Unfair to defer summer borns

You should have deferred your summerborn

They're now 23 so probably not!!!!

@MrsSunshine2b yes I agree it would be costly that's why I said money/resource no object it would be the best way to manage it, we live in a medium sized city and all the primaries are 2 form entry, so it would be a huge and prohibitively expensive undertaking but realistically it would have better outcomes for more children - because on top of everything else the class sizes would also be smaller. It's absolutely 100% unrealistic unfortunately.

The ones diagnosed with ADHD probably do have ADHD and it's more likely imo to be that Autumn borns with ADHD get missed because they have the maturity to be better at masking it. When I was teaching, unless a child was completely out of control and academically completely failing, the SENCOs weren't in the least bit interested in ADHD symptoms and generally just gave you weak advice about behaviour management or tidying the classroom up more.

I'm summer born and got diagnosed with ADHD at 24, but it's very obvious I had it the whole time and would have done regardless of when the school year started.

I think that's an excellent example - life changes so much when you live it, there's no way the year earlier = year better off theory can possibly hold any merit.

People choose to do so much in their lives, not just work work work. People take breaks, have children, spend money on luxuries and essentials. And the different career/life path you may be set on by 'thriving' (sorry @Ablondiebutagoody) or struggling will impact your future way more than how many years you've been saving.

I think we're getting ahead of ourselves. I think we do what we think is right at the time (that is, allowing an August born child who is no way ready for the formal setting of school, to start a year later), and take life as it comes after that.

I do kind of get this if the person was born at a very specific time - around 1979.

The difference between my experience (born 1978) and my brothers born in 80 and 83 in our early adult lives was huge. I got to go to Uni with no fees, and get on the properly ladder before the crash in 2007. They didn’t have those advantages.

They’ve over taken me now but that’s because I had children and they didn’t until my youngest brother did very recently. I am now a single parent. And they are men of course.

So perhaps I’m not agreeing as it can all change later on!

I defered my daughter (July born) she's autistic and due to covid she would have had barely any time in nursery/reception if deferring her hadn't been an option, I'm forever thankful I was able to make that decision, it was the right thing for my child.

It’s a tough one though. My Feb born son with ADHD could probably have benefitted from being deferred just from the social development side.

But my Oct born dd could easily have started school a year earlier (so at 3 and ten/ eleven months) alongside the Aug borns she’d been playing with since babyhood - although better for her now that’s she’s at GCSEs that she didn’t, and had another year to learn.

Totally agree

Thanks for the definition. It's the use of the word by every woman and her dog atm that annoys me. Same as sticking absolutely at the start of a sentence e.g. I absolutely want Johhny to thrive in reception.

Public sector/school/therapy speak nonsense that needs to stay there.

I started using it when I had a kid. I don't have a summer born but I still very much want my kid to thrive.

As a parent, why wouldn't you?

Genuine question. At what age are children born in the summer being diagnosed with ADHD? The waiting list for assessments in this area is years long.

Do we not want our children to thrive now?

thrive
verb
(of a child, animal, or plant) grow or develop well

I would like my children to grow and develop well in school, not just cope or manage.

Insane to suggest it is gloaty to want your children to do well.

It’s really tricky as some reasons for deferral/not deferring don’t become apparent till the child is much older. Clearly if there are obvious reasons at 3-4 years old it makes sense that the family talk to the school about this option.

I have two summer kids who I did not defer. Now at secondary school, they would have hated being a year older than their cohort. They’d have found it embarrassing and (incorrectly) assumed it was because teachers/parents thought they weren’t clever enough. I say this as these are the themes that have come out of our discussions about the very small number of kids who were deferred and joined the younger cohort.

I think deferring and going straight into year 1 or starting on time but just doing a reduced timetable is probably kinder (unless major reasons are indicated, I’m talking about parents who think it’s an advantage.)

Op what sort of test would you envisage?
Would you repeat that test every year to check they're still coping?
How would that intersect with a child with sen?

