Research: September-borns do better at GCSE?

The issue about sport has dogged my July born boy's life and is a huge issue particularly in the UK where physicality in sport is valued over skill. He developed huge self esteem issues feeling small for his age (he wasn't : he was younger!). Now , aged just 18, he is a hulking brute of 6 foot but STILL measures himself and believes himself to be small. That has inflicted more damage than academic underachievement.

CATs are interesting because they ARE age adjusted. But then I guess the projected grades extrapolated out of them aren't...

My DS did OK at GCSE : not stellar, just OK. Six more months and who knows what might have happened. I would argue the biggest differences are in literacy rather than knowledge based cramming subjects. The closer to an adult you are at English GCSE, the better.

I think lots of stuff , academic and sporting, should be age adjusted. With boys, it is not just about intellectual development. Emotional development is also behind anyway, so will often be stark in summer boys.

Anecdotally, I can name an August 31st child who went to Oxford : was a girl.

It is interesting that people refer to children as 'behind' who aren't really. GCSEs are supposed to measure achievement at 16. Quite a large number of the cohort are not yet 16 when they sit the exams (and even younger in schools where early entry still persists!)

There was a Twitter thread about this a while back. This idea that it all works through by 16 seems to be a myth now. That's a concern.

I am a September baby so viewed as privileged: I went to school in Scotland, though, so was smack bang in middle of year group! TeacherTapp did a question on this a while back and found that loads of teachers were born September to January!

August born DS started school at just over the age of 5 and is predicted all A* at A level. I think a mix of nature v nurture is probably the answer.

Our experience is that when we transferred back to UK September born Dd was Y8 overseas but had to repeat Y7 due to UK cut off of Aug 31. So went from being the youngest in her year previously, to the oldest in her UK year. She went into a highly academic selective school and went from being top of her old school as the youngest in the year, to being academically within the top 20% as the eldest in her highly academic school which could be in part due to a curriculum disparity or because parents at her uK school are heavily invested in their Dcs education or just the kids are naturally bright.
Fast forward to having just sat GCSEs and she is on track to be top scoring, as are all her cohort. However there is a noticeable difference in her maturity compared with classmates who are only just turning 16 now. Each year the teachers have commented in school reports about the level of her maturity and awareness of others and respect of varying viewpoints.
So my personal conclusion is bright kids in an academic setting are just as likely to achieve the same results academically, however may not be at the same level of development emotionally or physically.
At Dds super selective school the chunk of her year are March/April born, there are only 11 with birthdays Sept -Dec

I think when you frame it as a SB yr 2 is 12m older than a sept yr r. But the expectations are so different.
Simlarly to a sept yr 2 being 12m younger than a summer year 4. It is easier to see how they can get far behind/ahead.
A sept 1 yr behind would be bottom.
An aug 1 yr behind at start of yr r would be like a 3.0yo so very different to a class of 4.0-5.0yo.

It would be interesting to see stats for Scotland separated by month.

It would - although it wouldn't be GCSE as we don't have that here. You'd also have to differentiate between the deferred January birthday who sat a National 5 in May at the age of 16 and 4 months and a non-deferred January birthday who was 15 years and 4 months.

There's also a whole other class / socio-demographic issue, more affluent families are more likely to defer as the extra year's childcare costs isn't as much of an issue. And it's no secret that children from more affluent backgrounds do better at school.

They would be smallest, slowest, tiredest. (Statistically)
Not in my DD's case
Plus, she is not'sporty'- no interest in that malarkey whatsoever.
I'm being naughty as I dislike quantititative ' number chrunching' research and much prefer qualitative stuff.

It would be interesting to see stats for Scotland separated by month.
Culturally there isn't much between England and Scotland (not compared with between England and other countries), but the Education system is different. So something showing attainment at Highers spread by month could make interesting viewing.

Can you clarify what England does badly compared with other countries? How do other countries manage this better?

In Scotland things are far more flexible. For a start, our intake year runs 1st March to 28th February. The very youngest child starting P1 next week will have been 4 since the end of February at the latest. Many will have already turned 5 between March and August. I think starting school older is a good thing in general.

