To get annoyed at 'summer baby' used at school

[hufflebottom]

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

A large number of people appear to have missed the basic statistics course and therefore don't understand that their individual experience does not invalidate population wide data.

Of course a younger child, is, generally, going to be developmentally behind an older child.
Yabu.

Apologies, I was reading the odds ratios (OR). So yes the differences are big at age 4 (OR 2.6) and then decreases to "nearly none" at age 16 (OR 1.3).

But having read further, the nearly no difference still equates to 8 percentage points difference in GCSEs of maths or English. My bad!

It is entirely rubbish to be the last one to do things aswell. Lasts one to have your birthday, last one to see a '12 movie', last one to learn to drive, go to the pub etc.

There is also something about 'being the eldest' that kids seem to get absolutely obsessed with and use it as their way to assert themselves. I think this is where the bullying comes from.

I remember a girl from my school who was the eldest and I swear she would have on her tombstone 'I was the eldest in my class'. It absolutely defined her totally.

I think it manifests in many ways and it's very bad luck for those it affects.

I wasn't the youngest in my year, but I was the smallest. It is a similar thing tbh on the social side, but I think to be the youngest is the worse, plus they are usually smaller too.

I think it forces kids to be someone they are not to give themselves something that isn't being the youngest, ie, they will be the funniest or the silliest. Or they shrink into the background even more.

Even more so than academic performance, the impact on physical confidence and social confidence of the youngest children seems enourmous. I know my own dd reallly struggles with this. As she was so much smaller and physically less able she struggled to keep up with her older classmates in playtimes and PE, this in turn affects how she is treated socially and how she views herself socially. Even though the differences in physicality are less now she is older, the impact on her esteem and her view of herself remains. She still thinks she is weaker and slower than her friends and therefore her own expectations of herself are limited. She expects to be last even though she is capable of more..

My daughter started school nursery in September 6 weeks off her 4th birthday. The same day my friend's little boy who had turned 3 4 days earlier started. At parents' evening just before half term the teacher commented that DD was "very independent". My friend was practically berated for her child not being very independent - couldn't put his own coat on, needed more help toileting, less able with a knife and fork than other children etc. Every week my friend would be given tasks to try and get him to do on his own, and it really upset them both. 4 days after DD's 3rd birthday she needed help with all of those things too, and I was very glad I hadn't sent her as soon as she was entitled to a place (on her 3rd birthday at some schools). Struck me as grossly unfair of the teacher.

All these bright summer born children would appear even brighter compared to their peers if they had been born a little later into September and a different school year.

It's not 'summer babies don't do well' it's summer babies may not reach all the end of year 'targets' because they are almost a year younger than the sept born children.

As a teacher I don't look at 'summer born' children and assume they will work at a lower level than other children. However, if a child is struggling I may look at their birthday and see if they are summer born as a possible explanation.

A years development makes a big difference at 4,5 and 6.

It doesn't mean that your summer born children will not achieve

Sorry stats prove it. I have researched and looked and looked again. Statistically Sept & Oct birthdays are more likely to be in top sets. This also validates summer bday experience as not being good enough & sets up a belief of not being clever and thus it goes on.
Rather than your anecdote read the research.

I think it can make a huge difference all the way through School. Not just intellectually, but emotionally and physically. My DC is August Birthday, is doing really well academically, but it takes a lot out of him emotionally, the first 2-3 years at school he was absolutely knackered, Come home a practically fall asleep, weekends were just spent with him catching up with himself. Tantrums I think lasted longer in years due to overtireness. To Me he was sStill a 3 year old when he started school. Just because he had turn 4 a few days earlier didn't mean was magically mature.
A year in age is a big difference, he works next to children who were probably walking when he was newborn. A extra year of learning, growing and experiences is vast.

Both my DDs are summer born, and I'm a teacher, so it's something I've given a lot of thought to.

