Our 3 year old daughter Annika (to be 4 in June) is about to start school this year in September. We are still in two minds about whether or not to accept the school place this year. In a way we don’t care what anyone would say, we know we do not have to send her until the term after she turns five, and that happens to be the beginning of the next school year.

I have yet to find any legislation or legal basis for the smoke screen that some authorities and schools seem to put up saying that if you delay until the next school year your child has to miss a year’s education and go straight into year 1.

On a more positive note, I have spoken to our Local Admissions authority who said that if we wished to delay school start for a year they would not be in our way as long as parents and school are happy with that. However the label of ‘low flyer’ was mentioned which infuriated me somewhat.

I could go on. I think we should all pitch in with some funds and get some legal advice on the situation. The fact that schools and authorities have ‘always done it that way’ does not mean it’s right or they are even allowed to do so.
Britta, email me.

I don’t think anyone has really mounted a challenge. I’ll keep you all posted – we may well pull Annika out of this year’s school year before she has started and try and delay her for a year – but only if we have guarantees that she can start in foundation, as normal, next year (by which time she will no doubt be ready for school). If we do so I make sure to report on progress.
As for our youngest daughter Louisa (born 26th August and due to start school in 2 years days after her 4th birthday): there is no way we will send her to school that young. No way.

stefan@muchosmedia.com

Britta

Britta

In the letter it states
“We will require all admissions authorities to offer a full time place from the September after a 4th birthday- but admission authorities must also continue to allow parents of children who are admitted to school before they are of compulsory school age to defer their child’s entry until later in the school year. Please note that later in the school year could be the day before the school year ends, although it is best for children to start at the beginning of a school term to minimise disruption. Where admission is deferred, admission authorities must hold the place for that child in the same school year and not offer it to another child.”

This gets round the blackmail aspect of “if you don’t start you will lose the school place” but of course does not resolve the fact that they will always be the youngest children in the class. I strongly feel that ,as in Scotland, they should be allowed to defer and start in reception the following year. I have agonised over this topic for over a year and feel I have failed my son by not managing to change the system! However I do also feel that he is much better equipped for school now than he was in September and I am glad I delayed his place.A lot of parents have said to me that they were not aware that it was possible to do this.

Kerrie, what did you end up doing?
Stefan, I agree that the system is flawed and I am going to continue to “discuss” this with our local education authority despite the fact that my son has started school.

sorry this has been so long! Helen

We have three girls, all summer born. The oldest was born in September and is doing well at school being one of the oldest in her class, the middle one is a June birthday and due to start next year (we wish to be able to keep her back for a year) and the youngest is born end of August.
We’re determined not to send the youngest when she is barely 4. I’m German myself and find the situation in the UK extremely frustrating. I started school at 6 and turned 7 not long after.

Yes, even in the UK you can keep your child back or ‘defer’ entry as they say, but this effectively means your child loses part of their education in reception. That’s not acceptable to me. You can send them part time but again, why should they lose out on part of their reception year when other children who are up to 12 months older enjoy it full time? Why not start the youngest ones in the following year if their parents think it’s best?

It appears that noone has challenged the authorities on the actual law. Here are some snippets:
From the admissions guidelines
“Children becoming 5 years old between 1st April and 31st August are of compulsory school age from the beginning of the term after 1st September.”

and

“the child does not have to attend school until the beginning of the term following their fifth birthday.”

So at what stage did who decide that if a parent abides the law would the child have to lose out on the entire reception year?

In fact the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 states:
“reception class means a class in which education is provided which is suitable to the requirements of pupils aged five and any pupils under or over that age whom it is expedient to educate with pupils of that age;”
Note that a lot of local admission authorities seem to misquote this act, stating that children mainly have to be younger than 5. Clearly the law says no such thing. In fact it even explicitly allows for children older than 5…

So if reception is mainly for five year olds, why do they expect us to send a 4 year old, or expect us to miss out reception entirely if we decide not to send our children until they reach compulsory school age?

I think we should get organised and mount a challenge. The law seems to allow (even subscribe) a later starting age than what is widely being practiced.

I think it’s an absolute disgrace how things are handled at the moment.
Someone please clarify this for me: on what basis can a local authority demand that a (summer born) child which starts school at compulsory school age, in line with the law, should miss out the entire reception year and go straight into year one? There must be some legal basis for this, but I have yet to find anything to that effect anywhere.
They seem to make it up as they please if you ask me.

Stefan

stefan@muchosmedia.com