Unfair to defer summer borns

I think that summer borns should have been eligible for funded places at the same age as the autumn borns who would be in their class. They are often the ones who need pre-school/nursery more and were disadvantaged by not getting funding at the same time (or before) autumn borns.

I would have deferred my August born if that option had been available at the time. He’s finished school now and did fine but he would have found school much easier if he’d been deferred and allowed to start phonics etc later.

I think some parents would have factored in physical stature into their decision because being sportier than your fellow pupils could be a confidence boost in the playground. (IME many dads are into sports fantasies for their sons)

It’s not just reception it’s other end of scale too at sixth form. My dc had an end of Aug friend and it was rubbish for her - couldn’t learn to drive like her mates, paid much less at same restaurant job as min wage goes up at 18. She couldn’t even go to the big end of school leaving celebration (fancy dress/pubs around town) it’s really strict on ID now can’t even get in and not drink so they met up with their friends in park after.

I was born in August (6 weeks early, was due mid-late sept) and wasn’t deferred a year.

I don’t really understand the point in it? Like OP says someone has to be the youngest.

The only time it bothered me was when I was in high school / 6th form and everyone was turning 18 but tbf most of my friends were in the year above so I would have still been annoyed even if I was the oldest in my year.

Im glad my mum didn’t defer me, I would have attended school a year later so my mum would have had to pay another year or so child minder fees & nursery fees. I would have l gone to university or started work a year later. (And probably irrelevant for most but I was in the last year of the 3k a year uni fees, so I’m sure 18 y/o me would have resented my mum if she held me back and cost me another 18k in university tuition fees).

They absolutely are doing this when it's not necessary. I know loads of parents that have done it. It is simply wrong to suggest that the barriers put in place are enough to put the most ambitious or determined parents off. Think what you want about the rights and wrongs of the system but don't pretend it's only being used by those with a genuine need.

Why?
she is doing well and developing. Why hold her back, cripple yourself with unnecessary nursery fees just so your kid isn’t the youngest. It’s up to you to get your child school ready.
My friend is born 31/08. In the evening! She thrived at school before this deferring nonsense started and is now a senior nurse

Can I also point out that it's not an easy decision to make... lots of posts on here suggesting that parents who defer are just gaming the system to gain some sort of advantage over other children, and it's just a click of a button and then all sorted. I had to write to the council, provide reports from her nursery, medical evidence, have meetings with potential primaries and secure backing from their head teachers - many of which were rude, unhelpful and judgmental despite her serious medical condition.

I will also, very shortly, be facing the prospect of deferring her into secondary, which is pretty much unchartered territory since the new law came in. She could end up missing a whole year of education, ending up skipping ahead into year 7 from year 5 if no secondaries agree to take her out-of-cohort. It was not an easy decision, but it was the right one for her.

Parents considering this path will be warned and warned again, I can't honestly see anyone going to this much trouble if it's not absolutely necessary for their child.

What about twins OP as they are well behind singletons .
My twins were born in April so, we were told, would be behind by more than a year.
What would you suggest OP.

They can delay a school start for children who are April to August born. Schools are getting more and more doing it now. One of my DC has a child in the class who was born April and they started the following year so are 16 months older than some. It shd go on the child not just their DOB

I agree. I also agree with PPs that proper summer babies with genuine reasons (I mean an august born premie with developmental issues) should be able to defer but parents with a May born child shouldn’t be able to defer without good reason. Or at least, not allowed to drop a year - start in year one if they feel it’s better (I doubt it would be).

It just puts August born kids whose parents aren’t in a position to defer, at even more of an disadvantage. Financial privilege is a huge factor in being able to defer, and wealthier families of May born children are just pushing back down the August born kids of poorer families by deferring for no reason. The average physical size and academic level of the kids in the class shifts upwards and the August born kids in the correct cohort are even worse off as a result.

I agree that just turned four is too young to start school but the answer is to have an intake that runs March-March so all kids are at least 4.5, not allow almost uncontrolled deferral so you end up with an 18 month age range in the class.

I agree with you OP. I know a few kids that were deferred and will be almost 6 years when they start school! FWIW the parents who I know that have deferred their kids without any reason other than they have some kind of Scandinavian/European ideal for starting school later have either complained their kids aren't stimulated enough at nursery anymore (because our educstion system is not designed to have 5 year olds in nursery) or their kids are so much older they make the younger kids feel intimidated by their older behaviour and throwing their weight around (its not fair to have almost 6 year olds in the same nursery room with kids who have just turned 3 years old). In my opinion the first year of school is just an extension of nursery anyway with all the learner led play.

