Summer born babies - am I wrong?

[Sunflowermuma]

Hi all, I'm probably BU particularly as my friends plans don't actually have any impact on me but

I have 2DD D1 is 3 and May Born. DD2 is 6m July Born

My friend has 3 kids. DS aged 7Sept, DD 3Aug and DS 5mAug

Our two daughters are both due to start school in September at different schools, my friend told me this week how she is in contact with the school to have her daughter start Sept 2020 instead as she's summer born. I asked why as her daughter is already in nursery 5 days, has no health issues and certainly isn't behind on development. Her reasoning? She just doesn't want a child to be youngest in the year.

Her son is very bright and doing really well at school and she puts that down to his sept birthday.

I queried her and said someone has to be the youngest and surely if she doesn't have any developmental issues the school will just say no. She replied saying that she'll make something up as she'll do what she can to get her DD ahead. Again this made no sense to me as surely having another year at nursery won't be good for her and she may get picked on once the other kids realise? She got a bit snappy with me and told me to mind my own so I now feel bad for questioning her, I was polite and tbh just trying to understand her thinking

Do people really do this? I understand delaying for developmental reasons but just to make your child the oldest instead of youngest?

Yes I was thinking that. What happens when March born children are the youngest by 16 or 17 months? That does actually seem very unfair.

The March children will only be younger by 12 months, it's the August born children who don't defer who could be younger by 16 months.

Oh yes, sorry! So, in that case, it would make sense for all born between April and August to defer so that the age gap disadvantage remains at 12 months and keep the March borns the youngest in the year. Surely it would be madness to allow your August born to be 16/17 months younger than the oldest in the class. The differences in maturity at the age would be vast surely?

I hate this. My youngest DC is mid August so she is the youngest in her class and it has seriously never once held her back. They don’t do ‘top of the class’ anymore but she’s always been in the top sets for everything, usually always gets top marks on tests etc. It has never deterred her, you couldn’t tell her apart from a child in her class that is eleven months older.

Some people purposely won’t conceive around the time that would give a June/July/August due date and I think they’re bonkers. I conversely have a March born and whilst he is still bright, he’s never excelled quite as much as DD has academically thus proving birth month proves fuck all.

Bonkers! My late August sister never got less than an A for an exam and ended up with a first in her degree. Once they are beyond reception can’t see a few months makes much of a difference really

Arethereanyleftatall

Have a look at SAT results by month. Deferred summerborns do not suddenly leapfrog children younger than them, they just keep up better with their peers.

It's not more unfair at all - it's just levelling the pkaying field.

It’s a fact that in Finland and Germany where the start age is older that the summer born effect is mitigated. So being the youngest then in March won’t be of any consequence and everyone has a fair advantage.

MrsSwift

It never did me any harm either but the statistics are fact.

Of course there will be exceptions which is why it is an option not a blanket policy but if you google The Summerborn Effect you will see that ON AVERAGE summerborns remain behind their peers right up to 18 yrs. The gap narrows but never disappears.

Saying it never did me / someone else any harm is ignoring the facts. I spent mamy car journeys as a baby sat on someone's lap. Never did me any harm. Doesn't mean i think car seats for babies are "bonkers"

Isn't it just moving the problem to Spring born children though? Or is the hope that not all will defer?

Looking around me I think it’s something twitchy parents massively over think. It is what it is. Trying to change an established system to marginally benefit your own child seems rather off to me. Oh and I have a July dd never occurred to me to hand wring and try to mess about changing school years.

outlined you do realise your anecdata 'proves' nothing? Statistically, across the country, summer borns (especially boys) are disadvantaged. If you can't see why that might be because your children are fine, then I would question your thinking skills tbh.

'outpinked'

I’m not in the U.K. but where I am this is becoming increasingly common, everyone used to start school at 4 and gradually it’s become that most summer born children will wait and start at 5. DD1 is August born so we won’t send her until she’s 5. The law here is they have to be enrolled in school by age 6, up to the parents when they want to send them. It’s a good system I think - some kids are ready, some aren’t, only the family will know what’s right for their child. I think your friend is right OP.

Mrs swift

We're not trying to change the system. The government is.
I am not a twitchy parent, i am trying to do what I believe is the right thing for my child.
It is not giving anyone an advantage it merely takes their disadvantage away.
It never occurred to my parents either because it wasn't an option then. It is now.
Check the facts and you will see it doss male a difference way beyond reception until they leave school.

