about summer born children and school

[chilled7up]

My DS a summer born (July). He is 3 and due to start Reception next year. I know that one year will make a massive difference in his development, but I feel he'll be too young and immature for school. I worry that a bad start will damage his confidence on the long run.

I'm I being unreasonable to think that parents should have a choice and should be able to decide whether a child should start school a year later? I know we can defer reception and go straight to year one, but that won't make any difference, just delay the problem.

Dozer-you're right of course, but anecdotes about summer borns doing disastrously in school are equally unhelpful. Best to treat whichever child you have as an individual. Otherwise, I'll spend the next three years feeling guilty about having a July baby whilst ignoring the fact that her confident and well adjusted father is one. And her less well adjusted mother was born in September!

dd2 is just finishing reception aged 4 as she has an August birthday.

Academically she has held her own, for example with her reading she is only one level below where dd1 was when she left reception and dd1 is a September born so one of the eldest.

Emotionally she probably found it harder than dd1, certainly more tired at the start of the school term but has made friends her main issue is that she is just a bit prone to tears still. But some of that is not just age she does have a overly dramatic streak to her.

Yanbu for how you feel, I had the same feelings with dd2 starting so young especially with my dd1 having had a full year ahead on her it felt very strange. However, it has been me and my worries that have been the hardest part. Dd2 has coped admirably and has bags more confidence than dd1 really, again that could be down to personality but I do think school has helped her independence and as such her confidence.

I guess it depends on the individual. My elder dd was born August 30 and started at 4 with no problems at all. Went to university at 17, no problem. She graduated at 20 and had her PhD by 23. Being a bit of an old glimmer now I find parents worry so much more about these sorts of things than we used to. Not sure if that's good or bad

I do know two families who have deferred August-borns in the private sector. One of them initially started their DD (29 August birthday, so missed out on being in the younger age group by just three days) with her age cohort but then had her repeat reception; she has now finished Y1 and is very happy and coping well in her new year group. They are American (so more relaxed over flexibility in year groups anyway) and planning to return to the US in 5 years or so, so not worried about a transfer into the state sector pushing her back into her "correct" year group. The other gave their DD (who had been 3.5 months premature so wasn't even due until late November) a term in her "correct" age group but it really wasn't working for her and she was very unhappy so they pulled her out and restarted her a year later in the younger age group along with the children who were born around the time she had been due. They've just accepted that they have to commit to stay in the private sector throughout her school career even though it will be a stretch for them.

Another plus for summer borns - just remembered - dd developed really early and had her first period at 10 and 4 months. She was the only girl with boobs at the end of Y5 and one of the tallest. Had she been a September birthday she would have started her periods in the autum term of Y5 and stuck out as more of a sore thumb than she did. Thank goodness she was a summer birthday on that score!

YANBU.

DS was born 6 weeks early in late August - he was due in early October - so I share your concerns.

Yes, lots of summer born children do well at school - but statistically, summer born children do less well at school than other children. Statistically, premature children also do less well, so DS has a potential double disadvantage there.

The main problem I have with it all is the way the system fails to allow any consideration of the individal child's development - DS might be mature enough to start school as the youngest in the year when the time comes - but if he's not, he'll have to go anyway.

And if we deferred entry, so he skipped reception and went straight to year 1, our school application would be treated as an in-year application, so his chance of getting into our (usually over-subscribed) local school would depend entirely on whether they'd had the normal full reception class or not.

I think it's shocking that people are not given any choice. Really bad. My DD is 7 and in year three...some of the girls are developing already....they're bigger, more confident and generally "better" at things.

Her confidence is suffering and as a parent I resent that. I wouldn't Home Educate as I'm not really equipped and the social side of school including all the clubs IS good for DD....but I feel sad for her when she gets beaten AGAIN by all these long legged "big girls" in races!

my sons birthday is at the beginning of august and my daughter at the end she started school a week after her 3rd birthday, both have done very well in school, obviously there is a slight differnc in them and children who were born the september before, but it shows more in the wasy they behave that the way they have learnt.

We have had 3 July-born children, and honestly I don't think it's a huge thing. I think it's more down to each individual child when they are ready and not simply a blanket "summer born children" thing. I hate that people get all frantic about it and some automatically assume it's a problem and will disadvantage their child.

I think part of the reason that some people get "all frantic about it" is because there's no option to hold a child back a year if that individual child is not ready.

That in itself is certainly making me feel more anxious about DS starting school.

DD2 is a July baby - she has had no problems what so ever and is in the top 2 or 3 in her class :)

My dd3 is 3.5 but doesn't start reception until next year...she starts nursery in Sept - she can't wait and is more than ready

The problem lies with an inflexible system that can't cope with children starting at different points with different needs- not necessarily because of their chronological age. Luckily dd's school offers some flexibility in reception-many of her friends didn't do full time until well after Easter. But once they hit the term after their fifth birthday, well actually their fifth birthday, all flexibility evaporated. So had dd, an October born, needed flexibility she would only have had it for a month or so.

