Unfair to defer summer borns

Couldn't disagree more on outcomes. My Son has a specific learning need that impacted their early education so badly he was forced to go a special needs school in Y5. He'd had to start the local state primary school at just 4 and 3 months (I could only delay back then by a term). He was finally able (long story) to go back a year when he moved schools in Y10 back to Y9. At Y8 his reading age was only 7 1/2 years. He passed a great cluster of GCSEs (passes- we're not talking A grades!) and is now thriving at college doing what he has wanted to do all his life! That year delay - age 4 - would have made such a difference to his well-being and social setting. The ability to be able to learn comes much later with many students with SEN. Instead he was forced by an ideology to go to school an academic year earlier than the law of this country requires. I've fought for flexibility for kids like mine - summer born - to be able to attend school at the compulsory school age and not earlier. For 15 years. I will keep fighting. I know my main opposition is normally parents of autumn born children and their entitlement is stunning in their ignorance as to the impact. Whereas some of our best supporters are parents who have been educated in other countries where children dont start formal school until a lot later.

Our DC was born early and right at the end of August rather than October. We deferred him. He started in reception at just a few days over 5. He was so tiny he was wearing age 2 clothes. He was one of the last to be able to zip his coat up but one of the best readers in the class. I never felt the year above at nursery were his cohort. He was oldest in year, smallest in school when he began.

No it really doesnt. This is fear mongering. I live in a grammar area (went to grammar myself - summer born who went to primary aged 5 as you did, and moved back near 30 years ago) and have been part of the Flexibility for Summer-Borns campaign for at least 15 years. Seriously grammar or any other state secondary school don't care. And the independents really don't care.

Yes my DC lost out on this by nearly a year. But also they lose in school on interventions if it is age dependent. So if eg Intervention A starts in Y1 for 12 weeks eg for DC aged 6 years and 6 months - autumn born get the intervention and move off, hopefully. By the time my summer born DC reached the age start time - hey only had a few weeks before the summer holiday. So I asked if that would continue in the next year autumn term. No - as it was now a new intervention programme. You couldn't make up the bias in the system against summer borns. Autumn born parents coming on here to talk about advantage - just be ashamed of yourselves and learn. You have no idea. The structural bias is extraordinary.

So the delay was actually better for the rest of the class.

This is a good point. From the link I attached a couple of posts ago:
At the end of Key Stage 1, August-born pupils are nearly 90% more likely to be identified with SEN than September-born pupils; at Key Stage 2, this reduces to 60% more likely, and further to 25% more likely by Key Stage 4. The types of special educational need most disproportionate in summer-born pupils are moderate learning difficulties, specific learning difficulties, speech, language and communications needs, and other (unclassified) needs.

Sending children to school when they are not developmentally ready for it does not help their classmates who are ready. The younger children often need more time, attention and resources.

In a way , all I did was delay my child’s formal education. They still attended preschool, I just ensured they had their full entitlement of the early years curriculum, and started the more formal key stage one curriculum as just turned 6, which is more developmentally appropriate. ( seven would be better but that’s a different point)

Some summerborns are ready, my eldest was. But my youngest definitely wasn’t, preschool agreed with me. They needed more play based learning to develop their language skills, they still struggled as times with too letting. To be honest they would have had far more impact on the rest of the class at 4 than 5 die to how much adult time they would have needed. So the delay was actually better for the rest of the class.

I don’t think there is any point in deferring the school start as it will won’t make any difference over their schooldays and they will get to where they were meant to be .

It depends on the child, but the research shows that many children are negatively affected by starting too early and that this can have lasting effects. Though the gap reduces it does not close completely over their school career. So they may not all get to where they were meant to be.

The size of the month of birth gap in reaching the expected level of attainment decreases as children progress through the Key Stages, beginning at an odds ratio for autumn-born children compared with summer-born children of 2.6 at age five, and shrinking to 1.5 by age eleven, then 1.3 by age sixteen.
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a7b29e5ed915d3ed9062971/DFE-RR017.pdf

Are you a people pleaser? Defer her if it benefits her and gives her an advantage. Life is unfair. Private school kids have an unfair advantage, well connected people open doors for their kids - that’s an unfair advantage. So what??

