Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

To get annoyed at 'summer baby' used at school

176 replies

hufflebottom · 09/02/2015 13:12

That is it.

Last time I looked children developed at their own pace and whether or not they were the youngest in the class wasn't really a factor.

I'm an August baby, I was the youngest in my school when I was in reception. But my reading/ writing was above some of my classmates who were older.

My brother on the other hand, again an August baby (August is an expensive month for us. My parents must have got really bored in the winter) is the complete opposite.

My dd (5) is on par for doing well she's a March baby. My friends kid is a week older and is just below Dd's reading level.

When did the whole children learn at their own pace get taken over by the 'my child is a summer baby so will struggle'

Am prepared for flaming

OP posts:
coppertop · 09/02/2015 13:15

I don't think people use it as an assumption that their child will struggle. It's used more as a possible reason for why a particular child might be struggling.

afreshstartplease · 09/02/2015 13:16

My summer baby is excelling!

Completely depends on the child

SaucyJack · 09/02/2015 13:20

All else being equal, I don't think it's particularly controversial to suggest that an August baby may well be behind the oldest children in the class in terms of development.

Sept. babies will have had almost a whole extra year of growth and learning. It's a big difference when you're only four.

RiojaHaze · 09/02/2015 13:20

DH claims that the reason he didn't do well at school is because he is a summer baby. Funny though how it didn't kick in for him until he hit secondary school and at the same time as he started doing other naughty things!

Our middle DS is a summer baby; eldest is a September born. They are both academically smart and at the top of their classes.

YouMeddlingKids · 09/02/2015 13:20

Last time I looked there was clear evidence that summer-born children are more likely to struggle throughout school. It makes sense when you compare across a class, that the children who are 4.11 when they start reception are (on average) ahead of those who have just had their 4th birthday!

Why does it matter to you? It matters to me because I feel guilty that my summer born DS would have found it much, much easier to settle into school if he was 11 months older Sad

MuddhaOfSuburbia · 09/02/2015 13:20

Summer baby is a definite disadvantage ime and teachers do need to take it into consideration

Of course there are exceptions. But if you consider that the eldest children in the class are nearly a whole year older than the youngest, there's bound to be a difference in most cases

ReallyTired · 09/02/2015 13:21

Statistically a child's birthday makes a big impact in the early years. Putting children in "ablity groups" early on limited the process of some summer born children.

There is no evidence that August born children have a lower IQ. However younger children sometimes struggle with physical skills compared with children who are almost a year older.

In the past maturity of the child's body was not taken into account. I think it's impossible to argue that the age of a child in reception is not a factor. Both my children changed a lot while they were four years old. The is a big difference between a newly four year and a child who is nearly five.

Messygirl · 09/02/2015 13:22

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

flora717 · 09/02/2015 13:22

My Summer baby is working at the year above where she should be in all but one area. Then I know in my support group i take for reading, out of 7: 2 are August, 1 July, 2 in June. Then 1 in Jan and 1 in March.
The group are ones who need a bit more time, not necessarily SEN, just the school getting them to meet targets. Based on that I'd say that 'summer' could be a factor, possibly. But it's not an automatic.

MyIronLung · 09/02/2015 13:23

My (aug) summer baby is due to start reception in September. He's thriving already (reading, writing, simple maths) but I'm very worried about him starting school.
He's so little compared to most of his pre school class and emotionally he seems younger.
Academically I don't think there will be many problems, emotionally may be a completely different thing.

Lunastarfish · 09/02/2015 13:24

I ignore that whole thing. I'm an august baby, siblings are autumn babies. I have a degree, they don't (I did much better in GCSE's too). I'm having a summer baby now so no sweat!

merrymouse · 09/02/2015 13:24

It's relevant if you are comparing one child with another (so you would expect a child to be more mature at 5 than 4) and if a school has difficulty providing an environment that differentiates the school experience for children depending on their maturity.

Number3cometome · 09/02/2015 13:25

There is evidence to suggest summer babies don't do as well at school.

Although this doesn't mean they can't do well at school.

My June baby is amazing, she has been assessed as having a reading age of 12, she is 7. She sits in older classes for maths and literacy.

DS is a January baby, equally as bright.

DC3 is due in July, OH is a teacher, he did make a bit of a fuss (wanted a September baby) but judging by the other two I don't think he has much to worry about!

TwoOddSocks · 09/02/2015 13:26

Obviously there's a natural variation but an entire year is an enormous amount of time for a four year old so of course a summer baby is likely (although not guaranteed) to be behind a baby born in October (just like you'd expect a three year old to be more advanced than a 2.5 year old). If a kid is slightly behind but they're the youngest in the class it would be less of a cause for concern than if they're the oldest.

