Unfair to defer summer borns

Not all teachers and schools are equally good at doing this

how could a teacher intervene to make it fair for everyone?

Sounds like you don't have much faith in teachers. What on earth do you think happens in a mixed-age class? Or do you think they should be outlawed as well?

Parents of summer born children are constantly told that teachers are 'highly skilled to differentiate work in order to support the needs of summerborns' so why do imagine this won't be the case for any ages they have in the class?

because you don't want the advantage that is effectively being given to deferred children to be scrutinised.

Please do scrutinise it! That's the whole point - deferring school for a year is absolutely beneficial for that child, the research is very clear on that. But it doesn't mean that there's now a blanket disadvantage for the rest of the class.

What people 'don't want to scrutinise' is the disadvantage summerborns naturally have in a class-with or without deferred children in it. That comes with simply entering the classroom at just turned 4, NOT the ages of other children in the room.

Actively advocating for those children to just continue to struggle and get on with it, even for 'only for a few years' is crazy to me, just to maintain some kind of err-argh-this-is-how-its-always-been-ism.

Many, many, many other countries seem to manage deferral into formal education pretty seamlessly so its definitely a system that works. We don't like it here because typically people don't like change - and we, as a culture, place some weird status on accepting your lot in life and not rocking the boat.

Wait so you ARE saying that height has a bearing on behaviour and one’s ability to read and write? Extraordinary?

I’ll put my extremely tall 2 year old into school now then as she’s taller than year 1s.

*2 - the UK is an outlier in global terms. We start kids in "formal" education far to young. Most countries have a more split program of "kindergarten"/Pre-school, from 3-6/7, and then "school", this allows for a much better separation and transition between no school and school. Parents don't care about their child being slightly behind for the 2-3 years of pre-school because there is an extended period of "getting ready" where there are no exams, no tests, no comparisons etc. After 2-3 years of pre-school/kindergarten, many of the disadvantages of being younger are gone (not all) and every child is "ready" to start school.
So given the poor system in the UK that expects children who have just turned 4 to suddenly be as ready for school as children who are 1 day off 5, is it wrong for parents to want to avoid this disadvantage for their children? Of course not. *

This really isn't true though. A british reception class is still eyfs, play based learning, and is very comparable to what children the same age are experiencing in european countries. I remember a scandinavian friend once laughing at a mutual British friend saying kids there don't start school til 7, he explained they are all in preschool and most can already read when they begin "school", so its not terribly different to the UK. In France maternelle is required from age 3 and in the "grand" section (the same age as reception) the children will be doing reading, writing and maths.

Teachers should be able to differentiate the work though. We have mixed classes at my school. So 2 years plus in a classroom. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing.

@Bumpitybumperthe “trend” you mention is 100% not emphatically observable. You’re not comparing a child born in January 2019 with a child born in December 2022 here. It is children born within the same 12-14ish month period and height is not at all referable to whether they were born in the March or the October.

As many posters have said, in countries where school starts later, this really isn’t an issue. I wouldn’t have deferred my child to avoid being the youngest but did because my child wasn’t ready for school and would have struggled at just turned 4.

The claim is specifically that just turned 4 year olds may not be ready for school. Nothing to do with being the youngest. Or smallest.

@LondonLady1980exactly! I can’t believe people think height variations in school age children are at all linked to where in a single year (or year and a half) of birth they were born! My non deferred child is pretty tall. One of his best friends in his year is 13 months older than him and doesn’t reach his shoulder. The height variations are huge and it is impossible to tell based on height (and now they are 13/14 year old I’d include onset of puberty) who is older and who is younger.

You can't have it all ways. Claim summer borns are disadvantaged because they're younger and smaller and less advanced than their peers and then suggest that all of these factors don't confer an advantage to deferred children over the rest of their cohort.

So if parents have the option to give their child advantages during their schooling as opposed to them be disadvantaged, surely you can see why so many parents defer?

Why would a parent want their child to be disadvantaged?

Oh come on! Height is being mentioned as it's often a physical manifestation of someone being notably older. Older children tend to be taller and bigger than younger ones. Not always, but the trend is emphatically observable and it's something that can be judged by eye in the way that academic ability can't be so will be the most obviously sign of difference that's initially picked up.

You can't have it all ways. Claim summer borns are disadvantaged because they're younger and smaller and less advanced than their peers and then suggest that all of these factors don't confer an advantage to deferred children over the rest of their cohort.

Deferring is very common in Scotland. We didn’t defer my son and so there are children over a year older than him. He’s now coming to the end of his second year in secondary school and we never regretted the decision not to defer. You make the decision based upon your own child’s needs and development and don’t worry about other kids in their year.

I have a September born, I remember at nursery when all her friends left to start school and me thinking she would have been to young! By December/January she was bored at nursery and it was a real struggle those last 9 months before she started school!

