Unfair to defer summer borns

That wasn't the motivation for our choice at all, most parents suggest the reason for delaying is they don't believe their child is ready if you look at the most recent report.

I personally believe 3 weeks after turning four is disgustingly early for a child to start full time formal education - the statistical advantage is a bonus, but we would have deferred regardless of that.

Just like any other choice you make for your child there will be pros and cons to every decision and different families will make different choices - all you can do is give them all the options and information they need to make a decision.

As pointed out other countries have deferral and grade based education that is normal in their culture and there isn't a whole bunch of handwringing over what is "fair"

The sticking point here is that deferral is a relatively new policy in the UK, and not everyone likes change. Deferral is the "best" option if you do have concerns about your child's school start within the current system. How it impacts the rest of the cohort shouldn't come into to the decision making process from a deferring parents perspective.

If I could change it - and money and resources were no object - I would have 4 quarterly intakes to reduce the maximum "youngest" child age gap to 3 months. I would still have deferral for children born in the last month of each intake to allow for flexibility of needs, and formal compulsory school wouldn't start till 7.

But that isn't real life and within the current system it is fair and evidence based to allow summer born parents to choose deferral if they feel like it would benefit their child .

Don't forget plenty of families know its an option and don't choose it as this thread evidences. Not to mention currently only 1.5% of summer born parents are choosing this option of that tiny percentage of children 51% were August born and just 3% were April born, so it's not really as big of an issue as you are making it out to be.

I would be really interested in hearing your solution on fixing the summer born problem in a realistic way though.

It doesn't matter what I believe about your motivations. I know for certain that some parents are doing it to give their kids the advantage that all studies conducted in this area suggest they will get. We know parents pay for tutoring and private schools to boost their child's prospects, of course they will defer for such a proven advantage. I find your disbelief that this is happening at a reasonable scale in some areas to be quite telling. It does suggest a lot of regional variation.

Except lots of countries start formal learning later and there is still a significant gap on achievement between the youngest and oldest. This is a consistent trend seen in all countries irrespective of age that they start formal learning. Aspects such as peer dynamics, maturity etc come into play. Look at Sweden who start at 7 to see how the trend persists.

Totally agree about the cynicism 🫠 I want my child to not have to start school a couple of months after turning 4 because it's so incredibly young and he's got a long road ahead. I'm not trying to get an advantage over other people. Although I guess ol bumpity probably won't believe that

I think the main problem is the age children are supposed to start learning in a formal way. Some just aren’t developmentally ready for it. If they started this part of their education later, maybe at 7 like some other countries, and everything was play based until then, almost all children would be ready, and the age gap between the youngest and oldest wouldn’t matter as much.

As it is, the system sets the younger children up to fail. Parents are right to do everything they can to avoid that, but the system needs restructuring really. Allowing kids to defer is a bandaid, but the real problem hasn’t been addressed. Ripping off the bandaid isn’t the answer though.

I am cynical because I know people IRL who have done it to be the oldest and ascertain the advantage this confers. This is far more common in my circle than people deferring because they genuinely don't think their child is ready for school. I accept this isn't necessarily representative of the country as whole but it is representative of my privileged area.

I think any system of this nature needs to be implemented properly. This doesn't mean that I think no children should ever be able to defer but it does mean that we can't allow people to cynically exploit the system. The random March/April cut off is obviously just as arbitrary as the August/September one and we need to be careful about these kinds of cliff edges generally. Swapping one for another isn't necessarily better.

I think you are very cynical in the reasons for parents deferring. I’m not saying some don’t do it to be top of the class, I think many do to because their child is not ready, as evidence by most on this thread. Why should their children be penalised because a few parents try to advantage their children. Those parents will tutor and find other ways to advantage their children. Plus let’s be honest, many of those will have deliberately planned an autumn birthday. I think saying people can’t defer would penalise children, I agree with those who say they there should be more education around it, making it more accessible rather than less accessible. Surely that is actually the right thing for the children.

