To be shocked deferring by a year has become this common?

My daughter was born in July and I enquired about deferring when she started school 25 years ago as the school had moved from a September and January intake to just a September intake. I was told I could defer for a year but she would start in Y1 and not Reception. Luckily in our case there was an unusual number of summer born children in the year.

Honestly I think it depends on the child. Some are ready and some need more time. I kept my youngest back on the recommendation of their preschool teacher. The primary school is huge (4 form entry) and they just weren’t ready. They'd missed lots early years because of Covid & hadn’t built social skills. A friend had a summer born child who they initially held back, but they thrived and were moved up, so doesn’t always work for the child.

Tbh I’d have happily started my Oct born Dd a year early together with her Aug born friends!

Maybe that should be an option too?

No way would I have wanted any child of mine starting school when they had just turned 4. The youngest of my three to start did so a week before their fifth birthday. They spent five mornings a week in a council nursery before then. Four is too young to start full time school imo.

I have to say that I disagree.
I do not think that the UK is prioritising play-based learning at all.
The amount of play in reception is shocking. Learning is becoming more and more table-based. In year 1 there is virtually no play.
Remember that UK year 1 kids in Scandinivia would not even be in formal schooling yet.
I would also not say that countries with higher school commencement ages have more structured kindergarten or nursery. South Africa is an example I know. The kids really only play until they start Grade 1 ( year they turn 7).
Grade R ( year they turn 6) is a bit more table based and academically orientated, but not akin to formal school in UK. Play is very much still the norm.

My eldest is a July baby, now in year 2. He was absolutely fine starting school when he did, at just turned four, but it clearly would have been giving him a huge advantage to have started a year later - I remember looking at him when he was just starting year 1 and thinking how advanced he would have seemed if he was just going into reception then. There is one child in his class whose parents did do this and you can absolutely tell that she's the oldest in the class (and she's a June birthday, so she is oldest by a good few months, and over a year older than DS1). I think I'm fine with our decision - which, to be honest, was probably over-influenced by the fact I'm a July baby and incurred no harm from it - but I can absolutely see why someone would choose differently.

We deferred our August born. They move to be the oldest which helps them, plus you get a bonus year of pre-school fun activities.

I grew up in Ireland where it was the norm, there was no date for cut off and parents would choose, so children born in May or June could be either age, usually the older age. It wasn't a big deal.

Our cut off here in NI is early July. My eldest is April born, we could've deferred her but we felt she was ready and she's doing well although she does seem young compared to those who are nine months older.

My youngest was born just after the cut off so she'll be just over 5 starting school, which I'm very glad of, the extra year will be good for her.

We do know that children who are older in their year group do better, but that's at a population level. The highest achieving child in my DC's class was born on 30 June and is the youngest in their class. Likewise my bff is a ridiculously successful lawyer and was born in early June and was one of the youngest in our school year.

Dd absolutely would not have been ready, her birthday is also 28th of August.
Luckily I live in Scotland so it wasn't a problem.

Does depend on the kid though.

Two friends have a child born August 20th and the other Sept 20th (or so). So a month apart but two school years.

The Aug 20th child has just started school and is fine. They are tall, sporty, confident - they’ll be fine.

The Sept 20th child wouldn’t cope. They can’t manage their emotions. They wouldn’t manage the responsibility. They wouldn’t cope with the more formal learning.

Etc etc

No, it's not that they "should have started the year before". The option exists for parents of summerborns to start them in Reception at 4 or 5. You chose 4, they chose 5. I'm not sure what's "shocking" about it?

All research on education and child development is very clear that starting school at 5 or 6 is more appropriate and starting formal education earlier can be harmful to learning and life outcomes as well as both physical and mental health. At a population level these effects are pronounced and persistent and lifelong. It's a no-brainer really for anybody who has looked at the data to wait until 5 now that the option is there unless they have very specific reasons for choosing to send their child earlier.

The option has existed in Scotland for decades, and in most countries with better education outcomes than ours and happier, healthier children school starts at 6.

People are allowed to make different choices to you.

They aren't allowed to force children to skip years like that.

In other countries children tend to start school later than in the UK, and I think there's a lot to be said for it. So deferring is certainly something I would think about seriously for a July or August born child.

Having said that I've also heard that many secondaries only allow in year admissions so going from y6 to y8 would be much worse than being behind in your natural year

My August bday DD is now in Y3 and for the first time I now wish I'd held her back. She's starting to really struggle with the level of focus and that's expected of her at just turned 7. In maths they're doing decimals already (eg 0.6 + 2.5) and she got no fucking idea what's good on.

She also gets on much better with some Y2 friends from outside clubs and is teased in class for being a "baby". She's much shorter than the girls in her class and is also emotionally immature compared to the ones who are turning 8 now.

I've just got to suck it up but I wish I'd taken the option more seriously. I'm a June birthday and so was very dismissive of the idea but primary school content in KS2 is now 1.5-2 years ahead of what we were taught at the same age in the 1980s, according to my friend who works in education policy .

It’s tough isn’t it.

You want is best for your child - and endless studies have shown those that are older in the school year do better in absolutely everything.

I have seen that some (private) secondary schools insist you are in the right year however, so I don’t know how that impacts things in the longer term.

I have a few friends with August babies wrestling over this - wanting to put them in academically selective schools at some point and the very real issue that their being younger will probably impact their performance and therefore likelihood of success.

My children are among the youngest in their classes and are doing very well. I think they would have been desperately bored if we had held them back. They have been exactly ready for each school stage. It's hard to know when you are making the decision, but deferring isn't without its risks either.
In the countries where kids start at 6 or 7, their nursery or kindergarten system is a lot more school-like than in the UK. In countries where they start school aged 3, they may be in school but they have several more years of learning through play. In the end, 'school' is a label that doesn't actually tell you much about what is happening inside the building.

I agree with this

Surely these children should be kept within the same year even if they start school later (as used to be the case - you could start in January). Otherwise it's just creating a bigger problem as the April-borns end up as the youngest in the year, and even worse, will be expected to keep up with kids who are 15 months older than them - an even bigger disadvantage.

This. I bet people would quickly reconcile themselves to the emotional readiness of their 4 year olds if exam results were weighted to reflect the age of the child when sitting the exam.

All my 3 are summer born, June, July & the youngest same birthday as your son 28 August. The eldest 2 have done really well and never seemed younger socially or academically. I don’t think I will defer my youngest purely because there has to be a youngest and that’s just when she was born, I wouldn’t want her when older to be pissed off at me for effectively ‘holding her back a year.’ If she had an additional disadvantages other than her age I would probably think differently.

I would never send a child who has just turned 4 to primary school if there was any way to avoid it. As a previous poster said that would mean they would be 11 months younger than some other children in the class which surely puts them at a disadvantage emotionally and academically.

I think you are unreasonable. I think it's shocking to expect children to start school when so young.

My child was not at all emotionally or socially ready at 4. Luckily where I live he started at 5 but it would have been so wrong for him a year earlier.

I think it depends on what nursery a child attends. Private nurseries don't advocate for deferring because there is no vested interested for them. However council nurseries usually do educate the parents on the benefits of deferring because they are educating facilities and not just glorified babysitters that are run for vast profit which is what private nurseries effectively are.