Unfair to defer summer borns

@socialdilemmawhattodo

I worked in schools for 20 years (the last 10 years solely in early intervention). That's why I'm intrigued to see this supposed research mentioned as there has been nothing new of note brought up in recent years by anyone around me, and haven't heard any bonbon the grapevine since I left 3 years ago.

And I get asked semi often about deferrals as I deferred one of my summer borns but not the other so people get curious about why one and not the other.

It absolutely is part of the school!

Which is not the same as "starting school at 3" as the poster stated

It's attending nursery in a school building not starting school at age 3.

Please be very wary of any supposed research discussed with you by school teams. As far as I am aware I am the only person who has looked in detail at the supposed summer born research issued to the Head Teachers Union. Perhaps 10 years ago. It included UK research from studies when I was at primary school; I am now retired. It included US research - totally different education system; it even included an UNPUBLISHED PhD dissertation ( quite frankly if it was good why wasn't it published). It all added up to a hotch potch of research that didn't amount to anything. It was poor research to support a stance. Add on to that the Sutton Trust/ Education Endowment Foundation (funded by the govt to the tune of £125mill) who only care about poverty. Great but the lifelong impact to summer born is not a poverty issue, so their statements on research are biased. I have some credibility in that I am an accountant, data manager in several fields including education, but have some bias in that I have a summer born.child.

This hasn't been govt guidance for years. Many years. You are now very out of date.

🙄🙄 😂😂

It absolutely is part of the school!

My children have experienced private nursery and school nursery and they are very different. When they went to school nursery they were part of the school community. They had to be using the toilet in order to go. They wear the same school uniform as all the other kids. They start writing, phonics, doing activities that prep them to go into reception. They take part in the same school activities, book fairs, school fairs, their teachers work across the whole school. They start acclimatising to a school day. You report absence to the school office and they run on the same term schedule. It’s the same hours as a school, or maybe a half day. You cannot compare that to a private nursery that is based in a hospital building. Maybe if the doctors or nurses were doing some of the caring you could, or the kids were doing some ward rounds 🤣 Absolutely ridiculous.

My eldest has a late August birthday, delayed milestones and we now know autism and ADHD. I looked in to deferring for a year but it wasn't possible where we live unfortunately.

School has always been really difficult, but that would be the case no matter DC age.

PP mentioned it being really useful being the youngest when doing college etc. That has absolutely been our experience, DC did a levels and wasn't even 18 picking up the results and has now decided to study animal management at the local college. I don't have to pay anything for the first year due to DC still being 18 when it finishes.

If an additional years childcare didn't cost you anything at all, can you let the many, many parents on Mumsnet who are at breaking point over childcare costs know your secret. Thirty hours free funding (which everyone knows it isn't anyway) doesn't even cover an average working week.
School weeks are meant to be 32.5 hours, which is more than the 'free funding'. Even those two and a half hours makes a difference. Plus if you're really lucky you might find your school does a free after school club.
Some parents will definitely need to take finances into consideration if they want to defer their child.

I don’t blame parents at all for deferring, no matter what the child is like. We start school ridiculously young in this country. Barely any other country in the world starts school at 4, and the countries with the best academic results in the world start school the latest (most of Scandinavia - age 7). A summer, or even spring born 4-year-old is barely out of toddlerhood, they belong in nurseries, not schools. My birthday is end of August and I was extremely shy, sensitive, and in no way ready for school. I spent the entire reception year terrified, crying for my mum - even though I went to nursery before that and remember being absolutely fine. I think it’s the psychological aspect of starting school that is scary for very young children - that’s what I remember anyway - feeling like it was very serious, I’d have to do “work”, there were lots of big kids around etc. I remember faking sickness at least once a week and begging my mum not to send me. It was genuinely quite traumatic! I grew out of the extreme shyness and sensitivity by 6 or 7, if I’d started school then I’d have been fine.
My DS is in reception and he’s got an autumn birthday luckily. He’s also nothing like I was, he’s super confident and outgoing. But if he was spring or summer born I’d 100% defer him. I appreciate that many people can’t afford to defer and that makes the system unequal. It’s the system that needs to change and offer fully funded nursery up to age 6 IMO (but as if!!)

It may have been the case previously, but the updated guidance means that will become a rare occurrence as it's accepted that missing a year of school is not in any way beneficial

The usual case for most areas is they basically start in Year 1. Some areas may start them in Reception with a younger class but will move to their age cohort before the end of year.

