Unfair to defer summer borns

It’s literally nothing to do with how much older or younger another child is, it’s just about each individual child being ready to start school.

This is wild.

So we are in agreeance, its about our children "thriving" screw everyone elses kind of thing. Which is fine btw nothing wrong with that mindset as a parent. I just don't like it when they're dishonest about it all "it would be unfair for little Timmy to be in a class with kids 11 months older" but then dismiss the point that now some other kid has to be in a class with kids 18 months older.
But that's fine because it's not your kid right.

Again if that's your mindset fair enough but be honest about it

What about the three children that would have been in the top group if these three children hadn't deferred? Presumably they are now in the group below they otherwise would have been. Your child may well not be impacted but some other child will be.

I referenced upthread the WHO charts regarding height. Of course there will be outliers and anomalies but the statistical trend for height increase with age is clear. The tall child operating within their own year will receive a natural advantage due to their biology. The average height kid operating in the year below will receive an advantage as a result of the system and their parents' decision to defer.

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.

I guess though in terms of physical size (which OP was complaining about), it’s common for kids to share classrooms with bigger kids.

was there a reason for "he was socially and emotionally at a similar developmental stage to that of a 20 month old"

Deferred 4yos have the same entitlement to childcare as they did the year before - I’ve lost track whether it’s changed now but for my 4yo this would have been free 30 hours/week which is exactly equivalent to school hours.

I don’t know why people keep saying ‘lots of schools have mixed year groups’. That’s different, the class curriculum is set to teach both academic years and they’re split into year groups to do phonics/ teaching directed to their year group.

Yes. I've written about this before, but there are 3 deferred children in my DC"s class. They are in the more able groups for most things but they are not 'top of the class'. It doesn't make any difference to my DC that they are in there

And there is a Feb-born child who is head and shoulders above the rest of the class - and most of the year above as well. He's also got a huge shoulder width, he's just a big kid like his dad who towers over all the adults. What shall we do with him? Should he not be allowed to play with children in his 'rightful' year? That would certainly be the fairest?

Another child is exceptionally good at football. Probably one of the better players in the whole school, and he's in year 1. And yet he still does PE with, and plays at lunchtime with the rest of the year 1 class. How can this be allowed, my goodness!

Arbitrary groupings will always be unfair at some point to some people in it. Allowing leeway to try and correct that unfairness just makes sense.

It’s really none of your business who defers and who doesn’t. That’s up to the parents and the school.
Lots of small schools have mixed year groups that work perfectly well. It sounds as though your child is doing fine at school, so just get on with it. No need for any drama.

It is observable scientifically. It is ridiculous to suggest that children aren't statistically taller at 5 than 4. WHO suggest that an average child is 102cm on their 4th birthday (50th percentile) whereas a child that is 102cm on their 5th birthday would be on the 9th percentile I.e. 9 out of 10 children will be taller.

Lots of parents can’t afford to defer, as pre school childcare is very expensive and they need school for childcare reasons.

So those summer borns who are not deferred may have a double disadvantage of being (by far) the youngest in the class- if those who can afford to have deferred- and being from a less well off family.

It is an issue in all countries. The county i come from starts school at 6. A lot of people defer to start age 7 because “my child isn’t ready”. My cousin turned 8 in her first year of school…..bored out of her mind in a class full of 6 year olds

If you could choose to have your child

A - thrive

B - be probably OK and struggle here and there

Which would you choose?

JUST A FEW DAYS AFTER TURNING 4

This is only true for August birthdays.

As I said upthread, deferral used to be only for July and August birthdays. That made some sort of sense for the reason you give - they were only just 4.

But now April-June can also defer and we’re up to half the year being able to defer.

If it is about “just barely 4” then we should go back to July/August only.

If it is about developmental readiness then it ought to be available for ANY child whose parent thinks they are not developmentally ready. Whatever their birthday.

If you plotted a graph ignoring age and showed height on one axis and ability to read and write and regulate behaviour on the other axis then there would obviously be a correlation. This is because older children tend to be taller and older children tend to be better at reading and writing and regulating their behaviour. This isn't universally true and of course there will be outliers and anomalies but the trends are clear. Compare a Reception class with a year 1 class and there will be some overlap but as a whole the year 1 class will be statistically significantly taller.

So parents see a deferred child that is probably physically taller than their child that is 16 months taller. The physical difference will be obvious but it stands to reason that they have also had 16 months longer to mature and improve their social and academic skills too. Children don't just stand still developmentally just because you have chosen to defer a year.

The argument about biological age impacting development is exactly the same as TRAs use against female only sports. Yes there is some overlap between men and women in turns of height, strength etc but the overall trend is clear. Same for biological age and height, strength, academic ability etc.

Don't you shout at me with those capital letters young lady 😉
Like I said to someone on this thread yesterday though fair enough there's an argument that 4 is too young but I guarantee many of these pretentious types would still be deferring if school started at 5,6 or even 7.

And look I get it in certain circumstances like a premature child born in August but some on this thread have mentioned half of people in their town with a child born post April doing it. Definitely hyper competitive my child has to be top of the class types.

How many times do people have to say it?

IT ISN’T ABOUT BEING THE YOUNGEST IN THE CLASS!! IT’S THE FACT THAT CHILDREN ARE BEING MADE TO START SCHOOL JUST A FEW DAYS AFTER TURNING 4 THAT IS THE PROBLEM. THAT’S WHAT PARENTS DON’T WANT FOR THEIR CHILD. THATS WHY THEY DEFER.

I think the issue is “too young” or “not ready” rather than “younger than”.

I was responding to a poster claiming there was a lifelong impact being in a classroom with a child 11 months old so they needed to defer their child. I'm just saying if there's a lifelong impact from being 11 months younger imagine the impact of being 18 months younger. But that's ok because it's someone else's kid right?

Cant tell me this isn't mainly a concern of the parents who can't stand the idea their precious darlings won't be top of the class.

It’s not only school work though. School is so much more than that. You’ve got kids at different stages developmentally and cognitively.

What is the lifelong impact of a child being in a classroom with a child who is 18 months older?

You didn't read my whole comment where I said I have a child born in July 🤔?
So because there's a life long impact from being in a class with children 11 months older the solution is for all these mostly pretentious parents to defer so other people's kids have to be in a class with kids 18 months older? What about the life long impact of that? Of course we could all just start deferring our kids but that would just change the school start dates there'd still be someone who has to be the youngest

Fast forward a few years and my summer born daughter is currently sitting her GCSEs age 15. She is autistic, we didn't know that when she was 4 and started school, and is just starting to emotionally mature. She's definitely miles behind September borns of her intake. In September she is going to start a BTec because she struggles with exams but the only college that offers the course is an hour and a half commute, with a mixture of train, bus and walk, I'm not sure she's ready for that. She would really benefit from the additional year and has not 'caught up'.

I kind of wish i had held her back a year when I could.

Parents should just do what's best for their child, it's really no-one else's business.

I agree that part of the issue for me is the children starting at 4

i would have deferred ds2 but our school/council would have made him start in year 1 so we didn’t