Delaying school start

My twins are turning 4 in July, and were 6 weeks premature so they really wouldn't be 4 until the end of August developmentally, and I am thinking of not sending them off to school this fall. It is a full-day program and I don't think they could cope with that all too well. I was looking forward to a half-day schedule. I mean, just practical concerns, like managing bathroom procedures (this may be TMI, butt I still help them after bowel movements...they manage the urinating/washing hands ok...and they need help with snaps and buttons on pants, sometimes their underwear gets twisted, etc!) Not to mention shoes. I know there is velcro! I have three older children so it is not like I am over protective or anything. I just don't feel like they are ready. Their speech is still immature also, something quite common with twins so I am not concerned, but they could use more time, especially with the  American/Geordie accent differences! I have also taught at the middle school level and have seen some children struggling when they might not have been had they initially started school a year later.

Any comments or input? Has anyone delayed and are glad they did? Or NOT delayed and now wish they had?

Thanks!

Legally, you don't need to send them until the term AFTER they turn five-so in your case that'd be next September.  Practically, well, prepare to fight your battle.  They will most probably then have to start in year one-and miss reception all together, unless you start them in January or Easter.  If you do manage to keep them back an entire year, they'll end up having to make it up when they start secondary school.  It's because of the way GCSE's are set up.  They have to take them when they are turning 16 and it works against the schools to have children who are in the wrong year.  It's a head ache, I know.   
My eldest is a June baby and stuggled throughout primary school.  I'm  convinced it was because of her birthday, so when my baby was due to start I kept her in nursury until January, and I feel she has had a much better start because of it. 

Oh, and you'll need to reserve their place as if they were going, and make an appointment with the head just to find out their postion.  Another reason that the school will argue with you is that they don't get the money unless the 'bum is on the seat', so be prepared for that. 

A further note.     Anyone planning babies should aim for September.  Children born then start at five and historically do better in tests. 

I am no help at all with the UK school system...but do truly believe that holding a child is the best option if in doubt...I have never heard a parent say they wish they sent a child earlier...but have heard many that have wished they delayed the start.

There is so much time for kids to grow up...so much pressure to conform so early...sometimes a year delay can avoid a whirlwind of problems...

good luck with your decision..and any battle you may have to make it come true!

Helena

Thanks for your input! I'm still debating...*sigh*

This is just my two cents. I don't have kids but I have observed the British education system quite a bit and I really believe that the system pushes kids to make a career decision far too early. This really adds up if the kids are young for their group or deveopmentally behind a bit.

My DF is a twin and both he and his brother suffered because of this (granted, this was 25 or so years ago!). Without going into their entire life history, I think I can say for both of them that if they could have, they would have started later.

If there's any way you can hold your twins back and not create a world of headaches down the road, I'd say do it.

I was held back by my mom when I was a wee child - in the states, so it might not help.  But I can say that being older versus being younger - I'm glad I was older.  I wasn't all that mature for my age physically and I think I would have been damned in middle school - it was bad enough as it was!  I ended up doing great in school in terms of academics & athletics and think it was because of the choice my mom & pop made.  If you can, hold 'em back...it's best especially if you feel they just aren't mature enough quite yet!  A few months can make a huge difference at that age.

Here's an article that explains things much better than I did.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,5500,1213342,00.html

I think as their mother you know your children best.  I started school "early" (in the US) and it was much better for me that way.  I can't imagine if my mother had waited a whole other year to start me.  I was already reading and used to being surrounded by adults and older children, so I was more than ready.

My only beef with starting kids later in the US is that by the time they finish, they'll have been 18 for most of their Senior year.  As the mother of a son, that worried me to no end, that he would be an 18-year-old adult going to school with 14-17 year old girls...   Old enough to vote, old enough to legally have sex...old enough to be charged with statutory rape...
 

Each mother knows their kid best - if you feel they're not ready, chances are they're not and won't suffer for being held back.  Instead, they'd suffer for being pushed too soon.  So trust your own feelings about it and don't let anyone bully you into doing any different.  They're YOUR kids! 

Mindy,

Thanks for that article...it was a real eye-opener! (I'm glad I finally clicked on the "show new replies to your posts" button and came across the additional replies...still haven't checked out all the bells and whistles on the board!) I spoke with school administration when I was in the UK a few weeks ago, and apparently I can sign them up in January if I want. We are most likely moving to the USA after a few years (that is the tentative plan) so even if they're "old" in the UK for a couple of grade levels, everything should work out once we're here, and if we don't move back, well, I will deal with it then! Thanks again for everyone's input!
Geally