Tell me about your August babies starting school

[ScrappyAndHungry]

Hello

I have a daughter age almost 3. She will start school next September having just turned 4. A few of the nursery mums have asked me if I'm planning to defer her into the year below as apparently being the oldest in the year has better outcomes than being one of the youngest.

But honestly this just hasn't occurred to me. She loves to learn and having had a look at the early years curriculum at the school I'm hoping she will go to, it looks like stuff she will absolutely love. Surely it can't be in her best interests to do 3 whole years of early years? She also always seems drawn to older children to play with.

Obviously I know things can change but I just wondered if deferring her is something I should strongly consider in the absence of any reason?

Would love to hear how your August babies got on starting school.

Also the summer born ‘disadvantage’ is true at a population (or large sample) level, but there’s no statistical evidence that starting school later actually makes a positive difference to outcomes.

The population level data shows that the youngest children in the school year are at a disadvantage that remains (though it narrows) throughout all of primary school.

That same data (obviously) shows that older children - ie those who started school later - perform better than summer born children. So not sure how you have concluded that there is no evidence that starting school later (being older in the class) makes no difference to outcomes. It makes a lasting difference. That is why summer born children can defer.

Of course they don’t have to defer and it’s a decision for each family.

There's such resistance to the research and pages of anecdotal evidence of how it wasn't a problem for so and so.

I was an August baby (born day before the cut off) and was always at the top of my class & very sociable. DSD was also an August baby had no problems at school. I suspect the advice might be more applicable to boys.

Lol quite…post after yours is a case in point.

I don't understand - how can the summer-born disadvantage be true at a population level if there is no difference to outcomes?

To clarify: there isn’t evidence that delaying entry for the summer born actually improves their outcomes compared with them going at the ‘normal’ time and being young in the year group.

Both my dds are early August born (tho dd2 was 3 weeks early). Dd1 will be 20 soon and when she was at preschool, they drew a line and the kids with Sept-Feb birthdays started reception in Sept. The kids with March-August birthdays did an extra term at preschool and started reception the following January.

Dd1 has a processing disorder and needed extra time for tests etc throughout school. We were allowed to defer summer babies to the following Sept if we wanted, but a v experienced reception teacher advised me strongly not to do this because she said the social issues far outweigh any academic ones in the early years. I've always felt that dd1 has been playing catch up with her peers but that's easing now she's uni age.

Dd2 is very academic, no LDs. By the time she started school they'd changed the rules and a split intake wasn't an option. She was the youngest so they did offer a phased entry (lunchtime pickup) for a bit. I tried doing that and she point blank refused to come with me so she was full time in school from 4 years and 3 weeks old. Dd2 would definitely NOT have done well being deferred to the next academic year. She is very mature, confident and articulate and is turning 16 next month and starting 6th form college in Sept - when several of her friends will immediately turn 17 and start driving. I'm always telling them they'll be glad of their birthdays when their mates are turning 40 etc!

Essentially it massively depends on the personality and maturity of each child. I was happy that reception class was very much a continuation of preschool and both my girls were fine being with their peers through school.

Dept of Education research shows that summer-borns do slightly worse at GCSE and A-level.

That's evidence surely?

The only way to make sense of the extensive data we have is to infer that delaying entry for summer borns would improve their outcomes, statistically, on the basis that the disadvantage is caused by being the youngest in the school year.

The only way this wouldn’t be true is if being born in the summer months meant that kids were just less intelligent than kids born in other months of the year, which is obviously ridiculous.

It is not surprising that there haven’t been studies comparing summer borns who were deferred vs those who weren’t as deferral is a relatively new thing and still unusual, so the numbers are small.

No, but there is evidence that summer borns who stay in cohort do worse than the rest of the cohort.

@Boobymonster

Yes, I agree completely with what @PregnantNowScrewed said.

It's misleading to say 'there isn't evidence' (to support delaying entry for summer-borns) without clarifying that, in all probability, the only reason 'there isnt evidence' is simply because the studies haven't been done yet!

There is a difference in outcomes. Rob Cirin and James Lubwama's report is just one that comes to mind
(Department for Education).