Parents Get Choice Of When Their 4 Yr Old Child Starts School

[Guest]

CYP News reports that parents will have a choice as to when their children start school, September, January or April, or until they are 5 yrs old.

If they choose to keep their child in preschool, the preschool setting to be funded the 25 hrs. Children will not lose their place in school if they delay start.

Due to start 2011.

 

 

More details HERE

 

Peggy

[blondie]

i think that is sych a good idea -we had one parent last year whos child wasnt five until the this august and she wasnt ready for school but the school told her that unless she took her place when they said she would lose it.

i know some parents will perhaps never think their child is ready - but we can all remember children that truely arent ready

[Upsy Daisy]

I felt that my daughter needed to start later but the school were not happy and I ended up compromising by sending her part-time for 2 terms.

 

It is nice that the right to do that will now be more widely acknowledged.

 

It remains to be seem whether schools cooperate with the spirit of this proposal or put pressure on parents to conform to 'the way we do it'.

[Guest]

I've actually read it another way - "It is down to parents to make the decisions about when their child starts school." That bit fills me with dread! How many parents think their little darlings are ready for school when they are blatantly not! In our case, we still have 2 term entry and I can foresee parents thinking this is a way to get full time, free care for their children.....

Sorry to put a negative slant on your post, but that's the reality for us. I do, however, agree that the broader topic of parental choice is a good one, especially for summer born children.

[Guest]

I've actually read it another way - "It is down to parents to make the decisions about when their child starts school." That bit fills me with dread! How many parents think their little darlings are ready for school when they are blatantly not! In our case, we still have 2 term entry and I can foresee parents thinking this is a way to get full time, free care for their children.....

Sorry to put a negative slant on your post, but that's the reality for us. I do, however, agree that the broader topic of parental choice is a good one, especially for summer born children.

 

 

I see what you mean but from the way I'm reading it there will be free full time care for their children in preschool settings, it states if parent doesn't choose school, preschools will get the 25 hrs funding. So double good for preschool sustainability.....or........more nursery's/ preschools will be set up within schools, we shall see.

 

Peggy

[Guest]

Hmmm, I imagine that could cause sustainability problems in some areas too!

It could be just a case of 'electioneering' by the Labour government too...... don't think I'll hold my breath!

[Guest]

Hmmm, I imagine that could cause sustainability problems in some areas too!

It could be just a case of 'electioneering' by the Labour government too...... don't think I'll hold my breath!

 

 

That's it bring me back to reality LJW, I did actually forget about the impending election.

 

Peggy

[Rea]

I cant imagine many parents taking up this offer. There seems to be still too much competition in education, my child can do this, my child is top at that.

It would be lovely, but isnt it similar to how things used to be years ago, before money meant schools accepted children into a reception class?

[sunnyday]

Thank you so much for that Peggy.

 

I think that would be absolutely wonderful. I just wish it could 'come in' before my darling grandaughter starts Primary school...........she is a June birthday and we all know - (her parents and I) that she will certainly not be 'ready' next September - there will however be no choice at all .......... the school is always over subscribed and they make it 'crystal clear' that if children don't take up their place in September then have no place at all.

[luluj]

If this does come to fruition,I think that some parents will be swayed by the availability of the extended hours that a school setting offers opposed to a pre-school setting. In rural areas,such as where I am based there is limited pre-school care that coudn't total 25hours in a week. In addition, if possible entrants have siblings in school and working parents, this is an 'easy option' for childcare. Am not saying that all working parents would take this option but let's be realistic that some would! In this respect pre-school settings could lose out rather than gain. Feel a bit 'grim' saying all this but agree it's good to have a choice.Or a dilemma...luluj

[Susan]

Why should it be wrong for a child to be in school in a EYFS climate?

[Cait]

I can think of several children who would have stopped with us - whose parents' didn't actually want them to start in Reception "Cos they're only 'babbies'" and two particular children this year who are just nowhere near a Pre-Reception level, who would totally benefit from this.

[Marion]

My LA has a single entry - September after the child's fourth birth day I foresee our parents wanting children to start in the January after their fourth birthday and the April after their fourth birthday rather than having to wait until September if this goes ahead. So rather than starting later some children will be starting earlier.

[emmajess]

Why should it be wrong for a child to be in school in a EYFS climate?

I think even with the very best EYFS practice, a big difference between pre-schools and schools is the ratios which can make school harder work for some children. But absolutely see your point.

[Guest]

Why should it be wrong for a child to be in school in a EYFS climate?

 

 

I don't think it is wrong for a child to be in school if they are ready for it, apart from the reasons I've said in the raising school age to 6 topic.

There are many, many children who have flourished through being in school, but also some that are not ready for various reasons.

 

I'd also like to add that I have nothing against schools, per say, I do have issues with high adult/child ratios etc that children have to cope with (and teachers too).

 

I am still in the camp of having children go into formal educational establishments at age 6+, so that is why I think this news could be good if it gives parents more choice relevant to the individual needs of their children and not forced to make decisions they feel uncomfortable with because of schools current admissions policies.

 

Schools is not just about EYFS and their Teachers, which there are many excellent provisions of, but about the whole 'formalisation' and 'institutionalisation' of young children in society in UK. Schools are only one tiny, tiny part of the bigger picture which I think has led to disenfranchised young people from society in general.

