WIBU to ask school if they take summer birthdays into account?

[OceanPlay]

And I mean just to enquire, not complain. I have a daughter in year 7, her birthday is 29 August. She does pretty well at school and left primary with 3 level 5s. Two of her friends achieved a level 6, they both have September birthdays.

Last month the more able children from her year were invited on a science trip, my daughter wasn't included even though she is working at the same level as some who did go. However, I am aware that they have to draw the line somewhere and if they are just pipping her then so be it.

I am tempted to ask the school if they ever look at the data for those invited on the trips for more able children, is there a notable difference between the number of autumn born and the summer born? I realise that there will be a lot of older children who struggle and summer born who fly but I'm taking generally.

I suppose what I'm getting at, is my daughter just going to miss out on these opportunities through her school life just because she is young? If she had been born three days later, she wouldn't have even done her SATS yet?

I remember when two year 8 classes, one higher and one lower set, there being significantly more summer birthdays in the lower set. I only discovered this when doing a handling data topic using birthdays as I did not know their dates of birth. Subject teachers didn't usually know dates of birth.

She left primary with 3 level 5's. Two of her friends achieved a level 6, they both have September birthdays
Do you seriously imagine this was cause and effect?? . Apart from the sheer idiocy of your starting premise; the other girls are working at a higher level than her, whether it's directly caused by their birth month or not, so what's your argument?

I did some stats on a particular year group's data in a school I worked in. Looking at birth dates was one of my criteria, and for that particular year, there was no evidence of summer borns doing better or worse at GCSE. It made me feel better about my two summer borns......they are currently at primary and one is well ahead in her year, the other is average. Don't be worried, there are always exceptions to studies.

FWIW, when doing G and T registers/ trips, we do not look at birth dates. All children are treated equally regardless of age.

IMO anything "extra" offered to G&T is money wrongly directed. If you're G&T you already have loads of advantages, simply by accident of birth. Why do you need more?

Flogging To select 'more able' schools should select on ability not attainment. If from reception onwards the higher attaining are always selected for special activities to inspire them more, then the advantage of being autumn born will tend to roll on to the higher years.

Yes, anecdote does not make statistical data, but there is data, see report I posted to upthread.

I was a summer born child and never missed out on things for able children. I wasn't 'able' in every area of education but I WAS good at English and performing arts and the school recognised this accordingly.

I don't think it would of gone downhill from 10 years ago in this sense and I think possibly you could be looking into things too much.

I don't have an argument, certaily not about the ability of her friends. I was simply trying to paint a picture of where she is academically. My point is that had she been born a few days later she would be a lot more mature within her year group and yes, I'm sure that would mean her grades would be higher. She does very well at school and makes good progress, that isn't my issue. My question was is she going to miss out on opportunities throughout school when fundamentally she is just as capable.

I totally accept there has to be a cut off but I would like like age to be taken into consideration when children are being assessed. And there is an awful lot of assessment.

IMO anything "extra" offered to G&T is money wrongly directed. If you're G&T you already have loads of advantages, simply by accident of birth. Why do you need more?
Because schools have to show they are doing the best for all children, so 'stretching the brightest' has been important for quite some time now.

My DD was born on 26th August and it did not hold her back in any way. A friend of hers was born 1st September (less than a week after DD) and waiting the extra year to start school was probably more detrimental to her. It is all down to the individual child IMO. DD was very mature for her age. DS1 (born end of June) was a lot less mature but he came into his own at A level and beyond. DS2 (December born) has done less well academically than either of the others. So many variables and date of birth is just one of them.

Word - that's comforting to hear. All the best to your twins future

I'm not blaming the schools Larry, but the system.

I'd love it if it really did produce schools that do the best for everyone, but I have two quiet, well behaved, average children who never cause anyone any bother and never get noticed for anything extra by anyone.

I have been teaching for over 20 years and teachers are well aware of the factors (and there are many) which can influence a child's progress (and there are those children who defy the odds and go against all expectations - positively or not). Birthdays are part of the picture, and for 'serious' things are taken into account - e.g. reading age assessments, SATs etc, are all adjusted according to date of birth.

