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

100% right @Butterworths . I had 3 of mine at a primary school where parents were largely wealthy and very middle class. Most kids actually went on to private school after the first few years at this very small, country primary (it actually was like private school with only 16 pupils per year group average) And deferral was common. Many mums were educators who had taken early years out to be SAHM during pre school years.

My other 2 went to a larger primary where more working mums and more working class parents and they were the ones pushing earlier school entry. For the childcare aspect and because they confused running around and "into everything" as school readiness.

Whereas it is really poorly developed attention and immaturity!

@YourLastNerve At age 4 exclusively choosing solitary activities like maths and writing over a social activity like the dress-up box isn't necessarily a good thing - the activities around the dress-up box encourage a child to express their creativity - develop stories and language, socialise and form relationships, work as part of a team and problem solve - these are valuable skills I wouldn't be dismissing. I wish schools could focus on their importance more than they currently do because when it comes to being a grown-up these skills matter just as much as the academics.

You have this absolutely arse backwards. Deferring is much more likely in families that think a lot about education and want the absolute best outcomes for their children. They don't see school as an unpleasant thing to be delayed but as an important thing where the benefit should be maximised.

In fact I suspect people who are negative about school would be much much less likely to engage enough to know about deferring and, if they did, would rather get it over with and on to other things.

The tone of your post is absolutely nauseating by the way.

My August born child is now 20 and he settled fine. However, i now have a 2 year old and I will be deferring her but also considering home educating. We are not wealthy but we are sacrificing and cutting our cloth accordingly to enable me to be a home parent for now. Too much emphasis is put on formal education too early now in western countries and we are losing sight of what’s important first and foremost. Be interesting to know the cultural background of those parents deferring and is it because they see children as being too young in the UK. What’s important for me is the child being close to their attachment adults for longer than we allow and being allowed to grow and learn through play. I see the tables turning. I am in Leicestershire and there is a big HE community here. Looking back in the schooling system for my two grown up sons, now 20 and 25, I question alot including childrens emotional and physical safety within school. They have become breeding grounds for troubled teenagers to act out their frustrations in an unguided manner. Teachers are overwhelmed and young people are becoming out of control. Every parent should do what is right for them and their child.

As a teacher, I deliberately planned all my kids to be born in the Autumn term to give them the academic advantage.

My son started this year. He was 4 in June. I actually wanted to defer him for a year or at least until Easter but nursery wouldn't take him ( he does have lots of additional needs but he loved nursery and his key worker still tells me she misses him).
He's doing okay at school, for the 90 minutes he's in, happy but he's not learning anything nor are they attempting to teach him, he just gets to play.
But I need school support to get his EHCP and to at least give him some exposure to social situations.
Ideal world I'd have done another year at nursery.

Totally agree

I'm sure you've made the right choice for your child. It makes such a difference to a child's confidence in those early years.
"Show me the child at 7, and I'll show you then man"

It's a weirdly hot topic in my friend group, with my 2 best friends hoping to time pregnancies for October babies. The weirdest thing is all 3 of us are June-July birthdays and we were all very academic and socially confident at school (tbf we didn't go to primary school together so maybe they struggled more there) I'd prefer a summer baby as it's less time paying for childcare, although in my home country school starts at 6 and this only recently changed from 7. Children are very adaptable.

I think its good that it's an option, but it's hard knowing where the cut off should be. My DD2, born in May 5 weeks early so should have been a late June baby would have been eligible for deferral, but we decided against it as felt she was ready.

In year 1, her teacher is already struggling to challenge her - I asked her if could have more challenging reading books as she was finding them too easy (each group covers 1 book together during week and then brings it home on weekend) and could she possibly move up a group, I had assumed she was in a lower group as a summer born, and was told no she couldn't as already in highest group for every subject. If I had deferred her, she would have been so far ahead that school would have been pretty boring for her.
.
So deferring is t always the best option and it shouldn't be assumed that summer born will automatically struggle, DD2 finds her work much easier than DD1 (September baby) at the same age.

Not all LAs allow it but I would have applied to defer if my children were summer born.