DD1 is in Y2. She is doing well, we certainly have no concerns about her. But if she'd been born 3 weeks later, she'd be in Y1- and instead of being 'average/slightly above' she'd be seen as 'well above average'. She would probably be more confident- being one of the youngest and smallest does have an impact. And we probably wouldn't have had the comments from teachers about her being a bit easily distracted and needing to focus more.

It definitely does make a difference, I think it's ridiculous to think that it wouldn't.

Of course, someone always has to be the youngest though- all we can do is to give as much support and encouragement as possible, and try to avoid making direct comparisons between children of different ages.

What are the actual solutions to this problem ? Any ideas anyone ? How do you take away the effect of being the youngest, whilst still being the youngest?? I would like a list of these to take to my Dc's class teacher...

My ds is almost a whole year younger than some of the kids in his class. Although he doesn't look it, because, as a family, we're all tall.

However, I did worry about him when he started school as he seemed to be miles behind some of the kids. For example, when they were drawing a face, it looked like an actual face whereas his was just scribble. It wasn't until Y2 that he seemed to get into his stride and started to overtake a lot of the other kids and is now doing really well.

I still think he would have probably done better if he'd been in the year below. Emotionally, more than anything else as I think he may not be as mature as some the older ones in some areas.

My youngest son has a late August birthday.
We also had an additional concern in that he started his schooling in the US.
So, he was expected to go from second grade in the February.... And on to year five by September that year...he would have skipped two school years!
I had an extremely understanding head teacher who agreed we should retain him an extra year in primary school.
There needs to be the option of holding summer babies back till the following year. Not making them skip reception, but letting them join at five.

Whoopidoo for you! Honestly, it isn't hard to understand: your individual experience does not invalidate rock solid statistics indicating that summer born children are at a disadvantage throughout their education. Just like your auntie Mavis who lived to 99 on a diet of fags, gin and fried Mars bars does not mean that cigarettes don't cause cancer! The op just makes you sound incredibly gnorant.

Ignorant, even!

If you don't believe it OP, then why are school entrance exams adjusted for age?

My summer borns have really struggled (end of July and end of August) where was my winter born has never had any problems!

I think it makes a huge difference my dd's started school basically days after their 4th birthdays they are still only 4 when they finish reception and only just 5 by days when they start year 1!

My 4th dd is sept born she will start school a week before her 5th birthday

A year makes a huge differance at this age

It's statistical not individual.

MY DN was born on 30th August. In her county school starts back the last week of August so she was still technically still 3 years old the day she started school. She was in a class with some children who were just a few days off their 5th birthday. A full years different at that age is massive!

She's now in year 3 and doing well, their birthdays really don't matter any more as the gap closes over time. But of course it mattered in reception, how could it not?

I believe you can hold them back a year (which in reality is only a few weeks for an August baby).

Could make all the difference to a child like MrsKCastle.

A friend was really worried about it (August born child). Hers started reception in September while our October babies have gone into the nursery class.

I was an October baby, so one of the eldest in the year. My sister should have been a September birthday, but was born 2 weeks early at the very end of August. Academically you couldn't put a cigarette paper between us, but mum says she was knackered after school for a number of years more than I was.

I think you have to base it on each child.

DD was due mid September. I was desperate for her not to come in August, I had twinges on the 30th and remember thinking 'noooooo'. She ended up a week late, thank goodness.

As a summer baby, I do think that it makes a difference. That extra year is very noticeable when they are young, IMO.

I've never heard of this in my life, is it a regional thing? I'm a teacher, in Scotland, and have no idea what this is apart from a baby born in summer clearly

Is the cut off for "starting school" age elsewhere summer?

You can hold them back here, but they miss reception under the present arrangement.
Children don't have to start school until the term they turn five. Eliminating reception and starting school in year one.
I think back in the 70s 80s (maybe later) they staggered entry, some starting at Easter.
Only getting two terms, but at least not forced in as babies (some of them)