But the policy is inherently flawed because as you state a large part of the motivation is making them older in the cohort which is an advantage in itself. The obvious flaw is that if your summer born isn't the youngest then someone else's summer born is. If all the summer borns defer then the child born at the end of March who can't defer will be the youngest and the disadvantage passes to them.

So deferral doesn't really fix the actual problem at all but simply moves the problem along to another child. It also arguably exacerbates the issue for summer borns that choose not to defer because they don't have a need to defer as they will find themselves stuck in a class with someone that is 16 months older than them. We know that being the youngest is inherently a disadvantage and widening this to 16 months of disadvantage is obviously worsening the problem. You are effectively forcing the summer borns to defer or they will be penalised with a huge differential in their class.

You’ve picked out one sentence from my post and ignored everything else I said 🤣🤣 how strange of you!

I was explaining how it’s not just being part of the same building. A child going to the school nursery is part of the school community.

We certainly aren't well off by any stretch of the imagination, and we live in a very disadvantaged area. I would suggest it is a lack of awareness and education that means children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to be deferred rather than a cost decision. As most people I have mentioned we were deferring to didn't even know it was an option, even nursery workers and health visitors.

Deferring is better for the child (speaking in generic terms) as it places them older in the cohort which we know is an advantage. If other parents choose not to defer or are unaware that deferring is an option that shouldn't prevent other summer borns from taking advantage of the policy that was put in place for them. Frankly I don't care what other summer born parents choose to do, it's none of my business.
You wouldn't say it's unfair to breastfeed because it gives children an advantage that would be insane.

Better communication of the options to parents is the correct thing to do so they can make an informed decision about their child's education - rather than saying the policy of being able to defer is inherently flawed.

I also got an extra year of funding for my deferred child, where I am they introduced funding for two year olds in preschool for children from families who are more likely to struggle.

I don’t think the answer is make it harder for people to defer but make it easier so the children that would benefit do defer. I’m in Scotlsnd so long established but if your child is in the deferral zone then encouraged to apply for deferral place at school nursery and at school. The hours are the same and you can make a decision later rather than at application time. We even defer our decision making.

A child can be in a different place in June compared to January. Once you know you’ve got options then you can make a decision.

I'm aware of this but the stats are clear that deferred children disproportionately come from more privileged households. Realistically it will be the non deferred summer borns that stand to lose out from deferred children in the class as studies consistently show that being the youngest in a cohort is a disadvantage and the bigger the gap between the gap gets comparatively bigger when you compare the youngest to older children.

@Bumpitybumper you still get the 3/4 year funding for a deferred child - I paid nothing for my deferred child to go to a childminders for his deferred year as she was fully flexible with the funded hours and charged no extras, it shouldn't disadvantage a poorer family to defer a child any more than it would if the child had been born in September.

Of course parents will always do what they perceive to be best for their child. You may think your child will fail if not deferred, others may see that they can gain an advantage from being eldest if deferred. It is human nature and why the issue transcends the individual. The system needs to be carefully reviewed and reformed with particular emphasis placed on the disadvantages the current system causes non deferred summer born children from poorer backgrounds.

But I and other parents are not prepared to put our children in a situation that is developmentally inappropriate and allow them to fail. Why should they be denied access to their full entitlement of the early years curriculum? Until it does change people will always try and make sure their child is not in a situation that is detrimental to their wellbeing developed if they can.

Can I ask what you experience of deferment is and the EYFS/KS1 curriculum? Apologies if you have already said, I couldn’t see anything?

I am from Scotland and our intakes are March to February. My middle due in March like I planned as I wanted him to be the oldest in his year as I was during my schooling but he decided to make an appearance in February and it was obvious from a young age that he was going to school when he was 4 1/2 as he has a strong personality but everyone else said I should holf him back but I'm glad I stood my ground and about 3 weeks into the school year he told everyone they had to be pals with him as his Grampa is Santa, my dad does look like Santa and nearly every child knew who Ciaran's Grampa was as my dad talks to everybody, he is very chatty and great with kids. So the school realised that Ciaran was going to be fine in school

I don't disagree with you about starting formal education too early but that is a wider argument and requires the whole educational system to change.

