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?

I’m confused by your post - everyone knows that statistically, summer born children are disadvantaged. The DOE themselves have published information on this which is readily available on Google. Of COURSE there will be exceptions of summer born children doing well and autumn born children doing badly, but that’s statistics isn’t it? It doesn’t change the general trend. Personally, I planned to have Autumn born children for this very reason (and was lucky I could) but otherwise I would definitely look into deferring entry. People are different though I guess?

Thanks @arethereanyleftatall. My mum is summer born and has struggled her whole life with self esteem. When I found out I was expecting a surprise, post vasectomy August baby, it was the first thing she mentioned!!

That however, is just one story and you're right, my child could be very different. I'm being influenced by an experience of education 60 years ago and I think reception and year 1 are probably a lot more nurturing now. (I hope so!)

We hope to send said DC to a secondary school in a different LA so I'll have to speak to them too. There's a lot to consider before making a decision.

How does it favour better off parents? I am very confused. You continue to get 30 hours funding for the extra year in nursery.

True some parents don't know about it yet, some do and don't want to delay their child. I fail to see how money comes into this.

And as for "we can't know, it's not been around long enough." It started 4 years ago. There is plenty of evidence from other countries that starting children later evens the playing field . "Where will it end?!" Hopefully with every child starting school later but that will take some time.

As for Secondaries the law (not repated specifically to summerborns) says yo move a child out of cohort (make them skip a year) would only be possible if it is in the best interests of the child. How could it be?

Arethereanyleft
Do yoy know how far behind a September child March children are?

I'm disappointed in this thread. Usually by now at least one idiot has piped up with the "I'm born in August and have a first class degree from Oxford" to which I reply "clearly not in statistics".

everyone on this thread is being far too reasonable :)

I'm not sure how you can say that it will hopefully end with every child starting school later. My 3 dc that have started school already were more than ready to start school. I think that any longer at nursery/home could have been really detrimental. Children held back unnecessarily as parents want to gain an advantage (and there will be many of these) may find that it backfires.

We deferred two of our kids, but that’s very normal locally (and we’re in Scotland). We weren’t entitled to the nursery hours because we’d chosen to defer, but because there was spaces in the nursery after everyone else’s hours were allocated we still got full time. We didn’t use them all though as a full day was too much for DS. Did use it in his last term though to build his stamina a little before FT education.

Not read the full thread but in Scotland the cut off date for starting Primary 1 is 28th Feb so the youngest a child starts school in the August is 4 and a half. All parents with children born in Jan or Feb have the opportunity (on discussion with school etc) to defer for a year and the child receives another year of free pre-school hours.

I don't understand the reasoning behind the English system at all. My summer born DS would not have been at all ready for school at just turned 4.

And even then, if your child isn’t 5 by September 1st then legally you don’t have to put them to school (Scotland ). It would be very unusual for a child with a January or February Birthday not to defer (locally), the vast majority of Dec children are deferred, some November birthday children and I know two September kids who have deferred. 95% of those deferrals didn’t have additional needs etc, it was just that their parents thought they’d cope better.

Haven't rft... I considered deferring my summer born but didn't- I really really wish I had, academically he's fine but socially and emotionally he is younger than them and interested in different things, it's something he struggles with

My son was only just four when he started. Youngest in year etc. No problems whatsoever. Now working in Paris after great school and uni results.

I am an Sept baby. I moved down south from wales in my last year of school. But my year 10 didn’t count in England so I had to repeat. And the youngest one in my year was smarter then me! I think it’s selfish that she is holding her back just because she doesn’t want her to be youngest. Your intelligence isn’t down to when you were born. Both my sons are summer babies (July and August) definitely won’t be holding them back unless it benefits them. It only benefits for friend. She is an idiot.

We have a staggering amount of children labelled as having behaviour issues in this country as well as an ever growing issue of mental health problems with children. Studies are beginning to show a lot of this is children being forced into formal education too young & not enough learning through play. The social skills & learning through play plays such an important part up until age 7 yet our education system is bringing the formal education in younger & younger & children are expected to hit targets & pass certain levels earlier & earlier. Some children undoubtedly thrive & meet all these targets but others don’t so having the choice for your child to start when they are able to meet these demands is a good thing. In an ideal world the teachers & TAs would have all the time & resources to cater to each individual child’s needs but sadly these days they don’t & lots of children are suffering because of it. Being labelled as being behind, fidgety, not concentrating enough, easily distracted etc are all age appropriate for 4-5 year olds but in the school environment they aren’t considered acceptable. These things have a long term impact on a child’s educational life so I don’t feel it’s wrong to want a better start for your child if you see fit & have the choice.

I think I would think twice about moving a child back a year. DS2 is 23rd August and he is fine. If you want them to be an alpha sporty type then they are fighting against a year older but it's not that bad! He is very bright and has never struggled. Although I would prefer to support than put them back a year in school.

Whatever choices you make the kids will moan in the end anyway! You have to just say you did your best and leave it at that!

Im September born, so was one of the oldest in my year - I turned 5 a a week or so after starting school. I think there’s a big developmental difference between the average just-turned-5-year-old and a just-turned-4-year-old.