However, as a population, younger children do slightly less well than older children, although the effect is not too major. (other factors, like home background, are far greater). It does level off somewhere around GCSE time.

I doubt if teachers remember to check these things for every decision they make, though.

I now live in the US, and any child born between August and mid November has a flexible start to school - they can go to Kindergarten as soon as they are 5, or hang on for a year and start later. It causes no financial hardship to the state at all - every child does the same number of years in education, they just graduate at slightly different ages. Parents get to make the decision, and how ready their child is at age 5 is a big influence on the decision. I'm sure other families are affected by the cost of childcare and how much family help they have, but it works very well and can really benefit some kids. Not sure how they feel about it if they turn 18 and then have another year of high school before going to college, though.

Nurse Larry Unfortunately anecdote does not equal data.

From the government research report I lined to earlier:

To put this in context, 10,000 summer-born children per year fail to achieve this standard (5A*-C) at GCSE, which influences their chances of progressing to A-levels and beyond, purely because they are the youngest pupils sitting the GCSE examinations due to the timing of their birth and the school year

I speak as a parent of a low performing autumn born, and an average performing summer born. I have no axe to grind. But the research is pretty clear, summer born children on average as a group as a whole are disadvantaged.

You can't help genetics, or parental wealth. But the system is set up against summer borns. Institutional, unintended, bias.

My problem with this would be that some children are being given a treat for having a higher ability than others.

Giving a treat to those who have worked the hardest over the year - absolutely fine. But to single out only those who have achieved a Level 6 - no.

What about the child who has tried his or her very best throughout the year & managed a Level 3 or 4? Where is their motivation to bother if they know they have no hope of the treat?

Regardless of dates of birth, I think rewards should be for effort not stupid SATS levels.

Santa's - I agree with that. Rewards should be about effort, not attainment.

"Rewards should be about effort, not attainment."

I agree that feel right, especially when talking about children, but it's not how the world works. Doesn't matter how hard I try at work, if I don't achieve well, I'm not going to be paid well.

G&t is not pointless. It rewards all the smart children who are ignored the rest of the year. All the money and attention goes on trying to bring the lower achievers up to average. I really don't think anyone should begrudge the other children have one day out a year.

Our rewards trips are varied, one being the highest attainers, one the biggest movers mid year and the final ones the greatest progress across the year. Raises a few eyebrows but mean those trying hard but not the most academic can still be rewarded.

All the more reason to be motivating all children to achieve their very best then Classic?

Not being academically gifted does not mean you won't achieve well in life. Not bothering to try because you don't see the point, generally does.

I should have been a september baby but was late and arrived in October. My sister should have been a september baby but was early and arrived on 28th August. She was more tired than me starting school but that was the only discernible difference.

She was more tired than me starting school but that was the only discernible difference.

You are different people. The point is how much better off would your sister have been ahead she been born in September and how much worse off would you have been had you been born in August.

Ahead = had

All the money and attention goes on trying to bring the lower achievers up to average.

The bastards. Using the resources where they are needed the most.

The fact that a child has been recognised as G&T and is achieving excellent results hardly indicates that they are missing out on either money or attention does it?

Our rewards trips are varied, one being the highest attainers, one the biggest movers mid year and the final ones the greatest progress across the year. Raises a few eyebrows but mean those trying hard but not the most academic can still be rewarded.

What about those that try really really hard but make little progress?

The bastards. Using the resources where they are needed the most.

The fact that a child has been recognised as G&T and is achieving excellent results hardly indicates that they are missing out on either money or attention does it?

All children should receive the resources required to help them reach their full potential, be that average or gifted. Those who have a high level of natural talent should not be left to bimble along, achieving less than they are capable of.

Impossible to say, Soupdragon. But given we had a teacher for a mother and a uni lecturer for a father any differences may well have been ironed out. I think parental input may make a big difference too.