The problem with deferment is that someone has to be the youngest and the disadvantage of being the youngest persists even with a later starting age for education. This has been proven through lots of issues international research. Sweden for example has a starting age of 7 and yet the trend for the youngest to be disadvantaged persists.

So yes, formal education does probably need to start later but deferment still isn't the solution.

You only get professionals involved in the early years if you are very proactive!

Or if you realise something is wrong!
SEN is often not diagnosed until later, mid primary or the teen years.

Parents aren’t child development experts and, particularly with an only child or an eldest child, may miss that their child isn’t developing typically, especially if the differences are subtle. And it’s complicated because children develop at different paces anyway.

Nursery can sometimes pick things up, but that doesn’t always happen. A quiet child who doesn’t cause trouble can get overlooked. Often the differences become more obvious as they grow older, long after the age of starting school.

It absolutely was the solution for my son as he had extra play based learning until he was nearly 6 which was exactly what speech therapist recommended for him. The early years curriculum makes it easier for individual children’s needs to be met.

More scrutiny will be provided by professionals, who let’s be honest will be accessed by the middle class parents you are so against. You only get professionals involved in the early years if you are very proactive!

We can support families more in the early years and wait until formal education is developmentally appropriate. They are two separate issues but people sensationalise them with the toilet issue.

We start our children in formal education much earlier than most other countries but our outcomes are no better for it. What is wrong with just turned 5 years olds having a play based early years curriculum for an extra year? Why should they get less experience and time in the early years curriculum upon just because of when their birthday is?

Toileting may not be the main issue but it is one of a wider set of issue that encompasses other school readiness skills like speech and the ability to focus. There has been a notable decline in these skills in recent years. This has been picked up time and again in studies and surveys of teachers. This will obviously impact children not only in EYFS but as they move into the more formal learning associated with KS1. Deferral isn't the solution for this widespread deskilling of our young children and we need to tackle the underlying reasons.

As things stand, it would obviously be preferential and fairer if there was more scrutiny about who is and isn't deferring. This includes much more input from early year settings that are more likely to give an honest and knowledgeable opinion about a child's needs to defer than the parents who often have a vested interest in getting a specific outcome. A child that is ready for school shouldn't be allowed to defer just because their parents want them to.

I do think if there are issues with speech development they should be tackled early.

I also think the age at which formal education starts is too young, and I’m in Ireland where it’s later and more flexible. All mine started having turned 5 and that was still too young for one of them and has had lasting repercussions.

Yes , I think there is a myriad of reasons why toilet training is becoming later and later. I also think the same about speech development and why there is an explosion in the number of children needing intervention in Reception.

My point is though, do we just accept that these issues will become increasingly prevalent and delay formal education for all children or do we attempt to tackle these delays through earlier intervention? Personally I favour the latter approach and think that deferment can to some extent mask the issue so can remove the onus for intervention.

@Bumpitybumper
Societal change is why toilet training is later.

Apparently disposable nappies are one reason.
They’re easier for the caregiver and feel dry (even when wet) for the child leading to a lack of motivation to get out of nappies.

Also, children being at nursery for much of the day has had an impact. They don’t all facilitie potty training, aren’t in a position to spot subtle cues a child needs the toilet etc.

The care of children by their parents is more child-led these days too. A parent is more likely to try to wait for them to be ‘ready’ (even if they mis-judge that).

How do you decide who is allowed to be deferred and who isn’t?

I think we should be looking at the curriculum, comparing it to others that start formal education much later. My issue with my child in lots of ways was less about the reception year, and more about the expectation in Year. 1 Having taught this year group I see so many children , particularly boys really struggle as they still need to be active and playing and many schools just don’t allow this ( some do and I love those brave schools). My daughter when she was in year 1 often used to talk about the boys being in trouble, but I’m pretty sure it was simply because they were not developmentally ready to be sat at tables for long periods. When I looked around schools for my son, they talked about transitions to year 1 in reception. He would never have been ready, but nor would lots of others without SEND at 5.

Until this is improved of course many parents will want their children to access a full early years curriculum with play-based learning until they are six. Forgot the daily mail headline of toileting, that is not the main issue.