Be interested to see the research you mention as all of the schools round here appear to be of the opinion that when it's as common place as it is in Scotland it'll become a non-issue.

It's only an issue for some schools atm because it's new and has a knock on for numbers the next year if a couple of parents request it one year, but none the next.

Ive read up on it, due to having a summer born, and it’s supposedly quite hard to defer as it is at the discretion of the school and instead of going into year R they would be in year 1 with their age group.

This used to be the case.

However, since the issuing of the last clarifications - which outright state that it's an obvious disadvantage to a child to miss a year of schooling - children who defer now routinely go into YR and stay with that cohort.

I'm very interested in seeing this 'research' and the source of same?

No, not at him being ‘happy and thriving’, just at his ‘sporting prowess’. It’s like me claiming to be the fastest runner at a 5 year old’s birthday party. It would be true but it wouldn’t be a fair race would it?

I’m very happy he’s happy and doing well. Of course I am. But he’s doing well in some sporting areas primarily because he’s older/taller. So, yes, I do an internal eye roll at my sister alluding to the fact he could ‘go pro’ in his sport. Outwardly, I’m very supportive.

I was a big fan of this idea initially however apparently the research isn’t showing positive results. I haven’t seen the research myself, but being a teacher, colleagues have told me that, research is showing that delaying start/moving children out of year group, is actually a disadvantage for most socially and emotionally. Most schools I know of now are actively discouraging, it unless additional needs of some kind. I think it was poorly thought out, both in terms of the spread of age groups across school years ie now often 16 months, and the impact on social activities ie parents believed their children would be able to be in football teams etc that matched year group not actual age. I think the whole policy will be reviewed soon and it will just be a few July/August children with additional needs that have a delayed start.

This.

Ive read up on it, due to having a summer born, and it’s supposedly quite hard to defer as it is at the discretion of the school and instead of going into year R they would be in year 1 with their age group.

That said, I do think parents know their kids best. I don’t know anyone with a child who had deferred so it can’t be that common, but if a parent can see that their toddler is much further behind their peers it might be beneficial to keep them an extra year.

I was born in Scotland where it is the norm to start at 5 and in lots of European countries children start school a lot later.

Im sending mine at 4 because despite being summer I feel she is ready to move up. If I didn’t then I wouldn’t.

It sounds to me like you have just been unlucky and there are coincidentally a lot of summer borns at your school.

I'm voting unreasonable - it's obviously child dependent but boys are often miles behind girls for school readiness and can spend most of the first year struggling with the routine/social relationships. If a summer-born child is ready to start in the September after they turn 4 (as they usually are), then that's great. I've seen loads of summer born children who are absolutely ready to transition.

I deferred my child because he wasn't ready. He dropped down the weight centiles as a baby due to allergy and he was extremely slight and very introverted. He hung back in any group situation and was getting pushed around by older kids at nursery.

We also deferred to improve his resilience and to promote better mental health outcomes. We have a strong family history of neuro divergence/schizophrenia and bipolar, all affecting the men of the family. Deferring him until compulsory age was the best decision for us as he is much more confident socially and able to stand his ground around other children, no longer napping and feeling school ready.

Yes I agree it is unfair. Here in Scotland every child who is not 5 on the first day of the school year can be deferred and automatically get an extra year of nursery funding. As more and more people are deferring just because they can, its having a huge impact on the education budget but it also means that there are children who are turning 6 a few days after starting school who are in with 4.5 year olds. It also means that some of the deferred kids can have 3 full years (12 terms) of nursery funding and the non deferred kids get 5 terms and they are in the same class!
There is also a growing number of parents trying to get older deferrals (children who are already 5 at the start of the school year) and although it isn’t happening very commonly yet more and more are successful at this so you can even have 6.5 year olds starting school.
The trouble is that an 18 month age gap is huge at that age and even at things like p.e these older kids have an advantage whereas before you’d only have 11 months age range in a class. It also makes the younger ones look like they are behind or immature when they aren’t, they are just being compared to children who should be in the year above them!

The admissions authority makes the decision. For academies that may be a multi academy trust?

Does that also apply to academies?

That’s a shame. I hope he’s doing well where he is. I think it would be better if information about deferrals was shared widely so that families could choose what will work best for their children.

Schools nursery staff etc. No one ever said it's possible to defer

Given by who?

It was never given as an option.

Right. Maybe another school would have been an option, I really don’t know but just wanted to make the point that deferring is possible for non-summer born children too. It’s a shame more children don’t have access to childcare that meets their needs.