However the added benefit is that if your child's birthday is January or February then you have the automatic right to defer them. No questions asked. They then start school at 5 and a bit. This is very standard, it's not seen as "keeping them back" or anything negative, it's a very standard choice for younger children. It does mean that there can be a spread of 15 months between the oldest and youngest child in a class. But this system has been going decades, at least since I started school in the 70s. It's nothing new and it gives parents the CHOICE - if you want your child to go to school and think they're ready then they can go . But if you want your child to wait a year that's fine too. It's no big deal.

I don't understand why England is so inflexible. Would it really be so hard to introduce a similar system, allowing parents of children born in July or August just to wait a year?

SloMo Do you have a source for that? I’ve often heard it said that highly selective private schools take more autumn born kids, but I’ve never seen any evidence. I know that our local SS grammar age normalises the scores, to avoid exactly this issue.

There's a reason the very competitive private schools take way more autumn born children. By child 2 most of our group of friends made sure they didn't have a summer baby.

The same legislation which now allows you ask to delay till 5 also allows you ask to advance a sept.
However imo they would have to be exceptional to meet the criteria of 'in the best interests' because
You cant tell at 4.0 how bright they are
They would be smallest, slowest, tiredest. (Statistically)
It might affect sports (outside school they would play with yr below) though this may be an advantage
I guess though they could drop back a year without missing one.
They might lose i think .5 grade per gcse.

At private school there were 2 in my yr advanced, 1 repeated alevels, the other went to Cambridge.

Fascinating thread(s)!
I'm wondering, as a parent of an autumnal DD, if other DP's of similar DC would have liked the opportunity for their DC to have been able to start their education an academic year earlier?

The fact they seem to get closer is a data red herring as gov set the nos who pass at each stage. They could make this chart look completely different if gcse pass rate was decided to be 90% so going down to getting 5% on the test.
The difference by age is sound.
For all reasons a pp says.
Sets
Behaviour of youngest make you think they are less capable.
Confidence. Even if they are very bright like pigeon said reading age compared to the class. Dc1 seemed less bright because there were sept borns doing well too. But was in fact maybe age 8 reading age at 5.0yo as opposed to 6/7yo at 5.9yo.
The youngest wouldnt 'test' well in yr r. Could be too busy playing etc.
I think many kids struggle with 1 subject and that becomes more likely if they are younger. Subjects impact each other. Once behind you have to make extra progress to overtake.
I dont see the eldest as being particularly able despite being 'top' or so at 7-8yo.
Dc1 was bright as a toddler could blend by 3.5yo learnt to read easily. But learning behaviours are not good. (Im sure they are not liked by teachers etc). Despite being probably top 5% for reading at ks1 what does that mean? Would they progress further by ks2 (unlikely). As the skills are not the same and because she was ahead starting school it's like a Sept born who will lose the advantage.
I think maths is taught wrong now for many kids and probably especially the youngest. 2 digits add/sub at 5.0yo but without using column add/sub can just be confusing.

Other countries allow them to start late. Many let them drop back a yr. Whereas our narrative is kids are less bright. Then you look at this data and realise that's rubbish.

Not adjusting the data or allowing retention etc means you are pushing the wrong kids.
And some bright ones lose confidence.
Worst of all using ks2 reaults to predict gcse and that is the target the secondary must hit. So if you havent caught up by 11yo it will be a struggle.
I dont doubt that the ones reading first etc are not necessarily the best readers.
Even minor things like losing friends in Scouts etc to the next group while being stuck with the youngest.
Earlier bedtimes.
Worse at sport
Shorter
Later interest in levels of books/films etc
Friends with younger more disruptive kids, but who also have the same disadvantages and younger interests. Getting invited to fewer parties.
So many things add up and whilst you can overcome some (maybe your kid needs less sleep, is really tall, loves reading).
I think it is hard to see at 4yo if a kid is bright how important it is waiting till they are older to write, how hard getting a child to understand some maths that might be easy for them next yr is.

