Schooling for September born kid

MadDogWoman_2

There can be downsides to being a September born child at school, the expectation of being more mature and sensible, setting an example to the younger children, within my class and school.

I think it was this that lead to my decision to leave at 16, I had, had enough.

I'm a 1st week of September baby.

FBaby

Saturnalia wrote: »

Why would you want your kid in school at 3?

Let a child be a child, FGS!

Both my children a 3 were ready for school in every way (they are Dec/Jan born) but instead had to do another year at nursery, which they found long and boring, despite the nursery doing their best to stimulate them.

It just depends on the child. At 3, some children have the maturity of some 5yo and vice versa. It doesn't mean anything for the future, some just start faster than others. It is a bit of a pity that starting dates are not based on maturity of the child rather than age, but then it wouldn't be fair to those who are slow starters and then really pick up and vice versa.

sassyblue

slightlyconfused1 wrote: »

This thread has totally depressed me.

I am the only one that finds the fact that a large percentage of children will be disadvantaged throughout their school career solely because of their month of birth shocking? Why is this just accepted?

My 31st August 7yo struggles and it does annoy me, on the one hand his teacher understands, on the other he's got targets to meet so has to push him regardless.

DS is bright but that year is still a big gap at this age, l would have gladly had a 1st sept child to give them an easier start.

RobotsinDisguse

slightlyconfused1 wrote: »

This thread has totally depressed me.

Am I the only one that finds the fact that a large percentage of children will be disadvantaged throughout their school career solely because of their month of birth shocking? Why is this just accepted?

I'm saddened by it too. I'm currently due a July baby and do worry. But then the people in my and my husband's family who have done academically and professionally 'better' are both July born.

balletshoes

RobotsinDisguse wrote: »

I'm saddened by it too. I'm currently due a July baby and do worry. But then the people in my and my husband's family who have done academically and professionally 'better' are both July born.

please don't worry unduly about this - as others have already said on this thread, there are many exceptions to "the rule" regarding youngest kids in each school year.

Goldiegirl

When I was a kid, there was a woman in my road who had two children- one was born early September and the other was born late August the following year. So they were both in the same year at school


The eldest thrived at school - the youngest struggled.


But I put it down to the fact that eldest was very intelligent, and the youngest was very dim - not because of when their birthday was


In later years I found out that the two children had different fathers ..... so that might explain the difference in intelligence!


I think it's more down to the individual than the birth month

Janepig

jellyhead wrote: »

I think they go full time at 3 in Wales?

Mine did!! :D

But it does vary from school to school. The school where DD and DS go has a nursery class and they have one intake in September each year and that's the September after the child's third birthday. However, the primary school around the corner from me doesn't have a nursery class and the children start reception on a part time basis.

Best thing about DD/DS's school though, is that they have two classes for each year sorted by age so the August borns in DD's class for example are only five months younger than the oldest children in the class (April borns). The beauty of having on average around 67 kids in the year means they can do this. The split point does vary from year to year depending on where all the birthdays fall, but at the age of three it's far better than an August born being in the same class as a September born in terms of their development.

Not for nothing is it the only oversubscribed school in a County with about 130 primary schools.

Jx

claire16c

slightlyconfused1 wrote: »

This thread has totally depressed me.

Am I the only one that finds the fact that a large percentage of children will be disadvantaged throughout their school career solely because of their month of birth shocking? Why is this just accepted?

When I was at school (back in the dark ages) there were two intakes, one in summer, one at Christmas. The same as there were three nursery intakes when my daughter started (she is now 12).

I am lucky I live in Scotland where there is much more flexibility regarding school start dates.

I would also like to add that not once has the cost of childcare ever affected any decision regarding my children's education or social development. I would gladly spend every penny I have to help my children.

That's why they changed the intake dates to help with it, so it's not just been accepted they are trying to do something about it. However having the summer babies start school so soon means for some of them it's too early.

Blue meanie, I was the same being born in November. I'd passed my driving test in June and could be a lot more independent, whereas my August born friend was still waiting to turn 17 and start lessons!

iammumtoone

Goldiegirl wrote: »

I think it's more down to the individual than the birth month

Correct it is down to the individual but it has a bearing on the birth month, for example my son is immature for his age and he is the youngest so that is not a good situation, if he was the oldest and immature for his age it wouldn't matter so much. I am sure it works the other way as well, if the oldest child happens to be mature for their age then I assume they would struggle with that as well.

Billie-S

If the OP's child had been allowed in school now, would that not mean that they would still be ten by the time they went to secondary school? (As they wouldn't be eleven til 2 or 3 weeks after.) Either that, or they'd have to do a year extra at primary.