Same here. I was born 2nd September so was the oldest in my year at both primary and secondary school.

I used to think how unfair it was that I’d missed out on the year above by 2 days But that would've put me in the same situation as what we are currently referring to as I’d be an entire year behind my schoolmates.

I’d agree, if you have a child who’s almost a whole year older than another in the same year at school, it stands to reason the older child has had more time to develop than the younger child and is therefore at an unfair advantage.

Not sure delaying their start in school for another year would rectify this though?

Some kids need it. My friends kid is summer born and she kept him back, he is also quite annoying so there may be other issues, he wouldn't have done well being the littlest- he's a ham that loves to amuse and be silly. His elder brother an October born is sweetness and light....

I think she's made a sensible choice. Having had DD1 with August birthday and DD2 with September birthday, the difference in their whole experience of school has been remarkable. No developmental delays either in DD1, but actually when at school with others she always hated being the youngest, she was always the last to have a birthday in the year and was treated differently by her friends and there was a subtle difference in maturity, DD2 however found it much easier being the oldest in the year - great for everything including sports. It really can make a difference.

In the 80s there were several intakes during the year and starting school was down to your birthday. As a May baby I started after Easter, so a month before turning 5. I wish the education authority would offer this again. Maybe there needs to be more flexibility to suit the child’s needs rather than one rule suits all. Each child is different academically and emotionally. Starting school at 4 seems cruel and despite reception still bring a play environment the day is long and personally I’d rather have my children home with me being nurtured and rather than being in the education system so young.

It depends on the child and parent.

My son was born 1st September, if he had been born 2 hours earlier (31st August) then he would now be in reception, however he’s starting next September because of his birthdate meaning he’s the oldest in his class. He’s very intelligent and passing all his expectations BUT I know 100% that I’m glad he didn’t start reception because he wouldn’t be ready, school half a day tires him out enough.

The most academically happy and successful children don’t touch formal learning until they are rising 7. Play and adventure based learning is demonstrably absolutely the best thing for all children until this age.

Being the youngest is a huge disadvantage, and there is hard data to show that the disadvantage persists right the way through secondary school. Holding them back a year is tricky, though, because many primary schools will insist on starting them in year 1 when they do start, and missing reception year will not be great for their confidence. Plus, if they are sporty, they will end up on different sports teams from the kids in their school year group. (Clubs will require proof of age and will not let a child "play down" a year under any circs.) So it's a tough one. My June-born son was ok academically, but being also small for his age his size was an issue in things like sports. I made a deliberate effort to produce his two younger siblings in the autumn!

I have a Sept born, he was 5 on the day he started reception, could already read fluently and write well. My next is July born, he was only just 4 when he started reception, not reading well and poor pencil control.

I would absolubtely have held him back a year If I could.

There wouldn't be teasing because an August born child held back would only be less than a month older than the eldest child in the class. However, if the same child were not held back then he would be more than 11months younger than the eldest in the class.

It is a huge disadvantage, the gap can close but many summer borns already feel 'thick' by yr 2 and this can really have an impact on their attitude to learning.

I think your friend is wise and YABU to be so judgy.

I have 2 dds, one aug born and one March born. I was very worried about the aug born one and did ask if she could be deferred a year, was to,d that she would always go into her proper year group, would just miss the reception year, I think Reception is really important , so she just started school when she should have. However, she has always struggled from Reception all the way up to her GCSEs. It obviously depends on the child but, dd has certainly suffered because of her August birthday, she has needed lots of extra help, of which the schools haven’t been particular helpful or supportive. Her GCSEs were ok, but we have felt a little let down by the education system some what at some stages and we did need to help her a lot, a lot more than other parents seemed to have too. However, do feel that there has to be a cut off and aug/sept is a good a place as any other time. If I had my time again I would try to avoid an August birthday if I could but that’s just based on my child’s experiences.

Which is exactly why, havelock, that I disagree with this deferral option. It doesn't level out the playing field at all, just widens it for those who can't afford to defer, giving yet another advantage to middle class children.

^ you're absolutely right, but I'm still going to defer my DS - he is (to me) the most important thing in the whole world, and I will do anything possible to help him navigate through life's tricky bits. I'm aware it's potentially unfair on those who can't afford to defer, but so is the fact that he's born into a family with stable, married, educated parents who aren't struggling financially.

Summer born children are, in fact, forced into school an entire year earlier than legally required (children don't legally have to be educated until the term after their 5th birthday), so, what she is trying to do is to allow her child to start school in Reception the term after his 5th birthday, rather than a year early.
It isn't about gaining an "advantage" over other children, it is about summer born children not being forced into school an entire year too early. The idea is to have ALL children succeed, so to think it disadvantages your own child in any way is ridiculous.
I have a summer born girl, about to enter the hornet's nest that is High School this September, just days after her 11th birthday. I couldn't give a monkeys about the academic "advantage", but I wish I had had the option to allow her another 12 months to mature before being sent into an environment that she is still emotionally too young for. She will sit her GCSEs almost 3 months before her 16th birthday, and won't legally be able to go out for a drink to celebrate her A Level results.
Your friend is absolutely doing the right thing for her child!