Unfair to defer summer borns

The differences reduce but they don't disappear. It's there in GCSE results (key stage 4) https://ifs.org.uk/publications/when-you-are-born-matters-evidence-england

Parents can only decide what it best for their child, with the guidance and agreement from the school/authority. You have no business deciding what is or isn't best for other's kids, just as they don't get to decide for yourself.

If you think your child is will cope fine in her current year, then good. If you think there may be an issue, talk to her teacher.

My child is a 31st August kid. He started off the smallest, and had to keep up for a bit, but he was just fine after a couple of terms. Most kids adapt fine, but if they don't, you have the option to defer - which in my opinion is a good thing (even if my kid didn't need it).

However, I've just seen that the law has been changed, which is ridiculous. It might not make a difference to those children now, but once they are older, that year will be significant.

It was an absolutely sensible decision to clarify the law.

It's made zero difference when they're older to any child I know that's done it. Why would it? They're a few months older, not years.

YABU. It's not the fact that the other child is a bit older that your child was injured; it's the fact that the other child hasn't been taught how to behave properly and the teachers aren't managing the class well if there have been several instances of your daughter getting hurt.

An 18 month age range within a class is absolutely fine. It is standard in Ireland, where kids can start between 4 and 6, with the majority starting at 5.

If a child is injuring yours it’s nothing to do with them having been deferred.

If you have a summer born child and don’t want them to be the youngest in the class (whether by 12 months or by 15 or 18 months) then the option is there for you to defer them. If you don’t take that option it’s not really open to you to complain when others do.

It should be a question of parental choice because there is a massive spectrum
of school readiness at that age. I’ve got a May born boy and an autumn born girl and the difference in what they were like socially, emotionally and academically when they started school was absolutely staggering, even though they are both likely of equal or similar intelligence. School is about so much more than this.

Parents that don't deferred their children are disadvantaging them? Deferring isn't always a 'leg up'. There are many potential disadvantages of deferring that are often ignored by only focussing on statistics. I thought the whole point was that parents should be encouraged to do what is best for their own children, not be made to feel that sending their children to school within their normal age group is doing them a disservice regardless of anything else.

They just recommended that he repeats the year as he has missed so much learning and won’t cope with year 1. He has fallen asleep every day in the afternoon, he hasn’t been able to grasp phonics at all can’t read can’t write and for some reason won’t speak at school at all (chats non stop at home!). He has been referred for assessment for ASD so that’s also a factor but I wasn’t even aware it was a possibility they have said that he needs to repeat the year to have a strong base for the rest of his schooling and to catch up early on.

Thankfully that stupid policy was changed nationally and standard now is that they go into reception and stay with that cohort all the way through.

Children being deferred because of being not ready essentially missing a year was one of the the daftest education policies ever.

People have to do what's right for their individual child.

I have two summer borns. One was deferred and one wasn't.

The right decision was made for each of them.

At the time DS was deferred it was a fight to get the school to agree to him going into Reception the next year as standard was to go into Y1, but his HT is now a firm backer of the policy that deferred children should go into reception (not solely because of DS). It's a much more sensible decision.

That's strange. My understanding was that children who deferred, missed reception and went into Yr1, otherwise they will be leaving school and sitting GCSE's a year later than they should. However, I've just seen that the law has been changed, which is ridiculous. It might not make a difference to those children now, but once they are older, that year will be significant.

That’s entirely normal though isn’t it? I’m not in UK, but where I am there is an 18 month age range between children starting first year of school. Ours can start at 4yo providing they will turn 5yo by the 31st July in the year they start, or can go later as long as they have started by the time they turn 6yo, however if you turn 6yo after the end Nov, you get dispensation to start in following school year end of January. It’s always been like that.

That means there is an enormous difference in ability, as a child 4.5yo is very different to a child potentially 6years 2 months if you take the extremes. Obviously, the 6yo’s do so much better in the first year or two or three, however, studies in our system show that around school year 4/5 they start progressing based on natural ability rather than an age advantage, and by end of primary school age is not a factor in results. So, basically the people holding kids back to give their kids an academic advantage will be short lived in the scheme of overall schooling lifetime.

I'm not sure how you have confused my post. Children don't start at just 4 in Scotland as they do in England. They are at youngest 4.5 years. Having experience of both systems the Scottish is the best. I was talking about the OPs DD starting school incredibly young.

They literally play all day and then have at most 15 minutes of learning. It's always been normal to start that young in Scotland!

When did they et change it?

I did it because I thought at the age of just 4 my DD was too young to start school. And each year I see very tiny four year olds struggling at drop off with starting school and think if only they had had a few more months to mature and then start school close to the age of 5. That's what I gave my DD and she is thriving at school and always has. If parent make a different decision that is totally up to them but I made the right choice for my daughter and I don't really care if others think it's unfair- we know summerborns are significantly disadvantaged as a cohort and I did what I could to reduce this for her, and other parents of summerborns have that option. I think school should start at 5 for all children.

I see what you're saying and it is admirable, but I don't think you would be disadvantaging another child if you defer. You would however give your daughter the same advantage that is open to all her peers.

That's beside the fact that the world isn't fair. So why would you not give your child a leg up when it's available? Would you not be disadvantaging her in the process if you don't?

I am Aug 13th ( due end Sept) and my DD is ,Aug 28th. We were t made to repeat years.Why did they do that?

Oh, I was actually anticipated (European country) and was a social death even though I have been a straight A student throughout my career, top uni marks and PhD. There is so much more to academics.

It’s not just about intelligence or being ready for learning.
Theres so much more to it.
See the research I posted earlier

Mum of a deferred summer born with EHCP here. DS's school didn't know anything about it but let me get on with it, now his Year 2 teacher told me at the parents' evening that I have done the best thing for him.

YABVVVVVU. Let schools (yes, about repeating reception if needed for a non-deferred child) and parents decide what's best.

It really depends on the area and school. Was a very straightforward process for me because my council approves all requests and the school I wanted had the council as their admissions authority. When we go to secondary a parent has already said the school we want approves several requests to transfer in their adopted year group each year so I don't anticipate any challenges.

Do you have 30 children and 1 teacher and 1 ta? I can't see that working in the majority of schools. Even mixing 2 year groups together has challenges.

Not then they couldn’t.
It may be the case now,

"but instead of rest of her class being just under a year older than her"

Why would the rest of the class be just under a year older? Surely there would always be a spread throughout the year.

I hear this often from parents who have summer born. It's odd.