Unfair to defer summer borns

The time they will be annoyed will be secondary school not primary school. My son is now late teens. He would have been livid with me if he knew he could have finished his schooling a year before. He would have also been super annoyed to have not been in the same sports teams as his mates as he would have had to have been in the year above.

On the other hand mine is 15 and very happy that he was deferred. It's given him a chance to be on par with some of his classmates academically - he'd never have managed a year earlier given how much of a struggle it has been. This way he has a chance of further education being an option.

It’s not a competition OP. It’s sad for your child and for you that you see it that way. It’s also pretty ignorant and mean spirited to think you know better than a child’s parents what is right for them. if your child is so brilliant then why does it bother you what anyone else is doing?

The guidelines exist for a reason. Summer borns suffer a disadvantage starting school so young, and the guidelines are in place to help correct that disadvantage; not to gain an advantage over others. It doesn’t work like that. Children being happy and thriving in class only benefits their peers and teacher. If you’re truly interested in this issue why not read up on some of the studies around it rather than let your jealousy or competitiveness drive your opinion?

Indeed. Perhaps my use of only was confusing - I meant a child who was just 4 years (perhaps born July/Aug) who was expected to be in a formal school setting full time (5 days per week) by the end of Sept. My child at age 4 &4 months went part-time and fell asleep a lot. He had been at nursery 3 days per week. So not a newbie at structured care with other children. They are too young.

The time they will be annoyed will be secondary school not primary school. My son is now late teens. He would have been livid with me if he knew he could have finished his schooling a year before. He would have also been super annoyed to have not been in the same sports teams as his mates as he would have had to have been in the year above.

@CantStopMoving and as if by magic, the post saying my August born boy is the biggest strongest cleverest (not forgetting tallest. We all love tall boys on MN) in the class, and therefore no one should be allowed to defer their August born child, because my child was fine.

At the end of day, making the decision to defer or not is in most cases a roll of the dice. We don’t know what the right decision will be or what the outcome will be, all we can do is make a decision at the time and hope it turns out to be the right one.

How can anyone predict how their child will cope at school? How can any of us know what our child’s capabilities will be 5 years down the line?

I thought to myself….

”Would I rather send him at just aged 4 and then potentially watch him struggle and regret that I hadn’t deferred him?”

OR

”Defer him and watch him thrive and be glad that I had delayed his start!”

I couldn’t think of any disadvantages to deferring him compared to lots of potential disadvantages if I didn’t defer him.

He’s currently in year 2 and doing really well. He knows he’s been deferred and that he “should” be in Year 3.

So far I have no regrets about the choice I made and hopefully that won’t change.

It is school, it is a classroom in a school and structured as a school day. They wear the same uniform as the rest of the children in that school. Not compulsory as I said earlier but neither is reception. Its early years education and follows the curriculum. Pre school age 3 can be attended in private nurseries too with more flexible hours perhaps but a 3 or 4 year old attending a school for 3 or 6 hours a day, in a uniform is attending school, they are in the nursery class of the school and the majority of schools have them now.

Why should the OP's child be held back? They are doing well academically and socially. They are clearly in an appropriate year for their age and development.
Holding-back a bright child who is ready to progress can lead to them getting bored and regressing.
It would be unfair to risk this for the OP's child just because others in her class took longer than expected to reach the point where they were ready for school and thus make playtime too rough.

Yes this is red-shirting - very different to children in England being asked to attend school full time a year before they are obligated to do so by the state. And also 2 years earlier than the US and European norm.

Because in the 90s you probably went to school on a staggered entry (each term) based to start on the term following your 5TH birthday. School compulsory age. When Reception was brought in as a learning year, despite supposedly having the same curriculum as a nursery/pre-school, suddenly it changed by de-facto to children starting in school at age just 4 for summer-borns. And the local authorities decided to help their admin and finances (not the childrens education or welfare) by insisting that students start in the state sector all in the Sept. I have been involved with the summer born campaigns for nearly 16 years. I was a single issue voter on this for many years, until common sense finally kicked in. Other countries manage this so much better. But please note this is not red-shirting as in the US.

But what happens if it turns out 5 years later you were wrong? If it would be best for the child to be in the correct year group - how would you rectify it?

I don’t deny that at 4 you think you are making the right decision based on what you knew then. I’m just saying you might turn out to be wrong. You have to answer to your child when they realise they would have been better in the year above and are frustrated that they could have been doing their GCSE’s the year before and are bored and frustrated having been held back a year.

I have a summer born (late July) who is likely autistic. Academically she is doing fine. Socially she is not. I didn't defer her and regret it. I believe she is socially behind her peers anyway due to her autism and there are children 15 months older than her in her class on top of that. I feel I made a massive mistake and it's one I can't rectify which is frustrating as at just turned four we didn't know if would pan out like this.

