Guest post: "Can we ever level the playing field for summer born children?"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

My son turned four on August 30th; the following week he started school. He's not the only summer baby in our family - both my husband and I have August birthdays and were the youngest in our respective school years.

My main memory of being born in August is of never having to go to school on my birthday, and parties in the garden. I thought I was pretty lucky. I was never really aware of the implications of being younger than my peers until later in life, and so never had the chance for the dire predictions about my outcomes to become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Last week, Schools Minister Nick Gibb called for action to allow children born between April and August to start reception aged five, a change that many parents have spent years campaigning for.

The arguments for giving summer born children the option of starting school later largely centre on levelling the playing field - but would this really be the outcome? With a greater range in school-starting age, children like my four-year-old son could find themselves in a class of children who are up to 16 months older than them rather than a year. Of course, we could insist that all children between April and August start school at age five - but this would only lead to the parents of March babies taking up the campaigning mantel. There needs to be a cut-off point somewhere.

So what is the solution? Firstly I do believe a change is needed. Premature birth and the complications that often come with it should not be allowed to disadvantage a child - it is only fair that the date used to measure eligibility for schooling is the due date or the birth date, whichever is later.

We also need to examine the bigger picture, and look at other factors that affect children's first experiences of education. During my son's first week at his primary school I watched kids eight months older than him be carried home by their mothers as they were too tired to walk, whilst others tore round the playground full of energy. This tells me there is a lot more going on than simply just birth date.

Research suggests summer borns tend to fair worse, but if you look at other research too you will also see the same parallels when examining parents' marital status, [[https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2009-01.pdf
child nutrition]], sleep, birth order, the choice of [[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/private-school-children-will-earn-200000-more-on-average-than-stateeducated-kids-by-42-9580114.html
private or state schooling]], health, birth weight, ethnicity, family finances, parental attitude and <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-RR028.pdf" rel="nofollow noindex" target="_blank">teachers.

We have to learn to accept that there will be numerous things that affect our child's educational outcome and that we can't control them all or make schooling fair for everyone.

I believe our primary role as parents is to prepare our children for the realities of the wider world. To learn not to be afraid to take risks or face difficult challenges. To understand that we all have strengths and weaknesses and that (perhaps most importantly) there are many things that matter more than academic results.

When my husband and I went through our schooling in the 1980s we weren't aware that our birth month might have an impact on how well we did and so it was never allowed to become a crutch or an excuse. Instead we rallied to meet the standards set by our older peers and pushed ourselves to excel and we finally left our schools at age 17 with a headstart of nearly 12 months on some of our friends.

My son Theo will have the same advantage we did, giving him a year in reserve which he can do with as he chooses. Personally I hope he uses it to travel, broaden his horizons and develop people skills, because those things, more than another year at home with me, are what will set him up for life.

[Bolograph]

Instead we rallied to meet the standards set by our older peers and pushed ourselves to excel and we finally left our schools at age 17 with a headstart of nearly 12 months on some of our friends.

That's essentially the "I don't know what these unemployed people are whining about, I worked hard to write 7 best-selling fantasy novels, and if everyone did the same we wouldn't need a benefits system". Luckily, JK Rowling isn't an arse like that. Talking about "excuses" and "crutches" is the right-wing narrative that everyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps if they weren't so lazy. Usually the right only try to shame adults like that; you're wading in and blaming four year olds for not working hard enough.

It's also utter nonsense to claim this issue wasn't on the table in the 1980s. It had been a known problem since the 1960s, at least, with the "rising five" policies (in which children started school the term they turned five, which meant that (a) the summer-born only got a term in reception and (b) the autumn-born got a term in a class of 10 and a term in a class of 20). The issue of children young for academic year having worse results is factored into, for example, age correction for 11+ exams and even then you'll find that in selective schools the issue of "sixth formers who aren't 18 in time for prom" is rather smaller than statistical expectations would imply, because the cohort is massively front-loaded (the exam scores are corrected, but the summer-born children aren't even entered).

Dismissing the problem because it didn't affect you and isn't going to affect Theo (you believe) is just patting yourself on the back for being bright and hard working, when if fact you've just been lucky. A little sympathy for others would go a long way.

[Chippednailvarnish]

What a load of condescending bragging.

[ChristineDePisan]

I don't get what the post writer is concluding: no we can't ever level the playing field, and we shouldn't even try?

[Bolograph]

I think the post writer is concluding that people who fail at school have only themselves to blame, and parents of children who are failing at school just need to pull themselves together.

She announces this on the basis of her son having been at school for a week.

[FishWithABicycle]

It is true that the proposal to allow parents of summer born to choose this won't help at all. It is impossible to have a class where no-one is the youngest - and the early-September born children have their own challenges in a class where they are the oldest, which an August or July birthday child held back a year will encounter instead.