Why would you not do the best for your child?

What I did feel have the older kids a further advantage was extra time at pre school. Our pre school took as soon as they were 3. So my August born got hr full year in pre school but the older autumn birth kids started January so got 5 terms and some got 4 terms. I think this possibly had some advantage over the older ones. Maybe pre school should have taken them the September following turning 3 like school is the September following turning 4. I don’t know if all pre schools did it. The free hours were afternoons for the older kids for the 2 terms and then mornings from September for the just turned 3. Afternoons were also used as ‘childcare’ for parents working whose kids needed to be there all day but who opted for pre school instead of say nursery - to feed into the primary.

My August born DD started school 3 weeks after her 4th birthday . When she was in year 3 we moved to a nearby town where children didn’t start school until they were 5 .
After a few months her teacher asked me when she had started school and when I told her that she had been 4 , she said DD was way ahead of all the children in her class . Not surprising as she had a year more in school than the others . By the time they got to year 7 most children had caught up with her .
my point is , I don’t think there is any point in deferring the school start as it will won’t make any difference over their schooldays and they will get to where they were meant to be .

There’s nothing wrong with mixed age groups per se. These are very little children and they will eventually be sorted into the “right”” year. Your problem is with one boy who just happens to be older and bigger than your daughter. This could just as easily have happened in a single year class and is something the school should be dealing with. It has long been recognised that summer born children can be at a disadvantage when starting school so this new flexibility allows parents and teachers to make decisions based on the best interests of individual children which has got to be a good thing.

Yes we have nursery, 2yrs free for every child. My point is kids need to be ready for the emotional side of the playground as kids can be tough on each other.

I agree. It could also later create problems with the 11 plus or other entrance exams which rely strictly on age.

Yes! In Scotland the cut off is March, so kids are always at least 4.5 by the time they start which feels a little more appropriate than just having turned 4!

My daughter’s school has 3 years in one class and other schools often have 2 years in a class. That’s seen as acceptable. When my son was in that school year 1s who were struggling stayed in reception an extra year but then went to year 2 the following year. When I was in what would now be year 4 I was in a mixed class of years 4, 5 and 6. For the next 2 years in mixed classes of years 5 and 6. Me and my two kids got on fine. In other situations your child will have to mix with older and younger children. They just have to get used to.

My DGS primary school doesn't. And it's the only primary in the village

I live in Ireland and we generally wait until 5 before starting school. It is not for the academic side but to be mature enough for the playground! As I see it at 4yrs old if some one takes your ball you will cry. At 5 you will ask for it back ... I personally feel, if it works for the family that kids should be kept at home until at least 5!

I’m in Scotland. Our year runs 1st March- 28th Feb.
we can defer Sept-Feb til the following year.
my son should be one of the oldest (march) instead he has some 6months older and yet he has ones 11months younger in his class too.
I absolutely agree with deferral!! I just don’t think it needs to be of 6months, 3 yes maybe 4months but any more seems madness.

no one should ultimately be at a disadvantage because those deferred wouldn’t have been “ready” for school and that is why they’ve been held/kept back for the year.

your schooling is different to ours so I can’t comment on the curriculum but I do know if mine were to have followed your school years (he’d have been 4yrs 5months) he wouldn’t have enjoyed school/learning like he has from the minute he started at 5yrs 5months.

You’ve decided not to defer, your decision but the parents of children who have deferred have done so for a reason ☺️

In Scotland the cut off is end of February and it is much more common for children born Dec-Feb to be deferred. When considering schools many of the teachers supported deferring as they said it’s not about size it’s about emotionally maturity and not just when entering school but when leaving and going to Uni. My son would have been 17 going to Uni and we felt that would have also been a disadvantage so we deferred. Don’t regret that for one minute.

I really think it’s best to be a joint decision between parents/school/nursery preschool setting.