We came from overseas and were given the choice of what age to start school. My Dd is September born and son August born. Dd entered school early at 3.9 months and son at 5. The school also had a policy at primary level of allowing children to repeat a year to a maximum of 2 years depending on age which allowed summer borns to reach their potential.
I maybe wrong but think Australians start at aged 6 which could be more advantageous when thinking about base literacy levels when starting school.

@TeenTimesTwo

In other countries, children don't start reception unil the age of 6. So that's one of the things other countries do better than England. At the age of 4 children are simply TOO young. They're sent to school and have to cope instead of thriving. My 4yo July born is very clever but I deferred him anyway and he won't start school until September 2020.
As a teacher myself, I wish more parents did it. Some of the most challenging behaviour I have dealt with at work has been from summerborn boys.

Its an anecdote but my august born boy really struggled to learn to read, nothing seemed to make sense and he had interventions. My autumn born child sailed through and was was seen as really bright. I then realised that age for age they had the exact same reading ability on the book bands. They got treated very differently and were percieved by their peers as 'clever' or 'bottom set' but actually there were pretty even.

Zodle I think it is just about where the expected standard is set - at about something 58% achieve.

Initially the Sept borns are 'above' due to age and likewise August are 'below' due to age. But innate average ability isn't impacted by birth month, so as time goes on those advantages/disadvantages unwind.
(e.g. My Sept born was doing quite well in Reception by virtue of being the oldest, but actually she has some SEN which has meant that over time she has found her more natural position about 2/3rds down the year group).
So Sept children aren't 'doing worse' as time goes on, just their headstart due to age lessens in impact.

The big issue is though why we have a system that still hasn't evened things up 11 years later. If we can't be even by GCSEs, we are impacting full life chances, as GCSEs impact what A levels you can do, and also A levels, university.

I am rather interested in why the % achieving drops so significantly for those born September to December. Does it indicate that actually, their achievement at lower stages of their education is simply down to being older and the tests are skewed so that it looks like they are achieving as they are so much “better” than the younger children? Or are they getting complacent at being the higher achieving as the years pass by?

Also, why do January children stay about the same across all stages? A small improvement but pretty minimal, when children at each end make significant movement? Is it because being January born is actually the month that the tests best “fit”?

I have a start of September and end of August child. The August pattern is actually reassuring. The September one makes me ask more questions!

Deferral doesn’t necessarily help the situation because it just makes the spring born children the most disadvantaged (if everyone defers) or makes the summer borns whose parents don’t defer at an even bigger disadvantage (statistically).

What would probably actually help is everyone starting school later, as developmental differences between a child just turned 7 and one about to turn 8 (for example) will have less profound impact on performance at school than they do at just turned 4/about to turn 5.

My August-born is top of his class academically, making him wait out a year would have been a waste of his time.

Treating individual kids as if they are average data points isn’t the way forward.

England is way behind in allowing summerborns to wait out a year.

Can you clarify what England does badly compared with other countries? How do other countries manage this better?

There's been buckets of research about this for years and years. England is way behind in allowing summerborns to wait out a year. The differences go well beyond school as well. They matter for overall earning power etc.

Perhaps at primary (and maybe secondary too) all teams should have average age limits that move with the school year, thus forcing them to have younger kids on the team?

Yes to sport. Malcolm Gladwell has a chapter on that in Outliers iirc.

That's why I think, at primary especially, teams should be open to all and not just 'the best'.

It impacts massively on sport - younger, less coordinated kids less likely to win races, be picked for teams and thus early on miss out on extra practice and training given to the already-advantaged older kids in the year group. Lack of success also means less enjoyment and engagement so they are less likely to make up the ground when they catch up physically.

Some of this must translate to academia. If you’re behind at the start you’re going to have to work extra hard compared to those in front just to catch up.

I’d love to see the graph broken down by sex and birth month. Younger boys in particular struggle with fine-motor skills and the demands of learning to write - I wonder if this impacts their education more than that of summer-born girls.