Unfair to defer summer borns

I have said this before on here, but I find this a very English issue. I am not from the UK and elsewhere I have lived (US, Australia, Scotland) there is some leeway over children born in a mid range where they can choose which year to start school. Their education seems to be possible, despite a range of more than exactly 12 months in classes, so I really can't see this as a huge concern

Not correct.

It’s your lea, nothing to do with the school. I’m in West Sussex and it was a ball ache to get my mid aug baby accepted out of year in to reception. I had to do a freedom of information request etc. some Lea’s just agree.

There are no extra childcare costs though? The 30 hours funding remains available and you can use that funding at a school nursery, getting exactly what you get at reception in terms of hours.

I think the main barrier to many families taking up the option to defer is knowing about the option.

I am against deferrals. It’s used by the middle classes to give their children a leg up. Working classes can’t afford extortionate child care costs so are less likely to defer. It widens the attainment gap. If 4 is too young to start school, move the school start age for all. Don’t let the better off game the system.

I'm in Australia & school year starts in January. There's a June 30 cut off of birthdays for starting the following year. If born after that date, you wait another year.

A lot of parents don't like it because. It means another year of child care costs. But, it is best. DS was born after the cut off & it's benefitted him. He's in high school now & that's where you see the difference. I remember being told that by a teacher, and it's correct.

DD started prep (reception I think) the year she turned 5, so was four. It was too early. I wish I'd held her back a year. She's not as mature as her classmates & struggles.

I was an early starter and it sucked. I was much younger than my classmates. So holding back near the cut off really only disadvantages parents, not the child.

Most kids don't start playing football til later, a disproportionate amount of professional footballers are autumn born so it does still matter at an older age.

I have deferred my son who was born right at the end of August. To be fair he was due in Sept - he was at preschool and struggling so much, still napping on the days he didn’t go there, socially and emotionally not ready at all for school. Starting a year later has been absolutely amazing for him and he’s exactly where he should be. In the county I live you have to fight for it and prove why it’s a good idea. His teacher and the head now completely agrees it was the right thing to do even though they were against it to begin with. I’m really surprised you have 4 in your class as it’s still pretty rare where I live.

i do think doing it from April isn’t right though. Should be literally July / August. My son isn’t at an advantage - he’s where he should be

Also there are plenty of small village schools in England with mixed year groups e.g. reception and year 1 combined, 1+2 combined etc. They seem to fine with a 24 month age gap between children.

This isn’t really a thing in other countries where children generally start school aged 5+.

Nothing to do with the school, it’s the council. I deferred my August born and you have to apply to your lea.

The hysteria about some children being 18 months apart and being in the same classroom is bizarre. Some children will move to England from other education systems and be placed wherever they fit best depending on a range of factors including what they have studied so far. And some summer born children will defer their start at school. Are there any actual examples of this causing issues, problems etc? I am trying to understand why it bothers some people so much. Perhaps it would help if the option to defer was more widely known about so people don’t feel blindsided when they found out about it?

I agree.

I’ve no problem with people choosing to send their kids to school at four. Their kid. Their choice. I’ve no interest in their reasoning. It doesn’t affect me.

70% of DC’s. class deferred. It is an all round high achieving class - sportswise as well as academically. . The kids who don’t excel academicallytend to be the youngest although I imagine they are benefitting by being in a high achieving class.

I have never regretted or questioned my decision to defer.

Indeed. There is absolutely no point in formally educating a child at a point when they are not mature enough to benefit from it.

Education is a benefit society provides to the child, not some massive competition all kids are thrown into at age 4.

If it's not benefiting the child, a rethink is needed really.

You asked for evidence it's more common in pretentious neighborhoods than normal towns. The comment from the Scottish poster is on page 17 or 16 not saying it's more common in Scotland but that within Scotland it's more common in wealthy neighbourhoods (Ie pretentious (sorry))

It is about being the youngest though, it's known that the youngest in the year are disadvantaged throughout school and in sports.

They really, really don’t.

New policies state that the child will continue their whole education with the year group they have been placed with.

Children do not have to start in Year 1 if they defer, they start in Reception, and nor do they have to skip a year of their education either.

It’s not about being the oldest or youngest, it’s about children being more ready at 5 than 4!

Yeah it must be an area thing, I'm NE England and it's always called nursery even when in a school.

The someone has to be the youngest line is absolutely nonsensical. As if it’s a competition. Nothing to do with it

But in Scotland it’s not a big deal so of course it’s more common! Hopefully it I’ll eventually be the way in England too. I don’t really understand your point at all! And of course people are exaggerating, it’s absolutely not a thing anywhere that all April borns are delayed! I have barely know any, including in my daughter’s very middle class school! Like someone said previously, some areas will be more common as people share knowledge, and some local authorities make it easier than others.

Play based learning is best for kids, so it’s not surprising that parents want their child to access their full entitlement of it,

I deferred my child, it didn’t cost anything as children are still entitled to 30 hours free childcare which can be used at a school nursery for example, giving the exact same hours as you would get in reception.

You really don't get it, do you?

It's not comparative - it's not about a child being academically less able or shorter.

It's about whether that child can cope with school.

The problem, and the need for deferral at all, is an issue entirely of our own making caused by sending 4yos to school.

Teachers do not need more kids in school who are not school-ready.

You don’t know that. By 6 parents think their child needs to be in school really.

You sound on my wave length in a similar area to where I live, nobody would ever do it or know it was a thing. What I have heard of is in the past more so my school days is 'being kept back a year' which was usually a child that had fallen behind massively usually due to poor behaviour far older than 4 or 5 years old.
Life is just too much of a competition these days and comparing to other people. Some kids are definitely not ready for different reasons at 3,4 or even 5 years old and I appreciate that but these days more than ever the earlier a child is in the real world the better not wrapped in cotton wool at home.
I also feel this can be a money thing, many families can not afford childcare or not to work for 5 years, I'd be curious to know if many of these deferred children come from well off families that then fund private education or additional tuition .