[blondiebonce]

Just wondering how parents marital status affects education. Genuine question.

[hkandola]

I think the writer has missed the point, the right to delay is to allow a July/August born to be five similar to a September born child. A five year old child will adapt, handle, have been attention span than a four year old. It is not about having a child youngest in the year, it is about enabling a child to start at 5 and no be forced to miss a year in school, just because they happened to be born the wrong side of the cut off date.

[Becles]

It allows MC parents to game the system.

If it was about the child being ready for school,why not start straight into the appropriate year group rather than the year below?

Who'd be the teacher trying to deliver sessions spanning a 16 month age range?

[EricNorthmanIsMyMaker]

Hkandola has written almost.exactly what I was going to write. I don't care that my August born son would be the youngest in the class. What I care about is that 4 is too young to start school.

[SliceOfLime]

This post demonstrates two things - a lack of understanding of the actual current legal position and the proposed changes; and a lack of any kind of empathy towards others' experiences, as the author makes assumptions based solely on her personal experience.

To clear up the first point, the law currently provides that a child reaches compulsory school age (CSA) on the prescribed day following their 5th birthday. The prescribed days are 31 December, 31 March and 31 August. So using the current academic year's dates for a few examples, a child born in September 2010 will reach CSA this coming December, and a child with a February 2011 birthday will reach CSA next March. They would therefore be required to start school during the current academic year (unless home ed but we'll leave that out as not relevant). However a Summerborn child, ie one born after the prescribed date of 31 March, won't reach CSA until 31 August next year. I.e. at the very end of the academic year, and after school has finished for the year. So, the September and February born children in my example have to start this academic year; therefore they get a place in reception for the year starting now, this September, though they don't actually have to take up the place til the term they reach CSA (and the school is legally required to hold the place open for them til they do). BUT the summerborn child doesn't actually have to be in school til next September 2016, after they reach CSA next August. But if their parebts choose for them to start then, they would of course want them to start in reception with all the other new children, not go straight to year 1. This is where the current legislation falls down because local authorities can refuse permission to the summerborn child to start in reception. They are therefore effectively discriminated against because the 1 Sep - 31 March born children are entitled to start school (1) at CSA and (2) in reception, while the 1 April - 31 Aug born children are entitled to start school at CSA- but if they do so they are not, unlike the other children, automatically entitled to start in reception. They therefore risk losing a year of schooling at this point.

No one is suggesting that all summer born children should start later, merely that this loophole that potentially denies them the reception year if they do so, should be closed.

[SliceOfLime]

Becles because it wouldn't be appropriate for a child to start school in year one, missing the reception year, the gentle introduction to academic and social life, the experience of starting school for the first time alongside the others. That is simply not appropriate at all. The government advice currently states that this issue is different to being placed 'out of year' at any other time in your education, because this is about starting school for the first time.

[ragdoll700]

Im thankful reading this that I live in Ireland and the age a child must have started their education here before is 6. Most children are around 5 when they start having had a year in play school the year before this is only from 9-12. My daughter has just started in playschool and is almost 4 she will be almost 5 starting school she is a November baby.

[SilverShins]

Oh this woman. A Katie Hopkins type controversy machine. "It works this way for me therefore what are you complaining about?"

I honestly don't know why she has to get so involved in something she has decided is unnecessary for her own son. Live your life and let others live theirs.

[Chippednailvarnish]

Dont let their birth month be an excuse or a crutch, let them find their place amongst their peers and enjoy the experience of school. Theyll be fine, trust me

Taken from the OP's rather twee blog.
Why on earth would I trust a woman who currently has one child who has been attending school part time for less than a week to tell me to ignore the clear statistical evidence regarding the outcomes for summer born children?

And I say this a parent of an August born boy who is in top academic set in every subject. Why is he the only August born child in the top set? Because he is a statistical outlier. If I was as smug as the OP I would be also looking to blame parents for their summer born children's lack of progress. But as a parent of a summer born DD who has just started reception and doesn't know her numbers, can't manage cutlery yet and physically struggles to hold a pencil I know this sort of smugness will eventually bite me on my arse.

[Bentleysmum1]

"He can use it to travel, broaden his horizons, develop people skills" so in effect you are saying you wish to DELAY his entrance to university or the work place so he can develop through play, is this not the same as we want? Only we want it at the beginning you want it at the end. Parental choice. If this isnt what you meant how about Theo does well as a SB and takes his gap year ( i get the expectation that he MUST go to uni as working a checkout wouldnt suit your "class") and starts the year he turns 19. He then only gets to do two years of his degree as he has to graduate with his chronological peer group, which two years? Obviously his final year as he MUST get a first to avoid his SB self fulfilling phrophecy coming true, so will he skip his 1st year or his 2nd? Which year of education is unimportant but will still provide enough education to obtain his first class degree in medicine or law?????? Because after all he will simply need to "rally to meet the standards set by older peers and push himself to excel".... personally i just want my SB's to thrive, be happy, content and reach their only personal best be that a minimum wage job or a 1st class degree.