I think the initial policy to widen the age that you can deffer was intended to remove the stigma of starting school later if you have reason to (SEN etc) but instead middle class parents have jumped on it as some kind of lifestyle ideal.

This is like the trans argument isn't it? Some women are bigger/stronger/faster than other women so does that mean that men should be allowed to compete against women too?

Natural variance within sex or age groups will exist. It doesn't mean that these groups should be merged into one and it should become some kind of free for all.

I agree with you - parent if premature twins born 30August. I think deferring should only be for dc with delayed development.

One of mine is a late summer baby, when I looked at deferring him, I could have done but he wouldn’t have gone into reception he would have started in year 1, so it sounds like your school is choosing a different way of doing things as there wasn’t an option for mine to join reception the year after he should have.
Our youngest is also a summer baby and we didn’t even look to defer him because we had already been through primary schooling with the other and knew by about year 3 there was no real difference between him academically and others in his class whereas he had struggled at the start.
I think holding them back a year should be done as a last resort, not become the norm because they do catch up over their time in primary.

It seems bonkers to me that the definition of a summer born child is from the 1st of April until the 31st of August. It's such a huge timeframe.

The advantage they think they’re getting is that their child is a year older when they start school so will do better academically. I have no idea if this is true, I have a year 6 summer born (31st August) who apparently is working at greater depth for SATs but obviously don’t know what she’d be like if we deferred.

Of course it impacts her child. They are now in a cohort with children that are a lot older than the normal academic year would allow. We have academic years for a reason. It is a nonsense to suggest that this won't impact her child. Sports Days and Academic Awards are much more likely to go to the deferred children as they are that bit more mature and skilled. Of course it won't always go that way and the oldest always had an advantage but not this much of an advantage making it even more unsurmountable for summer born children that aren't deferred.

It's also true that some deferred kids are simply too old for their year group and you get the types of incidents that OP refers too regarding physical play.

A GOOD reception class (i.e., one that is play-based and not too formal ) acknowledges that summer-born children may have difficulties and recognizes these!

Yes, my understanding is that a child who defers will go straight to year 1, they join reception aged 5 - that can be detrimental to the other children.

Yes, agree with the infantilizing point mentioned, too. (I am a parent of a July-born child and have taught in reception classes !)

Yes of course there’s going to variation. But there is a relationship between age and size.

But it's not the only reason for variation.

So let's say no-one defers and there are still kids far, far bigger in your DD's class (as there will be throughout her whole school career).

What then?

It’s one of disadvantages of a system that is being able to defer. Some will do it as child not ready but some sharp elbowed parents do it to try and get advantage. It’s an actual thing in America called red shirting - basically holding back boys so they are bigger physically and better at sports so they shine, get training opportunities and potentially get lucrative college scholarships. Studies show high percentage of premiership players are autumn born.

I know how you feel OP, I have a late august born DD who was tiny in her class and there were older, bigger boys who had deferred and were turning six while she was still going to be four for 3/4 more months! I'm not sure what the answer is but I do think it's an issue.
I saw no reason to defer DD when the decision was made, but I sometimes wish I had, given what we know now - she has dyslexia and the age gap a) meant it was missed for ages because they said 'oh she is just august born and needs to catch up' and b) has made it even harder for her because she feels even more differently abled to the other kids than she really is when you control for age.

I agree that the system does need to be tightened. It should be open to those born June-August who fit certain criteria. For example, children who were born premature and their due date was September onwards. Children with known speech and language delay, developmental delays, hearing and sight difficulties. Children on the Autism assessment pathway, children who have had significant health needs.

The scope could be quite wide but essentially summer born + a recognised need.

I know a family who have deferred to get a “head start” for their May born dc. He is by far the strongest boy both academically and physically in his year group. He struggles socially because all the other boys seem quite young in comparison. So doing well at school in lessons but miserable in his peer group.

My DS was born in late September so he was always the oldest in his class, going to university at 19. But the cohort only had a maximum of 12 months between oldest and youngest.

lol. Just split up all the children by size order?? 😂

Edit : didn't mean to quote!

It needs to be left up to the families to decide, they know what's best for the child.

Children don't hurt others because of their size, a year ago he could have been smaller but 100x worse (with whatever issue is causing him to hurt others) in a school setting.