What if they 'fail' that test and get to defer? What sort of message does the child/nursery environment take from that?

That’s bonkers - I wouldn’t have thought you were able to defer a child born as early as May!

There needs to be a window in which the kids starting school are born - even if we make it May - April rather than Sept - Oct. I think Scotland use March as the cut off?

When did we start using the word "thrive" in relation to going to school? So OTT and almost gloaty. I hate it. Pretty sure most DC just "go to school".

YABU. Almost all children benefit from deferring school start, and being summer born doesn't guarantee that a child will have the social, emotional or intellectual maturity for school. Parents are the people who know their child best and can make that decision. It should be an option open to all parents, regardless of when their child is born.

Who said I'm happy? I am not saying we have to accept the current system but within the current system deferring is the only option for individual summer born children to overcome their disadvantage. It being "unfair" for some children doesn't stop it from being the right decision for another child.

You are wrong, having older children in the cohort benefits the whole class, you are just choosing to ignore that evidence. There are plenty of systems e.g Montessori that have a 3 year age gap across a cohort, that doesn't prevent the younger children from "shining". Making an accommodation for one child doesn't automatically disadvantage another.

Do you have a March born child that you feel is being disadvantaged by this policy? If not I really fail to understand why you are so bothered by what 1.5% of people are choosing to do.
Are you equally as angry about tutoring, private schooling or grammar schools? If not I think you need to give your head a wobble.

My son was not even 16 when he sat his GCSEs and won't be able to legally go into many of the places his college friends spend their evenings until a month after finishing his A levels. He has missed out on a lot of socialising as a result and I think key milestones for young people turning 18.

He is academically bright but wasn't ready to sit GCSEs at the age he did, they didn't reflect his abilities and that knocked his self belief. A year more in maturity and he is absolutely flying. But I wish he had that extra year younger rather than waiting to catch up with himself during A levels, which is already an intense time.
It might not matter at 4 but it can matter at the other end of the school years.

The issue with the 3 term intake is it would only really work for big schools. It would be completely impossible for one teacher to run 3 different curriculums in one class simultaneously so it would realistically need to be a 3 form entry school- unless the DFE is going to triple the funding for more staff. Whilst I like the idea, I don't like the idea of ending up with children having to travel miles to attend the nearest "super school", with small village schools closing.

Preventing deferral does benefit someone. It benefits the non deferred summer borns and those born later in the year. This has been proven time and again by research into RAE. An overall older cohort has not been proven to benefit the youngest in class because of RAE. We know that the oldest are much more likely to ascertain leadership roles, gain recognition for their academic and sporting abilities and succeed socially. Having more even older kids in a cohort gives the summer borns even less opportunity to shine.

Multiple intakes are harder to implement logistically than age adjustments.

I think you are happy that the problem is fixed for your summer born child by effectively transferring the relative age advantages to them. It hasn't removed any inequality but simply redistributed it. I won't accept that we simply have to accept deferment because it makes summer born parents feel better and actually does very little to address the underlying problems. No research shows that deferment addresses the problem of RAE for all children, it simply shows that summer born kids do better because they magically become the oldest.

@Bumpitybumper Please let me know which of my arguments is unhinged, because I am not the one who claimed I would be "angry" at my parents for giving me an additional year of early years education.

Summer born parents shouldn't have their child cope or manage with school, we all want our children to thrive not just survive.

I have already described how I would fix the issue, multiple intakes with a later compulsory school starting age. But we can only operate within the current system and allowing summer born to defer is what we have available to manage the disadvantages of being summer born.
Letting more parents know it's an option would benefit more children, as other posters have said an overall older cohort is better for all children.

Removing the option benefits no one and just forces summer borns to "deal with it" and frankly that's not fair either, considering you are so bothered about things being fair.

I have an August DC but deferral wasn't an option at the time. School was far too much for them at the time - life would have been so much better if they didn't go until they were pretty well 5 rather than barely 4

I wasn’t ready for school at just turned 4 so missed out reception and started in year 1. Is that possible?