Unfair to defer summer borns

I haven't made that assumption but in the same way that September born kids have been proven to have an advantage academically, children who have been deferred will have this advantage amplified further. So maybe a child in the middle set would have been in the bottom set if they were with children who were all born within 12 months of each other. That means some other child is in the bottom set that should actually be on the middle set of deferring wasn't allowed. I have first hand experience of academically advanced children being deferred and I will never ever be convinced that this isn't happening. I think people on threads like this underestimate how far parents will go to ensure that their child has the absolute best start even if this is at the expense of other children. The system should be reformed so that this isn't allowed to happen and children have a more equal playing field at school.

Yeah and also the younger kids in the class BENEFIT from the typically more grown up behaviour of the older kids. Teachers absolutely would not cope if all the class were 4

You are making the assumption that deferring kids will automatically be in the top set though whilst trying to make the point that's why it's unfair.

My personal experience of deferring and many friends who have done the same is that their child isn't in top sets in their deferred class. It's simply that they are somewhere in the middle and not struggling with school which in turn means that the teacher has more time available to help the ones which are struggling.

It didn’t make any difference to private schools in my personal experience.

And do we really want to take our lead from the Chinese education system? I certainly don’t…

So? It's not a competition.

If your child is achieving at a decent standard academically and has friends, why does it matter if someone else is 15 months older and doing even better?

If your child isn't achieving at a decent standard academically or doesn't have friends, it still makes no difference who is doing better, schedule a meeting with the teachers and work out a plan to support them.

A child who starts school too early is not only going to feel like they stand out as below everyone else, they are also going to disrupt everyone else's learning. One or two children who are a bit more advanced is way better for the rest of the class than one or two children requiring constant support simply because they are too immature for the environment.

No they don't always go by age. There may be some age weighting but most often the child sits the test with their class and the age weighting is treated the same as a September born child. I am in a wealthier area and deferral happens to improve the chances of a child getting an 11 plus place all the time.

The physical size is just a visual representation of the vast difference that age can make at 3/4/5 years old. The differences are not only physical but developmental and emotional.
ps before you say it I’m well aware that physical size is not just age related and you can have a tiny 5 year old and a huge just-turned-4 year old, for example.

Selective grammar and private schools go by age. It’s actually a huge disadvantage for your child if you defer them for grammar as they would have less time to come up to scratch compared to other kids. So you don’t tend to see this situation in wealthier areas.

You also don’t see this in Indian and Chinese areas where deferring itself is seen as failure

Because most classes have a maximum group size. Even secondary schools only admit so many kids into the top sets. In my child's class there are currently 8 children in the 'top' group. It wouldn't be practical to expand this to 11 and have almost half of the class in the top group. If you're in a grammar school area or an area with selective schools or colleges then this issue is amplified further. Provision doesn't just expand at the top level because a load of kids have deferred.

The month chosen as the cut off point is arbitrary but the 12 month range absolutely isn't. People aren't arguing that the cut off must be September but it's hard to argue that any other month is any less arbitrary.

It does make for a different experience though. In our school there is fluctuation currently the oldest half dozen children or so are put in a mixed class with next year up and do some teaching with year group.

It means that they don’t go through school being oldest all the time. My deferred was oldest for a few years and then bottom of a mixed class. Then oldest again for last year.

My non deferred twins are both the oldest girls in their year group and currently the youngest in their class. I think it’s quite positive to experience both ends of the spectrum rather than being oldest whole way through and then high school feels like a bit of a shock.

What about the three children that would have been in the top group if these three children hadn't deferred?

Why can't they be in it too?

Age isn't arbitrary. It is biological fact. Children born within 12 months of each other all being in the same academic year is intrinsically different to expanding this age range.

Arbitrary is the fact that September 1st has been chosen as the cut off date. It could just as well have been January, or March or any date really, but it is arbitrary.

Children 'born within in 12 months of each other' naturally includes children either in the year 'above' or 'below' each other unless you're born smack dab in the middle. The year groups exist because we have arbitrarily put them there.