Theressomethingaboutdairy
It doesn't shift the problem to anyone else nor do summerborns suddenly become top of the class. In countries where ALL children start at 6 or 7 there is almost no advantage or disadvantage based on when you are born

Dairy - that's I think the best idea.
All children born April to August have to delay by one year.
School still starts in September.
Then;

1. no one is starting school when they've just turned 4 the day before. Everybody will be at least 4 years and 5 months.
2. No one can potentially be 17 months older than another child in their year (as could happen if some delay and some don't), the maximum they can be is 12 months.

The only downside to this is for the children who are chomping at the bit to go to school as soon as they're 4, and could have to wait 5 months. There's no system that can be fair for everyone.

Angela - you're not levelling the playing field at all, you're simply moving the potential one year younger child born on 31 aug, to the child born in 31 March.

www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/education/2018/nov/21/summer-born-pupils-disadvantaged-throughout-primary-school-study

In Scotland our cut off dates are March to Feb. Children born in Jan/Feb can have an extra year in nursery. My Dd has it and although at 4 she was bright, socially and emotionally she needed the time to mature. She transitioned to high school easily compared to the difficulty some friends who were a year younger and sat her exams at 16 instead of 15.

It can make a huge difference and I think it's a personal thing. Anyone who chooses to judge me for it needs to look at themselves as to why they feel the need to judge me. I did what was right for my child not theirs.

Angela - 'in countries where are all children start at 6 or 7, there's no disadvantage or advantage'

My sister is a teacher in Norway, so this is anecdotal, but she says it's actually pretty shit. What happens is they do assume this, that all the children are at the same level at 7 when they start. So, there's no TA to help those working at different levels, no differentiation in work set etc. At least the English system accepts there's huge variations and attempts to account for that.

Dh was summer born - went to a pretty shitty comp, gradually improved his grades as he moved through school, even did his bloody A levels a year early - when he was 16 and gained a place in Oxbridge (wisely took a year out at that point)! Dh's experience means fuck all when it comes to our view as to whether ds was ready to do the same, we knew he wasn't, nursery told us he wasn't but there was no flexibility for kids who just weren't ready - at that time they needed to have very severe problems. School was shit for him in the first few years, he wept every single day when he came home from school - all kids are different and the system should flex to support this.

Arethereanyleft
Not the case. Yes March children will then be the youngest in the year but academically they are not significantly behind September borns so it absokutely does level the playing field.

Please do look at the research. Yoy can choose to disbelieve it if you like but it's been proven time and again.

In Finland for example where birth month makes negligible difference to a academic attainment because all children start school later.

I would absolutely support a starting age of 6 for all children. It isn't an option.
Early years providers should be working to the individual needs of every child to stop them being bored. September children HAVE to wait until they are 5 to start school so nurseries and preschools should already be prepared to make sure the okdest children in nursery are not bored / dedperate for a more challenging environment

Angela - the studies you are linking are absolutely bleeding obvious and not what we're discussing. Of course the youngest children do worse.
The question is do they do worse because they're the youngest, or because they start too young?

Arethereanyleft

And yet their children statistically fo better than kids here ?

Angela. I officially give up, you're not getting it. Yes, March children are not significantly behind September borns with the current standard of not delaying, but they WILL be in the exact same position as current August borns if April borns delay in the future, won't they? You're comparing the current April's not the future April's. So, the comparison will be April 2018 to March 2019 birthdate, rather than September 2018 to August 2019 birth date. Not sep 18 to March 19.

The March borns won't be significantly behind the September borns but surely the new April will become the old September so the March born child will be 12 months younger than the April born or am I missing something?

My DD was born at the end of August and it has never held her back, she’s bright and hard working.

In secondary school there was a mid August girl in our year who should have been in the year above. I found it odd when I found out and she was clearly embarrassed as she kept her birthday a secret for ages.

My son is Yr 8 and in an out of year group placement. There is - in fact - one older child in his year. Both children were originally in private schools. There's no issue starting your child off in an out of year placement in many private schools. My DS wasn't the oldest in year at his first school either, in fact.

In order to join the state system in the same year group we had to set out a case. This wasn't too problematic as DS was 12 weeks prem, had always been in an out of year placement, was about to have hip corrective procedure and has some dyspraxic traits. We switched in Yr 5 and he was the oldest in that setting. It wasn't a problem.

The other child in my son's secondary had more trouble getting permission as they are a lot more physically able and they went to appeal with a dyslexia expert in tow.

I've never had any doubt it was the right thing for DS. I should say he is more than a little intellectually able and could read very early. However, he had very poor motor skills until he'd had a lot of occupational therapy and - although now above average height - was still wearing age 2 clothes when he was 5. People generally don't tease, esp since he's rarely actually been the youngest and has a very late Aug birthday.