Unfair to defer summer borns

If you leave school a year earlier, you can potentially start earning a year earlier and building a pension. Theoretically you could retire a year earlier with the same pension as someone who left school a year later and had a years delay starting a pension.

Retirement is based on age, ie your date of birth. Not your school year.

An extra thought - everyone is keen on the disadvantages of being young in the year, but what about the considerable advantages of getting to earn money for an extra year and retire a year earlier?

Surely every age comes with it's own sizeable pros and cons.

It's very personal - in countries where there's more age variety per year, I don't think it's a bad experience for most.
There were always two or three children who were a year (or two) ahead in my class and if anything the held back ones were the ones who struggled socially as they came with a reputation for being slow.
Again, not always - i remember two sisters who were 3 years apart in our class. They'd grown up abroad in a country where siblings were just sent to school together for practical convenience. Both very popular girls who have lived great lives.

I personally would have hated being the older one in the year and would have thought my peers to be babyish had it been the case. It was boring enough as it was!

It’s not ‘holding a child back’; it’s giving them the same exact time in education as those born up to 12 months earlier than them. You’re just not taking a year of education away from them if you start them at 5.

it’s so weird people have such strong opinions on a subject they haven’t looked into or read around (if you had, you’d know the terminology isn’t deferred or held back, it’s a delayed start).

As an academic child who was pushed forward a year, twice, I still outperformed the class above me too. My academic ability far exceeded my cohort (as a September born), however those two years were miserable for me socially. They were the only years I was bullied and felt a huge distance from my peers who were much more developed sexually and emotionally and felt totally out of my depth and miserable. The only people I knew who were accelerated ahead of their year groups due to exceptional academic ability were miserable socially like me. It was a huge relief to return to my original cohort, where I was now back to being the oldest in my year.

I must admit that all this is quite fascinating. When I grew up, the mark of a pushy parent was trying to get their child to skip a year at school.
There was kudos to being the youngest in the year, and the children who were put ahead for good reasons often were top of their year groups academically.

I long resented my mum for refusing to push me ahead because I was young for my year already, whereas my swing who jumped a year had a far more positive experience of school.

I would never hold dc back unless they had learning difficulties or delays.

RAE isn't an argument to defer summer borns. It simply shifts the problem along and exacerbates it for those that choose not to defer.

No, I don't think all summer borns should be forced to defer. What would that actually achieve? We know from studies undertaken in countries that have much later school starting ages that the RAE persists even with a later school starting age. A later school start age for *all" children would make sense from a wider perspective but that is very different than simply effectively changing the school start age by three months.

The research I posted cites the impact of being the youngest in cohort. These issues are exacerbates further by having even older children in a class to compare the youngest with.

Having to undertake assessments with a year’s less experience does of course disadvantage you; so you appear to be making the case for summer born children to delay their start?

Is your point that they shouldn’t be allowed to delay their start unless ALL summer borns starting age is later, so as not to widen the gap for those whose parents didn’t apply on their behalf? I don’t necessarily disagree with that if that’s your point. All the evidence supports that starting school at just turned 4 is less favourable than starting formal education later. We only need to look to the success of other countries with age 6/7 starting ages. The U.K.’s model is in the minority and was never created with the interests of the child in mind.

But you went further and were asserting that older children in a class have a negative impact on younger children; and that is not an argument you have been able to support ?

I'm not confused. I have read the study that you were referencing and believe you are misrepresenting it unless you are in fact referring to a different study? I am guessing you haven't actually read the study and just used the Google summary of points about potential advantages of having older kids in a class. This is notoriously inaccurate, uses spurious sources and includes unproven ideas and suggestions.

Eh? You want me to find you the specific link to the referenced study now?

You seem really confused.Its hard to follow the point you are trying to make.

@Stepintomyshoes
Thompson, A. H., Barnsley, R. H., and Battle, J. (2004). The relative age effect and the development of self-esteem.

Just to add that studies have most consistently found that recognising and incorporating age at time of test is the most accurate way of instilling fairness into the system. This is because the youngest tend to perform as well as the oldest when they reach the same biological age. This of course suggests that deferred children are absolutely increasing their advantage by being 16 months older than some of their peers at the time of sitting crucial exams and compounding the disadvantage for the youngest in the class.

I was looking for specific links to papers that I notice you still haven't provided. If you are referring to the paper 'Too young to leave the nest? The effects of school starting age' then you are misrepresenting the findings.

Yet there are countless papers on the Relative Age Effect and how being the youngest adversely impacts the child. The wider the age band the worse the impact.

Interestingly the same study found that conversely younger students in the class can have a negative impact on the older ones.

So actually this study suggests summer borns aren’t just disadvantaged themselves they also disadvantage their peers too.

Some studies suggest that having older peers in the classroom BENEFIT younger students:

• Role modeling: Older students may act as informal leaders or mentors.
• Classroom environment: A slightly more mature cohort may enhance focus and cooperation.
• For example, a study from Norway (Black, Devereux & Salvanes, 2011) found that younger students performed better when surrounded by relatively older peers.

It would have taken you less than 15 seconds to find the above, so yes I do find you ridiculous.

I expect you refused to even look because you weren’t interested in doing anything other than reinforcing your own existing bias which appears to be based on insecurity and gut instinct and anecdotes; A solid foundation for any decision making process!

I don’t think it’s being the youngest that disadvantages them. It’s being only just turned 4 and barely out of toddler-hood. It’d be great if everyone deferred! Then you’d get a class of kids who were all at least 4 and a half. Much, much better than being 4 years and a few days. Maybe everyone should start doing that, might finally give the government a kick up the arse and make them realise that 4 is way too young to start school!

