Transition Year Finishing?

nicecupotay

Hi,
I'm wondering if there is any truth in what I've heard that TYO in secondary school will not be continued in the future?
Reason I'm asking is to i'm trying decide on whether or not to send my 4 year old to school in September this year and was thinking about what age she would be when finishing schoool

deisemum

I don't think the government knows what it will do about TY.

Both of mine were 5 or weeks off 5 starting school and the younger one is going into TY in September which I'm delighted about. Most of their classmates were 5 or 5 by the following Christmas, there were very few in any under 4.5 years starting school and the one that I know of repeated 5th class but it's hard to repeat nowadays.

Orion

"Let me be clear – there are no plans to change Transition Year" - From the Minister's speech to ASTI at Easter. http://www.education.ie/en/Press-Events/Speeches/2013-Speeches/SP2-%202013-%2004-%2002.html

The Princess Bride

To be honest,TY would be 11 years away for your child,if you choose to send her to Primary this year-that's so far away,that nobody knows which political party would be in power-let alone whether or not TY would be an option.

Also-some schools have a strict selection process for TY and not all interested students who apply are accepted.

Speaking from personal experience,and having observed friends' decisions over the years,I'd say that the majority of children settle in to school easier if they start around the 5 mark.
IMHO-holding off until aged 5 would be in everyone's longterm interests.

2xj3hplqgsbkym

I agree that you shouldn't base your decision solely on the possibility of there being a TY. It depends on your child's ability also.
Do you think he will constantly be trying to catch up with everyone else in the class?
Do you think he will be able to sit in a classroom all day?
How many months over 4 will he be?

Polly701

A child who is very young starting school will often be at a disadvantage to others in class. And being that little bit older really stands to them starting secondary school. Dept of Education recommends they be at least 4 from March 1st of the year they are to start. My girl is an April baby and I'm going to wait until she is 5 and a bit before sending her in. They're in school long enough.

nicecupotay

msthe80s wrote: »

Speaking from personal experience,and having observed friends' decisions over the years,I'd say that the majority of children settle in to school easier if they start around the 5 mark.
IMHO-holding off until aged 5 would be in everyone's longterm interests.

Thats where I'm trying to decide,she is four since the middle of February,so she would be either just gone 4 1/2 this September or 5 1/2 if she starts next year.

She is in Montessori at the moment and her teachers she would have no problem with the school work saying she is one of the better children in the class,but I'm just concerned that maybe she is fine now would there be bigger difference in years to come of she is in a class with others a year older?

2xj3hplqgsbkym

Personally I think 5 and a half is the perfect age. They grow up so much in a year, she would really be at an advantage if she was a year older. If you can afford it childcare wise I think you should wait.

hoodwinked

nicecupotay wrote: »

She is in Montessori at the moment and her teachers she would have no problem with the school work saying she is one of the better children in the class,but I'm just concerned that maybe she is fine now would there be bigger difference in years to come of she is in a class with others a year older?

with all due respect my mother started us in school at 4, my sister was november so almost 5 i was july so just 4, the difference a year makes is so valuable,


i struggled with so much, academically in primary school i was miles ahead of the older girls, but by 6th class i started being a bit alienated, they were all 12 going to movies which were 12 or over, and i was only 11 so couldn't go on outings/birthdays...etc. some of them were getting their periods...etc where i was still a child, by secondary school, i just couldn't keep up with them, by leaving cert, they were all 18 i was 17, and another girl was only 16, the two of us never were able to go to 6th year club/pub nights out,

with the leaving cert i was too young, i know that now, i was more interested in things a 16/17 year old is interested in, boys...etc i ended up losing out academically because personally i was trying so hard to keep up.


while at 4 i could hold my own with my peers by the time i was 17 i was lost. my sister never had issues, nor did my cousin who also started at 5, my other cousin who started at 4 ended up doing a terrible leaving too, and around where i lived the early starters generally haven't gone to college where the late starters all have (it could be coincidence though, its just a funny stat that comes up in conversations)

my own daughter was born in july too, so she is starting at 5, i have no doubts its in her best interest, adding to the fact her primary school i want to send her to said minimum age 5 is the norm nowadays.

plus when im getting the "im 18 i can do what i want" response, i can still say "do you want me to sign that note for the school trip?"

happywithlife

I sent my daughter at 4+ (march baby) and I do regret it. At the time she was academically fine but she can be incredibly headstrong and I'm already dreading the teen years when she might be that bit younger than her peers re discos etc :-( as someone else said, they'll be in school long enough
And funny, I've heard of other parents regretting they sent them young but haven't heard anybody lamenting they sent them too old :-)
Her brother is a jan baby and won't be going till 5. +
I do think with the proposed new junior cert that ty will eventually go. Funding has already been cut for it as far as I know

68Murph68

I think if a child is any way intelligent definitely send them to school early.

Basically it means that all other things being equal they will end up leaving school a year earlier, giving them much more options. If they need to mature before university they can take a year out to mature.

The way I think of it is that you are extending the length of their life as an adult rather than extending the length of time as a child, which would overall increase the overall quality of their life.

At the end of their life chances are an extra year between four and five is going to add little to nothing whereas an extra year as an adult offers vastly more possibilities.

