Unfair to defer summer borns

My husband is a teacher why is another reason we were so adamant we’d defer. He could easily see the difference between the summer borns in the class and the rest of the children.

My son’s an August baby, so he was nearly a year younger than some of the children in his class. Academically it didn’t really affect him, he’s always done really well, but socially it was tougher. It knocked his confidence, especially in things like sport. I remember his first sports day he just couldn’t keep up. Things did improve over time of course, but the early hit to his confidence had a lasting impact. If I’d had the chance to defer him, I definitely would have.

Out of interest looked at Scottish stats and it mirrors USA that more wealthy more likely to defer, boys more likely to be held back.
www.gov.scot/publications/deferred-entry-primary-school-statistics/pages/2/

Teacher friends of mine were due their second child at the end of August so she basically lay down ( except to wash and use the loo) for all of the School Summer holidays and on September 1st got up and promptly gave birth that night.
I don’t think it’s scientific but it worked. She said there was no way she’d have an August child.

I held off one extra day to avoid a Wednesday birth which was about as much as I could manage.

That depends on the sport. My daughter’s sport is based on year of birth, so her current category is 2013 and 2014 so it would make a difference.

The option to defer is there (and rightly so) because children develop at different rates.

If your child was born in summer and you feel they are ready to start school the September after they turn 4, then you can start them.

Some children take a bit longer to develop and need a bit of extra time at home/ nursery.

Some children born in the summer might also have been premature, putting them at an even further disadvantage if they start school too early.

Some children benefit from deferring and it's very individual and needs to be decided for each child by the adults who know them. It's not something you can have 'stricter guidelines' or 'tests' for - that's just not necessary. We test children enough as it is.

A 1.5 year age difference between the oldest and youngest child in a class is fine.

If another child is hurting your child for whatever reason, including accidentally, then you need to speak to the school about what they are doing about it.

My DD was born on the very last day of the intake month, if she’d been born 12 hrs later she would have started school a year later. We decided before she was born we would defer as we would prefer she was one of the oldest rather than the youngest in the class. All my teacher friends recommended deferring with some sharing experiences of knowing teens who had struggled due to being younger than their peers. Parents should be able to make the decision regarding their children

But I don't think the school friends follow. If you are u9 on say 31st August or whatever, that's your team for the year.

Actually, I think that I have it back to front. The May born deferred kid would be playing with the year above their school year.

All very confusing (for me)

I don’t think it’s actually good for students to turn 18 when they aren’t even in their final year of school either.

Curious as to why? Many secondary school students in Ireland turn 18 before their final year of school, it hasn't done them any harm and we've a very good education system with well educated young people.

I think this is right - it is already a risk that some children are ahead of others that teachers have to deal with. Ridiculous deferring makes this even harder. How can you teach a class where some students are nearly 18 months older than the youngest? This will clearly mean either the oldest or youngest are more likely to get an education not right for them. There has to be a reasonable cut off which works for all kids as much as possible.

I didn't defer my summer born kiddo. He's one of the biggest/ tallest in his year group and well on with most academic things. I did think about it but realised he would be absolutely fine.
Ironically some of the oldest children in the year group were the tiniest, and also struggled with picking up reading etc as fast.
You need to think about what is best for your child not what others are doing. Control the controllables

Being summer born and staying with her own cohort worked in DD1's favour as she was always academically advanced for her age. We found that there were several older and academic kids in her class at about her level. I think you have to try to meet individual needs and not assume they will be behind.

I think it would be great though if they were still in kindergarten until six or seven with no formal education or testing expected and learning through play.

Deferral of younger for the year children in Scotland has been a "thing" since I was at school and I started P1 in 1977. It is so not a big deal having potentially a 15 month age range in a class that Scottish parents on the whole are most amused by the angst that English/Welsh parents are experiencing.

So there are children in your child's class who are more than a year older - so what? You could have chosen to defer and didn't. Deferral gives flexibility in a system where there was previously no flexibility and lets parents make the right decision for their individual child.