 

Peggy

[sunnyday]

Why should it be wrong for a child to be in school in a EYFS climate?

You are of course absolutely right.......but some schools have not totally embraced the EYFS.......I was lucky enough to be invited to spend a day in our local school reception class (this is the one my grandaughter will attend) I was very surprised that there was so little of EYFS in evidence........I questioned this and was told "this is school, not pre-school, we have to move these children on, if and when SATs are abolished then we can allow more free play in reception".........

[Cait]

Oh how sad

[Upsy Daisy]

Why should it be wrong for a child to be in school in a EYFS climate?

 

In an ideal world it wouldn't be wrong at all.

 

Unfortunately not all schools are as EYFS as they could be. I would love to think that children would be getting just as much play based learning in a reception classroom as in a Early Years setting but in my experience that is not the case.

 

Also the ratios are different once they are in reception classes so it does make a difference to the level of independence a child is expected to have.

 

Having read through the posts, it seems to me that we would probably still have some children starting before they are ready, some who it works out just right for and others who stay in pre-school when they would cope fine in a reception classroom. Just the same situation as we have now, only it would be the parents making the decisions, some for the right reasons and some not.

[Guest]

Um... not sure about this. Ok so the theory sounds good - they go when they are ready, but....

I'm just wondering what negative impacts it might have on the child if.... say in september all the children who are ready go to school - they complete 3 full terms in reception (which is EYFS friendly). Then in June child a (now deemed ready by their parents) arrives.They have one term left with a class full of children who have already made good bonds with each other and the adults in the setting. Whereas the adults in the setting would be as friendly and as welcoming to child a as all the other children - would the rest of the children cope?

Ok - so I know the arguement could be - but think of the new children that join - and yes to some extent that it true, but.... by the Summer term (speaking from personal experience) many children are used to sitting still as a whole class for longer periods of time, many are more focussed to do work, rather than play - could child a really suffer by being thrown into an environment that they're not used to?

I just think this would be hard for the child who's parents don't believe that they are ready, especially as they see all their friends going off to 'big' school - which most children love.

I can still remember crying because my best friend could start school before me - and he only started 2 days earlier - I hate to imagine what I would have been like if he had had 2 whole terms more than me.

Anyway that's just me.

 

Have to admit - I do think it is trying to be a vote grabber - and also I don't see what's so wrong with children starting reception in september (but maybe that's because I like to think my own practise is EYFS friendly)

 

Emily

[Marion]

I just glanced at the article earlier but went back to read and .... am I reading it correctly?

 

 

 

Children in England will be able to start school the September after their fourth birthday under new government proposals.

 

not Children in England will be able to wait until the term after their fifth birthday?

 

seems to me it is promoting an earlier start?

Edited October 20, 2009 by Marion

[sunnyday]

I just glanced at the article earlier but went back to read and .... am I reading it correctly?

 

 

 

Children in England will be able to start school the September after their fourth birthday under new government proposals.

 

not Children in England will be able to wait until the term after their fifth birthday?

 

seems to me it is promoting an earlier start?

Goodness - having gone back to read again - I think you are right

[HappyMaz]

I think this isn't so much an electioneering ploy but is part of the universal entitlement to 15 hours of free nursery education funding. It was certainly mentioned to us as part of those discussions. In our Borough we have (or will have in September) two entry points into school, and a parent may choose to keep their child at pre-school or nursery until the latest possible date if they wish. The pre-school will receive the 15 hours of funding, but the school must keep the child's place until they require it.

 

My take on this is that it is great for parents to be able to access their free entitlement in a pre-school group if they decide they want to go to school later. However, I wonder about the economical impact of this on schools. I don't really understand how school places are allocated, but if I was told that I had to hold a place for a term in readiness for a child and that I couldn't charge any fees for that place, I would be very unhappy indeed.

 

Without having any evidence to back this up, I feel that the numbers of parents who decide to keep their children at pre-school rather than go to school would be very low and would be the exception rather than the rule.

 

I'll watch this with interest!

 

Maz

[Marion]

In my area the single entry to reception in the September began as a response to free nursery entitlement for all four year olds (many years ago) There weren't enough nursery places so the older group were relocated to reception and the earlier start began ...

Having said that both my children have summer birthdays. My son started in January and had two terms in reception my daughter started in September and had three full terms in reception and I feel my son was disadvantaged by this.

[mundia]

My concern on this would also be one of funding. If a school has to choose between a child who can start now and for whom they will receive funding; or a child that will start in 3 months time for which they will not receive funding, then of course most would choose the former, leaving the latter in the position they are in now, ie having to take up a place for fear of losing it. I cannot see how a school and a nursery can be funded for a child at the same time, it would have to be one or the other, so I think that financially is a non starter.

[HappyMaz]

I cannot see how a school and a nursery can be funded for a child at the same time, it would have to be one or the other, so I think that financially is a non starter.

Well we're going to have our meeting within the next couple of weeks mundia, so I will ask for clarification to see if I've understood it correctly. But certainly the nursery head I was talking to was not impressed!

 

The school wouldn't be funded as I understand it - only one setting can be funded for each child. As you say, it doesn't really all add up!

 

Maz

[mundia]

If I have understood correctly the consultation process for this begins in November for 8 weeks. Its an opportunity to say what you think about this very important issue.

 

I am very interested to see how the funding works out for this, so Ill look forward to comments or further feedback.