But who decides what the needs are? Should the parents decide or an objective assessment by someone with relevant qualifications? Someone will be unhappy no matter what system is imposed.

I was a july kid. playtime terrified the shit out of me but now I terrify the shit out of playtime.

seriously-I am a massive overcompensator in many areas of my life. I do very well now but my confidence needs to catch up and I do wonder if it was because I was launched into school too soon. FUCK IT NEED TO GET OVER SELF!!! but AWARENESS IS POWER!!!!

To me reception didn't seem that much different to nursery TBH- apart from the uniforms! My January born ds struggled more with the transition to year one- it took him months to stop moaning about all the work! He went to full time nursery though, so the transition to school was very painless.

Don'teat-I think that's exactly it-the system can't be any more flexible without being woolly and unmanageable. Because if you started with the youngest children getting flexibility, then who draws the line about what youngest means? If it was July and August birthdays, you'd then have a debate with the end of June birthdays. So some children go to school a bit too early and some a bit later than the ideal. I just hope that my July baby is like her dad (a July baby!) and is ready and raring to go. As she's just over one now I can't picture it but three years is a long time!

I'm due next week so I'm looking at a late July/early Aug baby. My sister gave birth last September and her baby is 10 months old. He is already babbling, walking (with his hands held) and sitting on the potty. My baby hasn't left the womb. Its weird to think that if we were all in England then they'd be in the same year. Yes, of course there will be children with almost a year difference in school, to some extent its unavoidable... but..

In Scotland, where I am, my baby would be starting school at 5, sharing a class with pupils aged 4.5 - 5.5. In England, my baby would be starting reception at 4 with pupils aged 4-5. So its not just that my baby would be the youngest, its also that they would be 4, rather than the 4.5 that is the youngest up here.

I think this just goes to show how ridiculous it is to group children by 'date of manufacture' when ability and maturity differ greatly. I think a more flexible system (including flexibility in the funded early years so its not just well off parents that can defer) of education would be better. Sir Ken Robinson's online TED talks mention this as part of the problem with the education system.

I have two summer boys, DS1 is mid August and always had an 'old head' on him, so I was not worried at all. He was absolutely fine and is now having a ball at uni. DS3 is end July and was just so much more immature, and I did worry it would all be too soon for him. He benefited from fantastic teaching in reception and yr 1 and so was also absolutely fine, the staff just knew exactly how to handle him. He is now in year 8 going into 9 and though he is still fairly immature and needs a firm hand, he is maturing all the time and is doing very well.

Also the above poster is right, it is unlikely your DS will be the youngest. I would not worry too much, you can always speak to his teacher and let him/her know you are concerned, I am sure they will be able to put your mind at rest.

Good luck.

The scottish system seems to work fine, it's much more flexible.

To people who dismiss those with concerns as "frantic", and with yet more anecdotes of DC doing well, the evidence doesn't support your view.

Which is not at all to say that all DC will fail, just that overall the cohort won't do as well, so some DC won't achieve their potential, and it is a disadvantage for many.

I have 2 ds. their birthdays are the 16th and 31st Aug. Ds2 will definately be the youngest when he starts. Ds1 starts in september. He's not the youngest but is the smallest. Still wearing age 18-24mth clothes! I'm not worried about his educational development, or how he'll settle at school. I'm worried because he's still my baby and I'm not ready to let go!!!

my ds is also 31st August and due to start reception soon. emotionally he is still a toddler but can read fluently and has amazing number skills. he's worried though and says it's because he won't be able to reach the urinal by himself (it's true!)

forgot to say DD is June 27th and we feel she has struggled to keep up with peers. she has caught up academically but is rather immature compared to others.

Ds2 is an end of June baby. He starts school in Sept, but his school offer half days if you prefer, length of time is negotiable. Ds2 is being assessed by a paed, oc, speech and language ect and both he paed and the oc have said his 'problems' could be immaturity related, so I am glad I have followed my own instincts and started him part time. It will also give us more time to follow up with his assessments and see how He adapts to school life, hopefully it will be he making of him and all my worries will evaporate.

I still think a childs 'success' is largely parent related. Generally, parents that bother have children that bother.

At 5, 6, 7 a childs capacity to suck information in is phenomenal. It doesnt take very long to catch up.

If people are going to say "my child is disadvantaged by being a summer baby", how do you explain immigrant children who come here in their teens, manage to learn a language from scratch and clean the board in 18 months with a string of A* GCSEs? Surely they are disadvantaged by 10 years or more.