Our children start school earlier than most other western countries. This is not necessarily a good thing. We do not give our children enough time to develop school readiness because we do not have a robust nationwide play-centred system of preschool provision in this country. We also muddle up childcare with preschool education to the extent that I don’t think most politicians actually know there is a difference. We put the needs of adults and the supposed benefit to the economy above the needs of our children.
I wonder what would happen if we started putting children first.

I think the idea that EY professionals will be able to judge who can and can’t defer is debatable. My daughter’s nursery consisted of quite young nursery assistants with little to no knowledge of what the expectations of school would be in reality and what children experience upon entering the school system. Her nursery ‘advised’ there was no reason to defer and that I was wrong to do so. Skip to her reception year, I was told by her teacher it was absolutely the right thing to do.

I think children start school really young in England. In Scotland the dec-mar babies are the youngest. Most children are 5 when they start. My eldest wouldn’t have been 5 for 4 months so I kept him back as I felt it was too young to go to school.

Scotland had changed its system or was just about to and we were in a roll out area. So didn’t need to provide evidence, now any August and onwards baby can be deferred.

My child is ridiculously tall…but he would be in the classes above too. I don’t think he holds any children back and physically he’s rubbish at gym etc!

I’d leave kids in nursery longer, most other countries do. My other two were may and July so going at 5, no options to defer.

i certainly didn’t keep my child back so they would be the best in the class which seems to be what you suggest.

id be delighted if they get a good education and could t care less if they are better at PE, maths or reading than the next kid.

Ds2 was the youngest in his nursery and was the biggest child in KS1, so by that logic your stance is irrelevant.

Size is irrelevant, if he’s hurting your child then that needs to be addressed and is a separate issue.

For whatever reasons the parents have, it’s right for their child and choice they are legally entitled to do, no one else kids come into the deciding factor and nor should they, if they choose their legal right to defer their own child by a year.

I had a DD born in August who I would never have dreamt of deferring, and a DGC who I definitely think should be deferred.

It's about the child.

The trouble with this argument is that effectively you are requiring all summer borns to shoulder the inequity in the system.

Being young when you begin school is a disadvantage to many children and because some families can't defer or don't know you can, you are asking all children born in the summer to just suck it up and accept the entirely avoidable struggles coming their way. You are asking them to miss a year of their childhood so that others won't be put out. You're asking them, children who have just finished being 3, to shoulder the burden of an unequal socioeconomic landscape to fix what people seem 'unfair'. Bearing in mind that we are not asking any of this of Autumn born children whose identical advantage we excuse because they were lucky enough to fall in the arbitrary dates set.

Lots of things create a disparity between the most privileged and the least privileged in a classroom. And yet we are not asking parents to stop paying for private tuition which is a privileged advantage, also widens the gap and is unattainable for poorer families. We are not asking for parents to stop taking their children on trips and holidays which is also a privileged advantage, also widens the gap and may be unattainable for poorer families.

There can be no perfect system, and you may well be right about the whole thing needing to change. But until that happens you can only work with what you have. And if you as a parent are given an opportunity to help your child attain the best start in education that you can I very much doubt anybody on here would deny them that because it might cause another child, a stranger most likely to you, some upset. Life doesn't work like that. You choose what is in your child's best interests - now and going forward into adulthood - with the best resources you have.

They currently have a compulsory year of preschool at 6 and start school at 7. This is all set to change in 2028 though when they will start school at 6.

The IFS have suggested that it isn't the age that a child starts school but the age that they take the academic test that matters most and that delaying school starting age won't remove the advantages of those that are oldest in their cohort.

I feel (nearly) all children should start at the same time but repeating the first year should be more widespread. The suggestion would have to originate from schools not parents.

There is an argument for privileging academically homogeneous years instead of age groups (social development varies in an age group anyway so it's not a great argument against the idea imo).

Assessments could determine whether a pupil should be considered for passing into the next level. It would help teachers, act as a deterrent for lazy and disruptive pupils, and provide extra time to those who need it.
Nothing is perfect but to me it's the best compromise.

Sweden starts at 6, not 7, I think, though the first year is termed preschool or Year 0.

I haven’t read the data from Sweden but have read previously that starting formal learning later means the age gap matters less, as far more children will be ready for it by then.

Haven’t time now, but will see can I post some references relating to this when I can.

@HairsprayBabe My friends who have chosen to defer obviously don't officially state that their reason was to gain an advantage over their peers. For obvious reasons they don't go around publicising this as it is hugely controversial and would not go down well with the school. Enough have done it though in my friendship group that it's an open secret and they have helped each other with the applications. For this reason I think it will be a really tough thing to pick up in the stats. Especially because most parents do partly genuinely feel like their children are too young to start even when they're September born. Same goes with high school etc. It's a natural parental response to a big milestone and change.

Is it evidence based to support deferral? Perhaps for the deferred children but what about the overall cohort. There are several studies that focus on the disadvantages of being the youngest in the cohort including peer interactions and likelihood of being elected into leadership positions and it's clear that these disadvantages would just transfer to the new youngest or exacerbate the disadvantages for the summer borns that aren't deferred. We literally have no evidence that the policy isn't detrimenting some children yet you seem utterly convinced its for the greater good.

In terms of alternatives, I would like to see a later start to formal education, more flexibility in schooling and age adjustments implemented more widely.