Unfair to defer summer borns

I have an August DC but deferral wasn't an option at the time. School was far too much for them at the time - life would have been so much better if they didn't go until they were pretty well 5 rather than barely 4. What we actually need is a proper system of 3 term entry (with 3 exam periods at the end of it). Summer borns do suffer if they are not deferred - there was some research that showed that a very high proportion of Oxford undergrads are born from September - Christmas so the summer borns never really catch up. I remember pointing out to DC's headmaster that every single one of the academic scholars in their year was born in the autumn term.

@HairsprayBabe
It wasn't my retirement argument. Someone else posted it and I simply agreed it was a valid view.

I don't see the worst in my friends and have no idea where you get that from. They are my friends and honest with me that they are doing it to get an advantage. They know their child can cope with school but they don't want to miss out on giving them a head start. They obviously haven't included this rationale in official forms and don't admit this to other random parents because it is controversial. I'm not making up some motivation, this is literally what they've told me. They also are open about using tutors etc and view it all in a similar way.

Children born after April are at a disadvantage - less so than an August born but they are still disadvantaged compared to a September born, so they aren't being deferred unnecessarily
Children born in March are at a disadvantage and those born in Feb. In fact anyone born after September will be at a disadvantage as that's how RAE works. Should they all be allowed to defer? What then happens to the September bairns who will now be the youngest and the victims of RAE?

I never said parents need to consider whether it's fair to the rest of the cohort. Again, you're projecting arguments I simply haven't made. That isn't the job of the individual parent but it's the job of the state. That's why the system needs to change.

If a policy is sensible and fair then it should work irrespective of the numbers taking advantage of it. If a policy can only be justified because low numbers are currently taking advantage of it then that suggests it's a problem. Let's be honest, if all summer borns deferred then it would be a matter of time until parents of March born children would begin to campaign for deferment. Also the fact that the small percent of parents currently deferring are more privileged and well educated than those that aren't is a huge red flag in itself as it's embedding inequality but of course that won't matter to you and will be another unhinged arguement.

What do you want then? Others not be allowed deferral even if they need it? My first born DS wouldn't even hold a pencil due to dyspraxia so deferred. Best decision we ever made..

"Not everyone thinks an unnecessary additional year spent in preschool is a great use of life."
😅😅😅

@Bumpitybumper You seem absolutely fixated on this and your arguments are getting more and more insane and unhinged. You retirement one literally made me laugh out loud.

You are the one who has a problem with your friends deferring their children because of some sneaky advantage you think they are reaching for not me. I think your friends are probably being honest and they think their children are simply to young to start school at under 4.5. The advantage is a bonus but not the reason. Or do you always see the worst in your friends?

Children born after April are at a disadvantage - less so than an August born but they are still disadvantaged compared to a September born, so they aren't being deferred unnecessarily.

Parents don't need to consider the rest of the cohort in whether it is "fair" or not to defer, it's simply none of their business.

You are also focused on an issue that is 1.5% of all summer intakes - and of that over half of the children are August born - with 3% being April born. Additionally the numbers peaked in 2021 and we haven't seen an increase in deferrals since then, so it's not like the idea is gathering steam and is on an exponential growth curve.
Frankly I am baffled you are so obsessed when the numbers are so low across the board it won't be having this huge impact you are suggesting it will.

The arguments aren't unhinged but different aspects of the same challenge to deferment which is that deferment doesn't really solve any of the problems associated with RAE and simply exacerbates or imports new problems.

If there are lots of summer born children not ready for school then it stands to reason that this problem extends beyond children born between April - August, especially when you take into account different levels of readiness associated with deprivation levels and sex. Deferment isn't the answer and actually increasing the school start age for everyone would be much more appropriate.

If the problem is RAE then we know the deferment doesn't solve this as there will always be someone that is the youngest. A flexible approach to education in the early years especially and age adjustments being built into testing would help more than deferment which compounds RAE for non deferred children.

Deferment also comes at a cost for children who have been deferred unnecessarily. The RAE doesn't apply equally to everyone and some summer born kids are developmentally ready for school and thrive there. There are lots of posters on this thread that have had this experience. Currently though a parent is gifted with the right to defer a child even when there are no signs or indicators that this is actually needed. Not everyone is paying 5% into pension pots each year and some of us are planning for early retirement whilst we are still young and healthy enough to maximise this time. Not everyone thinks an unnecessary additional year spent in preschool is a great use of life. You of course can disagree but ultimately you have to accept that your child could grow up to disagree with the decision you have made on their behalf. Deferment doesn't come without a cost to the individual child.

