Would you defer school entry for one year in my situation.

Kaye1

There is a growing school of thought that children in the UK start school too early. Lots of countries who have much better literacy rates than ours do start until children are 7.


That said, I really think it depends on the child. There are some children who are just not ready- emotional or physically.
However, the poor school would put me off- that first year can set them up to love or hate school for life.

Mojisola

Caleb11 wrote: »

If I defer his school entry until 2017 then he would be able to get settled into a new nursery near the school I want him to go to.

He would hopefully meet new friends to go school with.

pigpen wrote: »

My mother kept my sister back and it seriously damaged her whole education socially and academically.. other children had been there 7 months before she started, friendship groups had formed and she was excluded from that.. they were so far ahead she was working with the children with learning difficulties, this delay impacted on her right the way through school until she was 16 and left.

AIUI, that wouldn't happen here. Caleb11's son would make new friends in the new area through nursery and then would move on to school with them.

balletshoes

Kaye1 wrote: »

There is a growing school of thought that children in the UK start school too early. Lots of countries who have much better literacy rates than ours do start until children are 7.


That said, I really think it depends on the child. There are some children who are just not ready- emotional or physically.
However, the poor school would put me off- that first year can set them up to love or hate school for life.

that would only put me off if it were currently a poor school in KS1, and even then I'd still go see the school and speak to the teachers/ask to observe some of a lesson in the class my child would be going into, before I discounted it altogether. I wouldn't consider an opinion I formed of that school, or the area the school is in, years ago, to be valid or applicable now. Schools change in a matter of a very few years.

sheramber

Have you checked the availability of school places in teh school you prefer.

In Scotland you are not guaranteed a place in the catchment area school.

My nephew moved back to the area where he grew up but when they approached the school, whose catchment area they were in, ( his old school) to put their 3 year old daughter's name down for school entry they were told there was no chance she would get in as the list was full.

She had to go to a school at the other side of town.

theoretica

Caleb11 wrote: »

I
I do hope the authority would approve but I would be more than happy to pay for the additional year at pre school if they refused to provide this.

My reading of the first paragraph of http://www.gov.scot/Publications/2012/05/7940/4 is that you need to apply to defer and this can be accepted or not. If it is accepted the state will not pay for another year of pre school.

I suspect you have already missed the normal registering date - why not contact the schools you like and ask if any still have places? You could explain you are moving to Scotland but not immediately to your long term home. If you needed to, how fast do you think you could arrange to sell your current place and move?

Jagraf

Counting_Pennies wrote: »

It is good your child is able to cope. Not all are one size fits all. My daughter struggles and I know a year would have helped her.


We all have personal circumstances that influence us and resulting in us differing in opinion

Absolutely agree - so where do you draw the line (serious question - you could end up with two years difference between learners in reception)

Lunar_Eclipse

Caleb11 wrote: »

He wouldn't be a year behind at all. It's the option of one of the youngest vs one of the oldest in the class.

If your understanding is correct, I'd definitely defer unless you suspect he is highly academically gifted (in which case I definitely wouldn't.)

Statistically, the oldest children do better generally, at least in primary but often well into secondary school, or just cope much better.

My September born child has always found everything about school very straightforward; no tears about homework, finding work or friendships difficult, sports day, drama productions etc. It is considered a significant advantage being older, whereas the youngest are typically much more challenged/tired/have to work harder etc.

Lunar_Eclipse

Jagraf wrote: »

Absolutely agree - so where do you draw the line (serious question - you could end up with mixed classes with two years difference).

Good question. It's a bizarre concept to lump people by age at all really. Doesn't happen elsewhere in life.

Jagraf

Lunar_Eclipse wrote: »

Good question. It's a bizarre concept to lump people by age at all really. Doesn't happen elsewhere in life.

So, should we go by ability? Can you go up a year if born in September? Do parents know enough about a reception child's ability to make that decision? At present it seems all over the place. if you have different ages, what happens when peers start driving / voting / going clubbing and you can't go? Lots of what ifs I know but that original decision has a big impact against the current system.

peachyprice

Tsmee wrote: »

Wow! This must be an English v Scottish thing!

I'm from Scotland, and the received wisdom is:

1. If you can choose to defer, you should
2. This is particularly beneficial for boys (logic is they take longer to be ready for sitting still and listening etc.)

In addition, I'm sure I read once that studies have shown that children who are the youngest in the class are disadvantaged, and this disadvantage lasts throughout their schooling (no, I don't have a cite for this, I just remember reading about it)

Now, the above may or may not be gospel, but it's just astonishing to hear English people say the exact opposite to this!

They are two different systems, that is why you are seeing a divide, not because of any English/Scottish cultural differences.

In England, if you defer you miss the valuable reception year (which in NOT the same as an extra year in nursery). That is why you are getting different answers.

Summer babies certainly are disadvantaged in cases where they start at Easter like my daughter, but that has been mostly phased out, because of the obvious disadvantage of losing 2/3rd of a school year. Once you even up the playing field by all children starting in September that disadvantage lessens greatly.