Someone does have to be the youngest but a child born in late August is primed not to be that child. I would definitely have kept her back for the year and in your shoes, I'd want her to repeat her first year. It will put her in much better stead educationally and in terms of team sports.
I think the difference lies between people seeing school as childcare and people wanting their child to be more than ready for formal education.
You can't try to stop parents who want to give their child the best start.
As a teacher, I can tell you that the older children manage much better. My daughter is November born so will have to start school at 4 turning 5 but if she was April, I'd definitely be starting her at 5.

This! 100%.

I think the issue is more that children are compared too much in year. Of course summer borns will be 'behind' those born in the September. They are much younger! Why compare them just because the school years were set in the certain way? Each child should be treated individually. Deferring them just so they can be compared with children younger than them instead, and considered 'better' makes no sense.

As soon as I found out I was due to have an August baby me and my DH started looking into the processes of deferring a school year 🤣

We always knew we wouldn’t send him to school at just turned 4. It’s not that we didn’t want him being the youngest (which is a bizarre claim that a lot of people come out with), but purely because starting school at just turned 4 years old is too young.

If you are concerned about the fairness of the system, you should lobby for all children to start school the term after their 5th birthday, not their 4th, because that way even the youngest in the class will still be socially and emotionally ready for school.

Summer born children shouldn’t be punished because of their birthday by being made to go to school when they’re too young for it.

Sports teams are based on age so “under 9s football team” They move up to the next age bracket sooner but their school friends quickly follow. August 31st to say September 6th is a week’s difference.

It all works out in the end.

I started school days after my 4th birthday because I'm end of August but it never held me up.

My DS and several boys in his class play for the local rugby club. I imagine it would be embarrassing for a classmate to be playing with the class below. But also guess that there are age grade RFU rules about 'playing down', so that they aren't getting smashed by kids who are 15 months older. 12 months is noticeable enough.

You wouldn’t have seen many as the legislation only started from 2014/2015 onwards.

Why does it play havoc with GSCEs? Interested to find out your perspective and experience.

Schools refusal is based on proving it would be in the child’s best interest to miss a year (which obviously would rarely be the case).

I agree - I also have a summer-born. Whilst there are certainly issues with being the youngest in a class, there's actually also significant difficulties with being the oldest in the class, I don't think it's always in a child's best interests to defer. However, I don't think there should be gatekeeping as there's no system that will accurately filter which child it's appropriate for and which it isn't. The people who know the child best are the parents - and if they defer they have to find an extra year of childcare so I don't expect it is done lightly.

What I think should happen is that schools that have more than one class per year group should be encouraged/expected to split the classes by age in KS1 - so that those born from April (of the "previous" yeargroup) to November/December-ish are in a class of slightly older children all together, and those born from January to August are in a class of younger children. That way, although the whole yeargroup may cover a 17-month span of ages, each actual classroom only spans 8-9 months.

By the end of KS1 the differences have generally evened out and it will be fine for schools to mix the age groups up for KS2.

In schools with single-form entry a similar effect could be done with table-clusters for many activities - small schools with half a classroom per yeargroup have been mixing ages in a similar way forever, so it can clearly be done.

I completely agree with you. A friend did not defer her late August born daughter as she couldn't afford to pay for another year of childcare when she has younger children that are starting nursery. The closest in age in her year is 3 months older and there are those that are 15 months older. My friend is being told her daughter is behind her peers but is that really that surprising when the age gap is so large. I think it should be limited to August born only that can be deferred.

Girlguiding is by age but there’s lots of flexibility not strict cut offs. So eg we usually take Guides at 10 but they can be 11.
The summer borns sometimes at a disadvantage due to limited places - eg our brownies is full so any turning 7 after Easter can’t move up and need to go to another group as we are full from those who turned 7 between September and Easter.

I really can’t see the issue with some kids being bigger, it’s all mixed classes here as we are rural:

Reception and Y1
Y2-4
Y5-6

They all get along nicely and all range in size, strength and ability. Doesn’t matter at all if they are deferred or not.

I’m all for deferral on the whole though, we start children far too young in the UK. I had an early September born though so not a consideration. She’s almost 6 and some of her class are still 4.