In the 90's at primary school I used to be so confused by two sisters. They were twins but one was in one year and one in the year above.
They had a few hours between them.

There were 2 boys in one year who were brothers and looked nothing alike but had 10 months between them.

As I got a bit older it made sense.
I never understood why the sister's couldn't be in the same year.
As it turns out the older sister got the better deal - no uni fees and got a grant to go up uni.

These days the parents would have had options.
It's like a PP said some uneducated parents don't know how to advocate for themselves.

4 is far too early to start school for some children. The research supports that and shows children that start later do better socially, educationally etc. where I’m from it’s common to defer especially in boys.

I'm in the NE, my working experience is it is SEN children, who are going into mainstream schools, and sadly, aren't going to cope due to lack of support they need. Often, the hope has been that a place might come up in a SEN school, or the child's level of need might change. I used to worry a lot, about these children.
Legally, any child can be deferred until age 5, but this would cause chaos.

I've had three at school in a later starting country and reading words and short sentences is absolutely not expected. There are certainly things children should have learned at kindergarten, but no 'academic targets'.

Most later starting countries have highly structured play-based programmes in place in universally accessed pre-school/kindergartens, it's not just sandpits and scooters

^
This is how the subsided daycares work. They have academic targets to reach, it's not just playtime.

They should know their alphabet, shapes, colours, numbers to ten and be toilet trained/adequately socialised etc. Can read single words, perhaps short sentences.

daycare is heavily subsided

^ supposed to say, not if

Live abroad and kids here start at aged 5.

Also to be noted that daycare if heavily subsided, and available up untill they start school

I think it makes sense, rather than 4 years old

Yes same here, all Jan/Feb kids were deferred. About a third of the class actually started age 5y8m. I know in the year above one wasn't deferred so is same age as our year group but will ultimately sit exams in high school when our year kids are on pathway year behind so more time to develop emotionally and maturity.

There's research available that deferred kids did statistically better in exams than non-deferred kids and that was a contributing factor to our decision. Your right about other countries not starting until later with formal learning too. I know other parents held similar views.

I'm sure last year the scottish government changed it to any kid can be deferred from August birthdays now and claim 2 years nursery so it's open to anyone. So you can still start at 4y5m or do 5y5m if you want now.

So I guess if everyone takes that up then kids in Scotland will generally start later at minimum of 5y5m in primary 1, start high school education 12y5m and finish high school 18y.

I think it's the right thing for kids to give them more time in preschool but it's a personal decision and I suppose local dynamics need to be taken into consideration. If no one else was deferring when we did I may have worried about being the oldest by a long shot but it is common now.

Not sure how England works, if it's bothering you can you put them back to nursery?

In effect the results are weighted as they are listed top to bottom by birth month for sats, gcse and alevels at a national level

Presumably, to make such a system actually reflect the amount of education a child has received, they will deduct any months/ years that the failures of the school system have prevented a child from attending school at all?

So my "deferred" child actually has only three months of school that were completed without disruption due to illegal behaviour by the school meaning she couldn't attend, since she started in Sept 2023.

Of COURSE they won't factor that in though, will they?

Ultimately most of the arguments put forward about this are garbage. Personal anecdotes, comments about individual Local Authorities ignoring the law (as they often do in any circumstance, but are overruled when challenged legally as they have np leg to stand on), of false argument about how we should subject all children to foreseeable harm because some parents choose to do damaging things even when they can freely choose not to because otherwise it "isn't fair".

Ultimately no child school be in school at 4 or even 5. We know this. Child development research is absolutely clear on this point. So no, obviously most responsible parents won't choose to send a child at 4 instead of 5 when they have that choice now, unless there are very specific circumstances that convince them it would benefit the child not just now but into their teens, to send them before compulsory school age out of choice when as a PP pointed out, it is cost free financially to defer for all those earning under £100k because they still get 30hrs free childcare which covers the hours the child would be at school.