[ShiningWhite]

Bekles, there will be far more than a 16 month spread in terms of ability anyway - some will start reception able to read, some will be unable to talk clearly.

This article is extremely right wing and self-congratulatory. I will delay my Summer born child's entry to school because I wish him to have the benefit of a play based education for as long as he can. His older sister started school at almost five and was almost six when she finished foundation. Summer born children should not be penalised by missing the play based start to their education if they start school at compulsory school age, which is five, not four.

[tinkersdc]

"Premature birth and the complications that often come with it should not be allowed to disadvantage a child - it is only fair that the date used to measure eligibility for schooling is the due date or the birth date, whichever is later."

Is it only me that sees this is nonsense? The blogger states that it's OK for premature babies to be allowed to delay school. As long as the delay is based on the due date or birth date... "Whichever is later". I hasten a guess that -although I'm not a doctor - a premature baby's birthdate is probably before their due date? Premature babies birthdate usually being (by definition) BEFORE their due date?

No? I guess its also just me that thinks this was rattled off too quickly?

[SliceOfLime]

Haha tinkersdc I missed that one! I did pick up on the contradiction between 'it's not ok to have a 16 month age spread' and 'there's more going on than just birth date' - yeeeeess that's right, so surely better to have a broader age range within which all the children are ready for school , than a narrower age range with some children who really aren't ready. Easier for teachers as they're not having to deal with the distressed, exhausted not-ready-yet children who should have been allowed to start in reception the year after!

This is just a knee jerk reaction from someone who thinks her way is the only way, and hasn't the empathy or imagination to understand that all children are different and some will be ready for school earlier than others. Just as annoying as all those "my child slept through the night from 6 weeks so yours should too, you must be doing something wrong" types. Sigh. Sad.

[yakketyyak]

Poor Clare Mansell. No one warned her that you cannot express opinions like this online. Two things she should have known:

1. The Summer Born campaigners are scary people. They cannot see that there can be any other opinions on the subject other than theirs. No debate, no discussion.

1. The Summer Born campaigners never look down the road to when their children will be students age 13, 19 etc. They are concerned with the here and now - their 4 year old bundle of fluff.

The end.

[tinkersdc]

I thought it was the law that you can send a child to school at 5? How is that an opinion? There's the law. There's research evidence. And then there's the bloggers opinion... Which is out of step with both evidence and the law. But yes, you're right - its up to her.

[monkeymummy100]

Yakketyyak- I think you've missed one of the key reasons for wanting a child to start when they're ready at age 5 rather than 4 (if they're not ready age 4): a bad experience starting school can damage self-esteem and enthusiasm for learning, and this will seriously affect their performance and enjoyment of school at age 13, 19 etc. Trust me, there is plenty of looking down the road to when our 'bundles of fluff' are older. And

[SliceOfLime]

Oh please yakettyyak - a blogger posts an opinion piece and shock horror people disagree? Even debate it? That's never happened before on MN

FWIW I'm not a 'summer born campaigner' I just don't like to read inaccurate and self-centred nonsense. Begs the question why I go online at all

[TC1977]

I think Clare Mansell has definitely missed the point here. Parents of summerborns aren't campaigning to make their children the eldest within their class so as to try gain some extra advantage over other children, they simply want their children to be able to start school at CSA, the same as everyone else, and not be forced to either start school a year early before they feel they are ready or have to start in year 1. It's not a competition to be the eldest in the year.

[hkandola]

Dear yakketyyak: Just like the writer has expressed an opinion so too have mums whose children are summer born.

Is it fair to judge or pass judgement on a mother who only wants whats in the best interests of her child. My DD has a Aug 1 birthday, I in no way feel upset that she will have just turned 18 when she enters her final year of secondary school. What I would feel upset, she would otherwise just have turned 17 otherwise. Instead she will be more in line with many of the other children in her class as opposed to the end spectrum. While I value all the comments made hear, I feel deeply that as a parent, I know whats best in my child's interests. It should not be for others to decide. Why is it other countries like the US, Canada for example understand this right, but it has been such a diversive issue. All anyone can ask for is the right to decide whats in the best interests of our child, without being vilified or judged on the merits of our decisions. Whether its right or wrong, surely as a parent I have that right to make on behalf of my child?