Of course they know their children best. Don’t be silly. We can only work with the current variables which is exactly why it should be up to each parent to decide. For me deferring had nothing to do with being small or tall, academic or not etc. I did not want my child to be one of the youngest in the classroom and I didn’t have any need ie work commitments/childcare costs etc to need send off to school so young. Some kids had barely turned four and in both my kid’s classes, the youngest kids were very obviously the youngest kids in their behaviours.

So this was nursery not reception, I do t think msmy would class this as school

If schools in your local area are comparable to workhouses then your child's date of birth is the least of your worries.

My daughter would have been fine in her 'correct' year group, but I didn't want her to go at 4 as I thought she would be readier at 5. She's thriving in her delayed one. Loves school, both for the learning and socially. Why is this 'terribly unfair' to her?

I think you are completely missing the point of educating children, OP.

We educate children for THEIR benefit. That is the justification for school being compulsory. Children are not sent to school to be thrust into some insane 14 year long competition with their peers. That is not the point of compulsory education.

There is zero point in sending a young child who is not school-ready to school. Zero point. It is in no one's best interest - not the child who cannot cope, nor their peers who will lose out on teacher time and attention while the teacher deals with the children who cannot cope.

Your view that it is somewhat "unfair" to your child not to be surrounded by other kids who couldn't have coped as well as she can in school is completely crazy. You made the call that she'd be ok, other parents made different calls for their kids.

Kids start school too young here, school readiness is through the floor, the primary school curriculum is insufficiently play-based and teachers are already overwhelmed by the amount and range of needs they have to manage, often with very little support.

And you think it's a good idea to shoe-horn in the youngest 4yos with parents who aren't sure they'll cope? Give them a miserable start to their school career and set them off along a path to emotional dysregulation and underachievement? To ensure "fairness" to your child?

What they need to do is change it to like they do in Scotland. No child is less than 4.5. Or at least have a two point entry, so say feb onwards can start at Christmas instead.

An august 31 born child who delays a year is delayed in their mental growth compared to the sept 1st born child in the same year group as them? the data clearly shows that on average summerborns in the 'correct' year group perform less well then their autumn born peers so delaying actually gives them time to meet learning expectations well

I think unless there are special/exceptional circumstances, children should start in the year they are supposed to.
Someone has to be the youngest in the year!

It doesn't seem to be a thing at my son's primary - though he is Y6 now so I am not familiar with the younger years.

We have friends whose daughter is a mid August birthday and they did defer a year (and she started then in reception, not Y1).

However, she was born at just 23 weeks gestation, weighing less than a pound and spent many months in hospital after birth. She really wouldn't have been ready at just turned 4. She has thrived in school though.

I have the sort of child you're complaining about. An April born that I deferred, who is 16 months older than some others in her class.

She's also one of the smallest. She wore an age 2-3 school dress today that still swamps her.
She's doing ok academically but struggles in some areas.
She's 6 but still only goes part time because that's what she can manage.

If forced to start at 4 1/2 she'd have been homeschooled. We might yet go down that route.

A few years ago I would have agreed with the OP. Now I'm on team 'let the parents decide'. It's funny how sudden life threatening illness and disability can shift your perspective.

Doing it for no good reason for April/May borns, I'm not supportive of in the same way.

parents don’t know their children best at that age as they can’t see into the future.

my son was so tiny in reception. I honestly cried when I dropped him off. He was so small and compared to the September born children turning 5 he was a baby . If I had deferred him, I honestly would have told you up to about age 7 or 8 that I had done the right thing.

I could absolutely not have foreseen that he would suddenly get more academic around that age and overtake the others. I could not have foreseen he would suddenly shoot up to be one of the tallest. His year 4 teacher had to check with me that he was an August birthday as she was sure he had to be a September child and there wasn’t an error in the paperwork.

i understand with premature babies there is a difficult decision if they were August born as actually they should have been born in the next school year. For everyone else I do believe they should all start in the correct year and if struggling they could be held back. Anticipating they won’t do well in their correct year group is terribly unfair on the ones who turn out to be fine like my child.

I have an August born 1yr old. I am already considering deferring him. No, it's not "fair" on some of the other members of the class but research shows that the youngest members of a school year are at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives and that's not "fair" either.

It's not fair that summer born children do worse at academically all the way through school - to GCSE, A Level and beyond. It's not fair that summer borns are more likely to be bullied. It's not fair that a summer born child is VASTLY more likely to be identified as having learning disabilities (do they have learning disabilities or are they just behind their peers due to their age?). It's not fair that a summer born child is entitled to fewer terms at nursery when they are arguably more in need.

Until major changes are made to the education system to make it truly child-focussed rather than a one-size-fits-all, exam factory then I will do what is best for my son. Education isn't a competition but that doesn't mean I can give my son all the advantages available to him.

So… because you feel you might have made the wrong decision is on, you wish the option away for everyone else? OK

Sounds like slight sour grapes that you DIDN’T defer her?

There are endless studies supporting it, hence the rule. It’s not only when young but when teens and the year younger can be a massive issue.

Think it’s best to start all children as late as possible. They are babies at 4! We’re not in the workhouse for goodness sakes