Statistically there's also a big advantage to being the oldest rather than the youngest so it certainly isn't irrelevant. You can't judge anything based on anecdotal evidence.

Lagoonablue · 09/02/2015 13:28

Why are you annoyed? Yes all children are different but in Primary school especially it can be significant.

My DS was born in August, some of the children in his reception class were born the September before. In Terms of age they almost one year older which is significant when you are 4! It impacts on his maturity and understanding more than anything in compared to the older kids.

Probably less of an issue as they get older but as has been pointed out there is a lot of research about the disadvantages of summer born children.

mewkins · 09/02/2015 13:30

My summer baby is in reception and learning lots but I think she finds the social politics of school a bit bemusing! Sone of the others are 11 months older than her and they are worlds apart. She seems to have gravitated towards other younger ones.

I remember at school two of my best friends were summer babies and were super clever. They were top of the class for everything.

cleoteacher · 09/02/2015 13:31

I think a summer born child can often but not always make a big difference. I am a teacher and have seen it myself. Some children are only just 4 when they start school and some are nearly 5. That's an extra year nearly in the world, learning and probably for the vast majority an extra year in pre-school/nursery. I think this makes a huge difference to their maturity and development.

Mrsjayy · 09/02/2015 13:31

In Scotland it is the reverse ours are winter babies I had for 2 years o well she is a winter baby she will catch up where in fact she had a hidden disability I know it is just a phrase but it isn't useful or helpful if there is a cut off date for school then children should be treted as Individuals not the time of year they were born

Notmymuse · 09/02/2015 13:31

Statistically summer babies are more likely to struggle. It's not a given but statistically they do. It apparently evens out around year 4.

A just four year old starting reception may also have had two terms less at nursery than a child who is nearly five. I think it's more maturity that can be an issue than academic ability but then maturity can impact on achievement. If the child finds school stressful or isn't ready to be there full time it can impact the achievement of that child.

Most of the children in my 'catch up' groups are summer borns. Mainly August birthdays actually.

CelticPromise · 09/02/2015 13:31

Well duh, of course it is a factor. It's not necessarily decisive, and all kids are different.

FragileBrittleStar · 09/02/2015 13:32

It annoys me as its used as an excuse. DS is (early) summer born and if I express concern at what he is doing I get told well he is a summer child - which seems to be used to stifle any questions. As a summer child myself (august here) I don't remember the same excuses being used.

GnomeDePlume · 09/02/2015 13:35

We have the experience of DD1 being youngest in her year then moving back to the UK and becoming the oldest in her year.

When youngest she was consistently reported as being a bit slow, a bit immature etc etc. When the oldest in her year she was suddenly quicker, mature etc etc.

GooseyLoosey · 09/02/2015 13:36

As said below, there is clear evidence that on average, summer born children do not perform as well as older children.

Dd (10) recently did a school entrance exam and, so well understood was the phenomenon, that they applied a multiplier to scores to adjust for when in the year your birthday was.

Of course some summer babies will excel, but statisically, they are more likely to have lower exam results.

Not even sure what the point of this discussion is.

TwoOddSocks · 09/02/2015 13:36

Aaaaaaaa a tangent all this anecdotal stuff drives me mad. E.g. My summer baby is a genius and my Autumn baby is much slower. Yes of course that can happen but it doesn't prove or show anything useful. It's anecdotal statistically a summer baby is going to start school behind an autumn baby and do bit worse overall. Clearly this isn't the only factor if the summer baby is naturally more academic they'll probably outperform a less academic autumn baby that doesn't mean they aren't behind where they'd be if they'd started school when they were older.

BauerTime · 09/02/2015 13:40

I think I've read on a similar thread that it all equals out by around 7yo but surely a just 4 year old is almost certainly not going to be at the same level of an almost 5 year old if all other things are the same?

Of course not all other things will be the same for every child. all children develop at a different rate and have different temperaments, some children have more opportunities in their early years than others and this has an effect on the level they are at when they start school. I don't see why you can't accept that being almost a year younger than others won't also have an impact.

DS is 18m at the moment and so I have no experience of this yet but he is an August baby and I am mindful of the fact he will go to school very young. He currently attends nursery 2 days per week while I work and I do think that will be very valuable in terms of his development and how he thrives at school and I'm so glad that he is able to have that experience. I can see how a child that does not do the same might not develop at the same rate and if reception was their first experience of this type of setting then they might struggle in comparison, even if they were a September baby.

Just to clarify I'm not saying children who don't go to nursery are deprived or going to do badly at school, I'm just trying to give an example of how different experiences may impact just as age does.