the state system.

How did you manage that? I'd have loved my eldest to do that, and I asked but was told it wasn't possible. He stayed in nursery for 2 terms then went into reception after easter so he didn't miss out on reception altogether. It was still hard for him but he had a great time in year 1 and caught up fine.

Is your son a school year behind where he should be? I'd be happy for my eldest to have done that, even right up to teenage years. They take their GCSE's too early anyway, he has already finished most of them at age 14 and the final year of school is just about resits in most of the subjects. He's doing okay and will get enough GCSE passes for college, but there's more to school than that.

JC9297

jellyhead wrote: »

How did you manage that? I'd have loved my eldest to do that, and I asked but was told it wasn't possible. He stayed in nursery for 2 terms then went into reception after easter so he didn't miss out on reception altogether. It was still hard for him but he had a great time in year 1 and caught up fine.

Is your son a school year behind where he should be? I'd be happy for my eldest to have done that, even right up to teenage years. They take their GCSE's too early anyway, he has already finished most of them at age 14 and the final year of school is just about resits in most of the subjects. He's doing okay and will get enough GCSE passes for college, but there's more to school than that.

Assume your son is almost 15 and in year 10? Seems a ridiculous policy for the school to have them sit GCSEs in year 10 and then resit in year 11, surely another year would mean they get better results first time.

jellyhead

Yes, July birthdays for both kids.

There are probably some subjects they haven't taken exams in yet, but he says he has already finished maths, english, the 3 sciences, german, electronics. He is easily confused, and I only get exam timetables when I physically go through his bag for them, so he could be mistaken but he's taken an awful lot of exams in year 10 and some of them have already taken an english resit.

IT is not a GCSE, it's OCR so I don't know about that. He is predicted P which I assume is a pass. He has no idea about RE which is compulsory, but they will sort that out in the alternative curriculum - they might not have to do an exam. They do COPE, and he is on track for AoPE which he says is part of that. He's doing an NVQ at college, and he thinks he's got level 1 so he can get elvel 2 next year.

But still, that's 7 GCSEs he says he's finished. What are they teaching them next year? He might have got it wrong, maybe there are other modules based on next year's teaching, but he told me he has definitely finished maths. They haven't taught him any trigonometry yet though, I tried before his last exam