2xj3hplqgsbkym

68Murph68 wrote: »

The way I think of it is that you are extending the length of their life as an adult rather than extending the length of time as a child, which would overall increase the overall quality of their life.

At the end of their life chances are an extra year between four and five is going to add little to nothing whereas an extra year as an adult offers vastly more possibilities.

I completely disagree. Children are not children long enough these days with all that they are exposed to in life, media etc...
Childhood is so carefree why would you want to make it shorter?

I see it the other way around, he/she will be working long enough so let them enjoy life as a child for as long as they can.
(saying that I wouldnt be up for letting my 'kids' freeload in my house when they are in their mid twenties! )

hoodwinked

68Murph68 wrote: »

At the end of their life chances are an extra year between four and five is going to add little to nothing whereas an extra year as an adult offers vastly more possibilities.

that extra year can make all of the difference like i said above, if the rest of their class mates are 5, and you start them at 4, they are a year behind, while its deceiving at 4/5 it doesn't look to make a difference taking intelligence into account,

but they are going to be in that class until they are 17/18 and thats where the difference is,


when everyone turns 12 and is going to the local 12+ teenage disco with the 'boyfriends' your child is a year younger experiencing the same things, or can't go due to age, thus alienating them from their friends.

when everyone in their peer group is starting to have sexual experiences your child is a year younger being exposed to that,

at 17 you cannot go clubbing or drinking with them in pubs. again if you do, you are exposing your child a year before the others.

as teenagers evolve, age restrictions count, being a year younger eliminates you from the things they do or talk about unless you experience them a year younger than them.

i'd rather my daughter was older facing these evolutions.

Zil2011

I sent my first son at 4 (May baby). He was well advanced in pre-school and his teacher thought he might get lazy if given another year at pre-school. All Was great until after the Junior Cert. He turned 17 in the May and had Leaving Cert in June. Way too young. He did well in his exams but was at a disadvantage to other kids even at college, as a lot of them would socialise/bond in the pubs/clubs and he couldn't get in as he was too young. He turned 18 two weeks ago and has one year of college completed. My two younger children were born in July and May, they definitely won't be starting til they are 5.

Polly701

68Murph68 wrote: »

I think if a child is any way intelligent definitely send them to school early.

Basically it means that all other things being equal they will end up leaving school a year earlier, giving them much more options. If they need to mature before university they can take a year out to mature.

The way I think of it is that you are extending the length of their life as an adult rather than extending the length of time as a child, which would overall increase the overall quality of their life.

At the end of their life chances are an extra year between four and five is going to add little to nothing whereas an extra year as an adult offers vastly more possibilities.

I completely disagree with all this. Its not really about intelligence at 4 or 5 - its about emotional maturity and social ability.
I know so many people who dropped out of college after a year or two due to wrong choices made.....not necessarily to do with age. But its not a given that child will proceed direct from school to college to a job.
As for a child being bored before school get them started on activities... an instrument or perhaps extra dance classes, sports, etc. And when they start school have a chat with the teacher about your child being a bit older and if perhaps the teacher could use them to "help out" in class.... giving extra little jobs, helping other students, etc.
Childhood is so short. I see the only real advantage to a child starting early is a cost saving on childcare... and that is such a short term thing.

coffee_cake

I think if you have a bright child and are completely determined that socialising should take precedence so that they should go to school later, then fill their spare time with activities e.g. chess, music, whathaveyou to keep them stimulated. Otherwise they are going to be one miserable child later on.

And when they start school have a chat with the teacher about your child being a bit older and if perhaps the teacher could use them to "help out" in clas, helping other students,.

This is contradicting what you and other posters have said about a child being a child. This also isn't going to help with their socialising either. They're there to learn, not to be an assistant

I have to agree with 68Murph68 to be honest, college isn't about drinking and if they really want to be 18 starting, they can take a year+ off before it starts

implausible

There are so many variables here that's it's unrealistic to be basing this decision on things like TY and college. What if your child doesn't want to do/isn't suitable for TY? What if your child doesn't choose to go to college. Being at a disadvantage because s/he can't drink is nonsense to be honest. College isn't all about alcohol and anyone who thinks an under-18 year old can't get into a club or get booze is seriously underestimating the resourcefulness of a determined teenager.

Age and maturity are not the same thing. I have taught very childish 20 year olds and students mature enough to handle college when they were in TY. Students who are not ready for college can repeat the Leaving Cert, do a PLC course or take a year out.

It comes down to whether the child can cope with/is ready for playschool or primary school.

Polly701

bluewolf wrote: »

I think if you have a bright child and are completely determined that socialising should take precedence so that they should go to school later, then fill their spare time with activities e.g. chess, music, whathaveyou to keep them stimulated. Otherwise they are going to be one miserable child later on.


This is contradicting what you and other posters have said about a child being a child. This also isn't going to help with their socialising either. They're there to learn, not to be an assistant

I'm a qualified teacher and one of the absolute best (and often most enjoyable and satisfying) ways of consolidating learning is to help others to do or understand something. Peer tutoring is considered a very effective method of teaching in latter years in the school system.
For 5 years olds this might involve making them in charge of a team or helping to organise supplies in classroom - as someone said earlier an older child might get bored in the classroom and this can be one way of combatting that if it is an issue.