My own daughter is an August born and we deferred. Academically I don’t think would have struggled, was fine socially but I did feel emotionally probably wasn’t ready. You need to understand that the children born the previous Sept were a year older than her ( a quarter of her life at that point which developmentally is huge at that age). She struggled to be as quick at changing at PE, eating lunch as quickly which given the competitive child she is and has always been would have really knocked her confidence. I really think you parent the child you have and do the best with the options available to you.

I understand your concerns with children being bigger/more boisterous but that really can happen any way. I would say is it’s for the school to be ready for the intake they have in-front of them and manage that than for parents to worry about as they will have much more experience of this. I look at my 3rd child’s school year (born in winter term so in older 3rd of year) and there are children that are younger and bigger than him! In fact the most disruptive child in the class is the youngest! I think advice was given that he would have benefited from staying at preschool for a year. There are a lot of children that just aren’t quite ready and because of this are disruptive to the class and end up on SEND register when in some cases they just needed that little bit more time.

I think you also look at the school, if my daughter were to have gone into her cohort by age she would have gone with children she naturally didn’t gravitate to as at preschool they were put in groups by age and she didn’t gravitate to any of her cohort by age, she naturally was more interested in playing with the children she was grouped with and was a bit of a leader of the younger ones (being the eldest of them) and this suited her personality well. If she had gone in her correct cohort she would have been the youngest by almost 5 months (small village school with intake of 15 into YR) a huge development and emotional difference at that age. That said, would be different in a bigger intake school as there would be more children of all birth months and the school would be prepared for this. If she had gone with correct age cohort, she would be one of 3 girls left (started as 7 in R) I could see this would happen due to the being siblings that all had already or had intentions of going private by y3/4, this would also have not been an ideal situation.

As I’ve said, we do the best with the options in front of us. It’s worked well for my daughter, she has a lovely year group that she is well suited to, doing well academically, really enjoys school and that gap really does close as they get older. Her best friend in school is almost a year younger. In YR and 1 it was noticeable but by y2/3 you would never know.

Of course, it is the only logical decision for many parents. But they shouldn't hide the fact that in acting in the best advantage of their child, they are in tern passing a (smaller) disadvantage along to another group of Children.

If every May-August born defers, then the subsequent research will show that Feb-April children suffer lasting disadvantages.

The whole thing is just an argument for starting school later, and having a slower transition. It is impossible to ever get rid of the disparity between children based on age. No matter where the cut-off is, older Children will always perform better on average, and younger children will always be slightly disadvantaged.

But we could reduce the disadvantage associated to "being ready/mature enough" for school, just by having a slower transition, starting formal school a year later etc. Making it so that the vast majority of kids are ready and mature enough. This obviously isn't the case at the moment, with many just-turned-4 year old's not being fully ready, so experiencing both layers of disadvantage (not ready, and younger than peers).

The whole deferral system is putting a plaster over a much bigger wound

I Have deferred 2 of my summer born children ones birthday is 24/8 (born 8 weeks prem- no SEN issues) one birthday 12/7 (mild learning difficulty) my reasoning was that at just turned 4 both of them were not ready for school. My son has thrived and is now well equipped to start secondary school in Sept. My daughter (learning difficulty) has really made the most of the extra support and time to mature. If your Aug born is doing well I think you should just concentrate on that and not other children. You never know the May born child could have a learning difficulty leading to their parents defferring him.

The May-August summer born group is defined as such because the research showed there was strong lasting disadvantages to these children. You can have anecdotal evidence from 100 posters here but the data doesn't lie. This is not something the government brought in just for fun.

If you know about the research, what can you conclude other than choosing not to defer is putting your child at a known disadvantage? Why would you do that?

Just talk to the school about the specific child that's being rough with your child.

My son was born in August at 30wks so was supposed to arrive in October. He was really small, had processing issues and just always seemed (and felt) younger than his peers, and he really struggled at school for a long time. It was heartbreaking to watch. He got into a brilliant university to study architecture and I couldn’t be more proud because I could see how much harder he had to work because of being august-born and some.

Children are entitled to the 30 hours free childcare from 3 until they start compulsory schooling. I know there are usually additional costs with private providers but this is just to be clear that the entitlement doesn't stop if the child is deferred.