It cost me - as a lone parent - over £25k to defer my child for a year. I still did it because it was in her best interests. I couldn't give a damn about how she performs in relation to the rest of her class. They could all be born in Sept so a matter of days different to her in age, or all in August the previous year and with parents who chose not to defer their kids to a more appropriate age. Completely irrelevant either way. My concern is about her wellbeing, not her position relative to other random people we don't even know. Really bizarre to read such comments here, as if anyone cares what unknown parents of other children at their child's school might think or not think about them/ their kid?

In effect the results are weighted as they are listed top to bottom by birth month for sats, gcse and alevels at a national level.vel
imo that is partly as kids need to develop reading and writing for everything and if they get behind on that and dont catch up obviously that affects everything else. Then maths obviuosly is maths,bio, chem and physics at gcse level. So issues with that also affect a lot. If you have to focus on a specific weakness or just struggle to keep up if affects energy and time on everything else..

---As pp says the curriculum has moved downwards since maybe 2014. So not comparable with our schooling.
-- Yes someone will be youngest but some kids would be behind no matter what and likewise others far ahead.

• Confidence is also an issue as is friendships.

but also the consideration is the child doing reception cuuprriculum at 4.0 or 5.0. And for that child will the education be more appropriate.

its clear having had a child of 4y3m go through reception that it is not appropriate for some kids. If your chiod already struggles to sit still etc. Dd was constantly being told off. In terms of intelligence she could read chapter books before 5. But was that needed no. She wasnt ready for all the social stuff plus school were not good w ith supporting so many kids basically left to it...
ive seen an august born boy picked on in yr 3 and hes ended up changing school.

dd has gone onto an asd referral but not via school who always just said she was naughty. She spent a lot of reception out of class sent to another one.
if school were not also dealing with immature kids beause of starting at 4 it might have been clearer to them something was wrong. Nursery had flagged issues (even thoug h she was meeting the eyfs targets byt because they are age based you can be doing ok then next set of targets is for kids up to almost 6.

at an individual level 4vs 5 might make next to no difference to an advanced child. But at 3 when you apply many sen arent clear (often see on here kids not speaking at 3-4). Many kids werent doing 30 hours a week at 3 so again the sen etc lesss obvious. And few nurseries have groups of up to 60 wandering around together.

In reception there was a kid repeating who then moved to a sen school. Still in nappies at 6 . I think it probably would have been better to delay his start. The result would have been the same but im sure issues would have been clearer re a 5-6yo than a 4-5 where more common for those issues.

OP, I have an August boy. He’s been fine. His sister is a September girl and I’ve not noticed any difference between them. Try not to stress.

My Mum homeschooled me so I started school aged 5 and two weeks as in those days you could start at Easter and I waited until September.

I was so far ahead, as were some others, that we skipped Y3 entirely which meant the deferment ended up being worthless...

I think you probably are doing the right thing. Your child will be learning to read so much earlier and be a whole academic year ahead. Many exams for younger children are age adjusted so they'll be at a disadvantage as the oldest in their year.

This wasn’t an option when our boys were younger , our second son has a birthday in early August, he was tired a lot in reception, from what I can remember it took him til the spring term to fully “enjoy” school.
I think he was part time until Christmas? Anyhow? This was 2006.
He’s now just started a PhD ( linked to some sort of chemistry/bacteria?) after doing a chemistry degree.
I work in Early years and the children who are deferred, only my opinion, usually get very bored in nursery, they’ve been there for 2+ years , done everything already.
Obviously this doesn’t apply to SEN .

In Scotland our years run 1st March-28th Feb (assume England is 1st Sept-31st Aug?). we don’t start school until somewhere around 20th August. Deferral was common place if born Jan/Feb however we can now defer if the child is not yet 5 by the start of school year.
i haven’t heard of anyone regretting deferral at all but I do know of many that regret not doing so however I do think it is dependent on the child!
my nephew for example is born Jan, my son Sept so they started the same school year. Nephew deferred and I completely agree it was the correct thing to do!
youngest has just started school, one friend is away to be 6 (deferred last year) and yet one isn’t 5 until Feb and was not deferred! often the differences aren’t noticed at the start of school journey but when it comes to exams the maturity will be different.

my opinion, education system needs a full re haul as it’s dated and does NOT cater to all children. I don’t think children should start school until earliest after they are 5, ideally 6 !