Do you think they're not very nice because they want the best for their child? I'm not sure I agree. As lots of people have asserted on this thread, it's natural to want this and people who stick within the rules to achieve this aren't necessarily doing anything wrong.

I think the system needs to be reformed to stop parents deferring unnecessarily but I don't think you're a terrible person for taking advantage of the system until this happens.

maybe you just don't have very nice friends

It's not really about being the youngest or older though. It's about readiness. If march babies were the youngest, they'd still be hugely more likely be developmentally ready as a cohort compared to summer born children.

It's about being developmentally ready for a school day/the social relationships/the curriculum. If they're ready, send them. If not, the option to defer is there. In fact, all children can be deferred to compulsory school age (i.e. the term after they turn 5). It's only that for summer borns, this falls into the next school year.

I think the classroom as a whole benefits if more children are developmentally ready for school. Summer borns are disproportionately more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, not necessarily because they have it but because they are very young and not able to behave/sit down in the way they would be expected to in reception. I would rather my child be in a class where these children are given more time to mature before school entry so the teacher/TAs don't have to spend time with personal care for children/coping with behaviours that are normal for young children but not so acceptable in the reception environment.

The class as a whole benefits when everyone is developmentally ready.

The argument for deferral isn't that they will be the youngest, it's that they aren't ready for full time school at just turned 4. Speech delays, toilet training, basic maturity and independence will all be that much more advanced when they will all be at least 4.5 years old.

How would that help? Surely then the March babies would be the youngest and the whole "they shoudl be allowed to defer" debate would start again. It doesn't matter where the cut off is- if there's a cut off someone will be the youngest.

Your arguments are getting steadily more unhinged.

A child that starts school before they are ready doesn't end up earning more money.

They end up being constantly told off whilst trying to conform to expectations they are not developmentally capable of and falling behind socially and academically early on, leading to a loss of self-esteem, often ending up finishing school with few qualifications and a negative attitude to education and life.

An extra year of putting 5% into a pension pot isn't compensating for that.

Surely this relies on someone starting work the day they leave formal education and working every available day from then until exactly a full year before they might have otherwise retired? What a life. Enjoy that year, you deserve it.

Set back a year? A whole year? In your decades-long working life?

You'd be angry about that?

OK.

You’d be angry at your parents now as a full grown adult for deferring your primary school start age? That is ridiculous! I really don’t think one year out of your entire life would make a massive difference to your savings or when you want to retire!

No you wouldn't

Just to add, I am summer born so could have been deferred as a child. I absolutely did not need to do be deferred and would be pretty angry now to be set back a year financially which is exactly what would have happend. Less years paying into my pension and less years building up my career and business. I hope to retire early and really enjoy this time.

What are you talking about? The argument was the converse. That summer borns starting work earlier will be in a better position to build up the assets and wealth to retire a year earlier versus someone starting work a year later. So the year in your dotage is spent retired and enjoying yourself instead of working.

Under the current system deferring a child delays them a year. Not a few weeks or months. You may think this is a good time investment, the child may disagree when they get older. Who knows?

This argument is absurd

I have to agree.

Despite being one of those who was a year ahead of everybody else and, yes, I did retire early.

Than their peers??? Their 'peers' will be the people born literally days or weeks after them. Because retirement doesn't run September - September - that sort of becomes irrelevant after you've left education. And not everyone retires on the dot of their eligible birthday.

This argument is absurd. If summer borns' reward for starting school too early in their infancy is that they get an extra year of work in their dotage then count me out.

Alternatively you could feel sorry for the someone in their 60s stuck working a year longer than their peers all because their parents chose to delay them a year at school. Working into old age isn't much fun for lots of people as health starts to decline.

This is a very depressing outlook. You can miss a year of your childhood to get on the work work work money money money wheel a year earlier and then retire a whole year earlier after 50 years.

Wow. Life is so full of joy isn't it?

It’s not unlikely at all. Not everybody works in the public sector.

I think they are referring to private pensions and other investments that can provide an income in early retirement such as property and shares.

We all only have so many productive, healthy years in us whether we choose to retire early or not. The same logic is true if people take gap years etc. You don't suspend biological age just because you defer a year. You might view it as time well spent, your child might not. Who is to say?

Unlikely. And public sector pension start dates are linked to age. If you claim early there’s a penalty.