I wander rather than a deferred year a more staged approach for summer born. I have a memory that this was how it was when I went to school. I was May born and didn’t start FT till much later. Even the Sept - Dec only went PT till January. My Sept born would have hated that though she was very very ready for school.

Pretty toxic to view tall or bigger children as a threat or cast aspersions generally about anyone’s behaviour based on their size.

Arguably the older children have more time to develop socially so are likely to regulate impulse control better; thus being more sociable and less of a ‘threat’ to the younger ones. If a child has SEN then likely that is the explanation for their behaviour, not their size or age comparatively to the others.

Your height or size also wasn’t relevant to academic performance last time I checked ? The education system isn’t a rollercoaster, there isn’t a height requirement 😂

My October born child started school at the normal time but then repeated Y2 when we moved schools. He remained in the lower year group for 3 years until we managed to get him a place at a special school. It was the only way of keeping him in education until special school became an option.

He was absolutely tiny, and socially and emotionally very young for his age, so nobody would know he was nearly two years older than the youngest in the class.

Our situation is different to the norm because he has multiple special needs (born extremely prematurely), but it’s interesting from this thread to see different experiences and opinions.

My deferred child is the oldest in the class but he’s also the tiniest 🤣

If you had to guess from a line-up of all the kids in his class, which was the deferred child my son would probably be the last one to he picked 🤣

My other son is small too though (one of the smallest in his class), so I just think I produce small children.

I agree though, height is just another random concern that is thrown about. The heights of children are so varied, even more so when puberty hits, that I doubt the height of some deferred led children will cause the classroom to fall into chaos

school is not a competition. Why does it bother you so much which choices other families make for their child. I also doubt that all the other kids are almost a year older than your DC. Are you saying that your DC is born in August, and the rest all in Sept? There are no Winter/Spring or other Summer babies in the same classroom?

The height thing seems to be a real issue…my deferred child is one of the smallest and the tallest child in her class, by a long way, is a not-deferred May born child. Height varies so much anyway. It doesn’t seem like a good basis to decide who goes in what year group.

Of course I can criticise them and want the rules changed. There always has to be an oldest and a youngest and the former will always come with advantages and the latter disadvantages. I say this as someone with two summer born kids so understands the feeling of seeing a September born tower over your child as they enter into Reception. The age gap ultimately though is less than 12 months and it gives summer borns a fighting chance of catching up. Stats show that the gap never completely closes but lots of summer borns thrive and do overtake winter borns. My children were absolutely ready for school and it would have hugely detrimented them to defer them.

What isn't acceptable is that some April born kids are being deferred to join the year below them and this extends the gap unnecessarily to 16 months. This means that summer born parents feel forced to defer too or accept that some deferred kids have a ridiculously large advantage over their children. The deferred parent's right to choose is effectively hugely impacting other summer born parents and their ability to opt to stay in year and not be too far behind.

People will always do what's best for their child even if it's at the expense of other children. We see this time and time again. It doesn't mean the system should allow this though.

I’m in Scotland and it’s the same here.

my son is p2 and was born in May 2018. He should be one of the older ones (March 2018 being the oldest) but there are children as old as August 2017 who’ve been deferred. Add to this the fact there are also children in the class born in Feb 2019 (who are in the correct year given their birthdays) and it’s a bit of a nightmare from what I gather.

children born 18 months apart and at completely different stages.

It absolutely is! Whether is should be is another matter, but under the current system it absolutely is a competition.

The 30 hours is term time only so you will have to pay if you need childcare 52 weeks a year. But that’s no different to school? So my point is using the 30 hours at a state nursery (usually one attached to a school or children’s centre) will give you the same hours that you get at school. So your costs will be the same as when your child starts at reception.

I thought the school had to approve deferrals ? We tried for my daughter but were told we couldn't because the school didn't agree, even though it was already clear that she was SEND. It still rankles, she's in year 3 and they just let her struggle until this year when it became a mixed year 2/3 class, where she had less academic difficulty.

My child is not in a fee paying school. The nursery was a state nursery and offered term time hours of 9-30 to families entitled to 30 hours. The school where my child now goes is also a state school.

Yanbu. I've got a petite august born and it gets really annoying. She was 100% ready for school and does well academically & socially, she's very independent. But there are a couple of very big DC who were basically deferred due to SEN. Their needs haven't magically gone away and so they are just two physically advanced children who struggle regardless. Their behaviour is awful and DD doesn't stand a chance against them.

Some schools do use mixed age classes but i would never have chosen one as I don't think they are as effective.

I agree with you. I'm also disagree with secondary schools allowing students to stay back 2 years. My daughter is 15 and two 17 year old (boy and girl) are in her classes. They look like a woman and man! When my daughter is 16, they'll both be 18 years old!!! Personally I think if they're struggling at school then appropriate courses need to be made available at college, school is not the place for much older kids/adults due to safe guarding issues.