There's a "gigantic September born" boy in my daughter's class. He's the least aggressive boy I've ever met and enjoys playing hairdressers and joining in with the dance routines a group of the girls like organising.

It's the July born boys who like hurtling around like cannon balls and occasionally take someone out.

Some of these comments read like the parents think Reception is throwing their child into an arena to fight to the death and only the tallest and strongest will survive. My DD couldn't care less what the height differences are in her class.

Yep I've definitely had my popcorn out! 🍿 😂

Yanbu. I have a child born end of July and it was scary enough taking her to the reception taster day as a still-3yo with a gigantic September-born boy in the same class. There will always be someone who’s the youngest, wherever you put the cutoff.

Except that it ISN'T about how much older another child is! That fallacy is what's driving this discussion.

It's nothing to do with how much younger than 'other' children they are, it's about that individual child starting school at just turned 4, full stop.

Imagine each child was educated in a class of just them, just 1 child on their own. And you could choose to start them at 4yo or 5yo. Which would you choose for your child? That's your answer.

It doesn't mean it's intrinsically worse but I believe it is worse. It means that the playing field is less equal than it otherwise could be.

I know people on this thread insist that school isn't a competition but it fact in many ways it is. There are only so many spaces in the top sets, in the schools sports squads, in the school play, in the grammar school, in the top colleges. Even examinations are ultimately moderated against the cohort.

Just because other countries do things differently, it doesn't mean they do things better. Scotland consistently does worse than England when it comes to academic outcomes.

Good

Grammar school exams / 11+ takes into account age at time of sitting the exams.

A whole thread of mostly English parents tying themselves in knots over something which is normal in Scottish schools and has been for 50 years or more.

I think people just don’t want their child to miss a year of school, hence not moving back to their chronological year group.

I am an August 31st baby, and made it by 8 hours! I never suffered at all, and in fact I loved it, although my friends could drive, etc, before me, I'd done my O Levels before I was 16, A Levels before I was 18 and graduated from university just before I was 21. I would have hated to be a year behind my peers.

Then why the excitement on this thread that they never go back to their chronological age class? So will still be in a class with kids over a year younger at GCSE stage? And 11+ stage? (can't tell me there isn't an overlap between the type to defer and the type to move to Kent and tutor hard to get into grammar school)

Nope, not mentioned at all. Simply wrote to school admissions team at council, told them we were planning to defer our twins, DoB 22/08/xx, that we were seeking their confirmation as admission authority for 2 of the schools we planned to put on our application form that they would place them in reception on admission and not Y1. For the academy schools, we emailed the head teachers and asked the same question - that is the only question that needed to be answered as per summer born guidance.Prematurity didnt come into it at all.

I agree that it’s different having an age range of 12 months vs a bigger age range, but that doesn’t mean that a bigger range is bad or worse.

In NI, the age cut off is 30 June/1 July, so the very youngest child is 4 years+2 months - so still a 12 month range but the youngest kids are that little bit older and more ready. I have no idea why that couldn’t be introduced in England as would be an easy change.

In Scotland, the youngest child is 4.5 and parents can defer so they are 5.5, and in Ireland, kids can start between 4 and 6, so there can be an almost 2 year age range. More parental choice generally means more people are happy with the arrangement.

There is only hand wringing about unfairness in England brcause it’s still seen as an exception rather than being widely chosen, and people who make that choice in the best interests of their child are seen as somehow trying to play the system.

I agree with you. If a child is physially weaker or less advanced academically than their peers, I don't see that placing them in a class with younger kids is any kind of a solution. They will still be behind their actual peers. Probably further behind academically.

DS is late August born. First couple of years at Junior school he was a bit behind the average but that encouraged him to work hard and practice hard at his sports. By now in Y6 its more than evened out. A few months difference in birth date 10 years ago hasn't made any difference. In fact, for him, being a competitive sod, I think he has made much more impressive progress than if he was currently coasting in Y5.