Unfair to defer summer borns

That’s a much better system.

OP, so you had the option to defer the year, choose not to and now are giving out about people who choose to defer ? My daughter started at 5 and 4 months and it was the right decision for us.

UK seems to be one of very few countries that children start school at such a young age. Summer babies should be starting at 5 not 4. An April or May born child starting school at 5 and a bit is far more appropriate than an August born child starting at 4. In Ireland there is more parental choice with this. State just requires that each child needs to start school before their 6th birthday.

I agree that having an age difference of much more than a year in the same class is not great and will just further disadvantage the summer borns that did not defer. I think the main problem is not that you can defer though but that kids start school at such a ridiculously young age. At age 4 or 5, 12 months makes a massive difference in terms of development. The difference wouldn't be so crass a couple of years later but by that time summer borns might already be lagging behind or have had their confidence dented.

My dd is born end of August. We took a lot of advice from several of her nursery teachers and rhey all advised strongly against deterring. They said she is ready for school, academically very bright and thst if we held her back she would just get bored. Bored of what? Bored of playing? Bored of being a child?

She is doing fine academically but I can see a marked difference in terms of confidence, social maturity and size between her and the class mates that are almost a year older. I think if you've got a summer born there isn't a good option but if kids just started school later it wouldn't matter so much. This would be better for all kids. No child needs formal education at the age of 4 or 5.

Rant over.

Why on earth are so many deferring?

I was a summer born, academically very able and didn't struggle socially, I was often bored with the academic work until A level and even then I didn't really feel challenged until my first degree, being deferred would've been awful for me. I don't think it should be common practice unless the child in question has developmental delays or there are concerns they wouldn't cope. Otherwise everyone does it and those born feb-march are the new summer borns for their year group.

I think the size thing is a red herring though, DS is in the year group appropriate for his age with no deferment and is significantly taller than lots of his peers, should he not be allowed to do PE? Some of the other children are significantly smaller than average (including his best friend) , you will always get a range of sizes in a year group.
My niece is 10, DS is 6 he is the same height as she is, he is one of the tallest in his class she is the smallest in hers.

The disadvantage (actual or perceived) is class moves at an older pace if several older kids. So a summer born none deferred is perceived as young or babyish or behind the class when actually all bang on age appropriate.
Sports wise - older kids more likely to make school teams (bigger/more co ordinated) then more likely to get picked up by academies and ultimately more likely to make professional teams or university scholarships.

I have a mid August born, he was my first. He started school 2 weeks after turning 3 and he was smaller than all the other kids but so ready for it socially and academically. By the time his year group started Year1 he'd caught up size wise and since then has been one of the biggest and excelled academically and socially. He's now almost 14 and he's bigger than any of the men in the family, I'm talking almost 6ft, size 11 feet and well built. Kids catch up, send them to school when they're due to start unless there is an actual reason. He got far more out of a year at school at 3years old than he would have another year at home/private nursery. Back then it was only 15hrs a week but 3 days a week i paid for the wrap around so he done full school days and they were big classes of 25-30 children.
Also in regards to mixed year groups my 2nd child is a May baby almost 7 in Year 2. When he started the eligble hours had changed so he got 30 from the term after he was 3 so he went full time at the age of 3 and 3 months just after Covid. The school he goes to is a small village school and year groups mix. Current class is Y1&Y2 so he is one of the older ones, in September when he starts Y3 the class will be Y3 & Y4 so my 7 year and 3 month old will be in a class with kids starting to turn 9 in September. It works and I have no complaints. One year they are the younger ones and the next they an older one. They learn to adapt to be that bit calmer/gentler with younger kids and also learn from older kids and also form different friendships. Every child is different, I was almost 5 when I started school just because I'm October and there wasn't nursery then right into reception and I honestly can't imagine having a child hone until they are 5.

I didn’t realise this deferring was such a thing………. I must be older than I thought. 🤣

it's nonsense and entitled.

My dc is late August so would have been youngest in the year in England but in Scotland the cut off is end of Feb meaning Feb birthdays start when they are 4.5 or March birthdays are almost 5.5. Lots of children aren't ready for school when they have just turned 4 this seems a better cut off time

Why would it affect out of school clubs? It doesn’t matter for home educated children, they go on age.

Weird. At my DC’s school and every primary I can think of, children who defer simply start school in Year 1 and skip Reception. That way there’s no issue with them being the oldest by far in a Reception class; they don’t feel different because they’re with their peers; and they leave primary school at the right age.

The issue isn’t deferring. It’s having deferred children start in Reception.

We had a deferred kid in one of our sons years. He played sports with the rest of the year.
he was able to start d of e with the year above, if he wanted.

I have an august DC and strongly considered deferring. As she had no additional needs, I decided the downsides outweighed the benefits. She has thrived and her class happens to be about 50-50 split between summer born and older children so she's not an anomaly. The biggest difference is just general maturity, not academic, but challenges and differences are part of life! Her younger sibling is November born and I can already see that the extra year of nursery childcare will drag for all parties towards the end!

I’m with you OP. My DC is an August born child but was also premature so wasn’t suppose to be born until October. I didn’t defer him, but there are kids in his class who have been deferred. So naturally he does seem a lot younger and immature compared to his peers

Does that not just create a new artificial cut off though. If everyone June to August defer then the April May dc become the youngest.
the problem is the way we teach and the way schools are structured

I appreciate where you are coming from but lots of studies support the findings that young children, the ages we are talking about, suffering mentally and academically by starting too early.
Perhaps the answer is that we start all children older.
Steiner, for example, promotes not learning to read till age 7. It doesn’t hurt to think outside our existing system.
Here’s some research

Do deferred kids have to do outside school sports teams, cubs etc. with the year below? How embarrassing for them.

Parents don’t want their dc’s to have to catch up. If the mechanism is now there to apply for April - August borns to defer then whilst it was envisaged as being a mechanism for say late August premies it’s understandable some parents will seek to do it for perceived advantage.
Previously it was very rigid. I recall a newspaper case of boy twins born on different sides of midnight 31/8 and the LEA not budging, they’d be in their 20s now.

This is what I was told when I considered deferring my son - he would join the year group he would have been in reception with and would have missed out on forming friendships - if he had even been able to get a place at that stage.

I think parents having the ability to defer is right. And it's a parenting choice. If your child is just a few days over 4 when reception starts, some will find it challenging. Not all. Some are really ready for School at that age.
And yes if most people defer their kids it will skew the age profile but there is no solution to that.

Parents should do the right thing by their own children, in accordance with the opportunities available to them. There is no need to factor in what may or may not be 'fair' to others when they make that decision.

If some children are not ready to start school at compulsory school age, then perhaps compulsory school age is too young?

As a secondary teacher of 35 years, I’ve seen maybe a handful out of year - usually children who have moved to the U.K. so their language use is behind. As I said, it plays havoc with GCSE results and I imagine if it’s becoming common secondaries will resist. 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.

Why is having older children in the class putting your child at a disadvantage? Why are you talking about it like it’s a competition? I’m a reception teacher and I’ve had children deferred before and it 100% was the right decision for those children - however it didn’t have a negative impact on the year they joined at all.