Summer born babies - am I wrong?(750 Posts)
Hi all, I'm probably BU particularly as my friends plans don't actually have any impact on me but
I have 2DD D1 is 3 and May Born. DD2 is 6m July Born
My friend has 3 kids. DS aged 7Sept, DD 3Aug and DS 5mAug
Our two daughters are both due to start school in September at different schools, my friend told me this week how she is in contact with the school to have her daughter start Sept 2020 instead as she's summer born. I asked why as her daughter is already in nursery 5 days, has no health issues and certainly isn't behind on development. Her reasoning? She just doesn't want a child to be youngest in the year.
Her son is very bright and doing really well at school and she puts that down to his sept birthday.
I queried her and said someone has to be the youngest and surely if she doesn't have any developmental issues the school will just say no. She replied saying that she'll make something up as she'll do what she can to get her DD ahead. Again this made no sense to me as surely having another year at nursery won't be good for her and she may get picked on once the other kids realise? She got a bit snappy with me and told me to mind my own so I now feel bad for questioning her, I was polite and tbh just trying to understand her thinking
Do people really do this? I understand delaying for developmental reasons but just to make your child the oldest instead of youngest?
I agree with you, but I’d probably just be like hmmm and leave her to it.
I have 2 summer and 2 winter babies and am an August birthday myself and never felt it a huge issue, I’d only be concerned if they had additional needs or delays on top as you said
Depends on the child, my 15DD is oldest in her class, my 13DD is youngest. Initially Id say that my eldest had the most problems on reception, particularly with sitting still. Her sister was more than ready to start school at 4yrs 1month and has never had any issues around being the youngest at all.
I think there is some evidence that it can be a disadvantage BUT from my own experience (one Oct born one July born - 1 year apart in school) it's not had a significant impact
My older one is way more forward and puts a lot of pressure on herself but the other one is more laid back and easy going - but both are doing well in their GCSE's
Disclaimer: I have no experience of this so I have no idea if this is correct but I thought that even if they start a year later, they still go into the year they would have been if they had started (i.e. they would skip reception altogether) so her logic is flawed as her DD would still be the youngest in the class when she did eventually start.
I do think it depends entirely on the child - my DS is July born but was always top of his class in educational terms (although, in behaviour terms, his immaturity was obvious for the first few years). One of the top SAT's results for his school at year 6 and now in the top sets at high school.
I wish I’d done it for my middle son. He was fine for a coupe of years but now really struggling at age 8.
Goodness me, free fulltime childcare.. the sooner the better or is that just me?!
Seriously tho, if I felt my child was ready, I wouldn't care if they were the youngest. All of mine have been ready by 4 years old.
I thought that if you hold back from reception you still go on at year 1 anyway? Might be wrong though
Hmm she could run into trouble ‘making something up’ for the school.
A child (August born) who should have been in my DD’s year was granted an extra year at nursery but it was a massive process between the school, nursery, parents, GP...they still had to apply, then ask for the deferral, then sort all the issues out. What’s your friend going to do if the school calls the nursery manager and asks about her made up issues?
In out area you can choose whether they go into yr1 or reception
I just figure if all the summer born babies deferred just so that they weren't the youngest soon the spring babies would all be the youngest and their parents wouldn't be happy. Obviously I know that won't happen but the logic from my friend makes no sense.
Parents of babies born between April and August can request locally to have them start a year later. They don't need to have something "wrong" with them.
I was a summer born and struggled because of it.
Your friend is just doing what she feels is best for her children and doesn't need your judgement.
I thought that if you hold back from reception you still go on at year 1 anyway?
It depends on the area. Where I live does this, but some places will let them stay 'back' a year. What seems to be a real mess is that some places the primary schools will allow this, but there's no guarantee that a secondary school will, and I have no idea what you do then because who wants their child to go straight from year 6 to year 8?
My DS was 4 and 1 week when he started school, I did consider holding him back but I didn't, there was a noticeable difference along with a hearing problem he did struggle.
He is now in year 5 and only this year is expected to be in the 'normal' range at some point
Sets it out - its becoming far more mainstream to do it
The government have advised that summer born children should be able to decelerate and start reception the year after, as they recognise that summer born children, particularly boys are statistically at a disadvantage. If they recognise it on a national level anecdata is irrelevant really.
But to add my own, my oldest child is a mid August baby. She would definitely have benefited from a later start, which we actively considered but she wanted to go. 🤷 As it turned out, it was too early for her, she wasn't emotionally ready. We pulled her out and home educated for a few years.
September born children are much more likely to have higher GCSE results and become premereship footballers.
It's a personal choice.
I couldn't have held my summer born because she would have been so bored in nursery for another year with the "babies", she was more than ready to start school and take on all the challenges.
Other summer born have really suffered from being the youngest, the smallest, the least mature every year, some are suffering from a huge disadvantage in sport.
OP It's really none of your business, and your friend might have perfectly valid reasons, and try to to the best she possibly can for her children.
Yes, there will always be a youngest, but you can't compare the children, some are thriving where others are struggling.
Tangent really but as a June baby born too many years ago, academically I seemed to do ok, never really noticed age. Until sport, rugby. The other spindly youths you played with, one day, bloody hell, where has this men's team appeared from. The olden days, you would get the crap kicked out of you, with the games teacher, Smith! You're pathetic. Smith! You're useless. Left me with a pathological hatred of sport and the sporty!
I am a late summer baby, I wish my entry into education had been delayed for a year.
If I had an Aug baby I would seriously consider doing this. As you say it depends on the child of course, but in general it's definitely an advantage to be the oldest rather than the youngest.
My DS was due in late August. I discussed deferring a year with a friend who is a reception teacher and she actively encouraged it. Personally I think the nursery environment is more nurturing. I didn’t want my very young four year old being pushed into an education system that unfortunately is very one size fits all, at such a young age. Thankfully he was a week late so we don’t actually have this problem!
I’m in Scotland so the months are different but if my child was in the last month or two of the cutoff then I’d wait a year. No rush for me.
I think she could have a point and certainly wouldnt condemn her. Sometimes it is noticeable when a child is the oldest in the year group and when they are the youngest.
Personally I think that we send out kids to school ridiculously young anyway - five years old is still very little. And it's more about freeing the parents up to be economically productive than anything else.
There is a huge variety in ability at that age and it can really start to fix kids into "I like school and am good at it" or "maths and reading are hard and confusing" mindsets if they are struggling. If everyone started at, say, eight years old, a nine month spread of ages in a class would be less significant, and everyone would pick it up much faster and maybe not feel so overwhelmed.
I agree with you op, the whole system of being able to delay is stupid. There has to be a cut off somewhere.
All that's happening here is the cutoff moves to being April. (Except for the summer kids whose parents aren't on the ball and then end up being 15 months behind).
Join the discussion
Registering is free, quick, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Get started »
Please login first.