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?

DD was on the cusp of the entry dates. Academically very bright but emotionally not ready for school. We deferred and it was the best thing we ever did. She really matured with the extra year in nursery and skipped into school happily.

For those who don’t get it, my sister and I are a perfect example. 13 months apart but there were two school years between us. She was the youngest in her year, I was the oldest in mine. Our school experiences could not have been more different. I thrived, she did not. Children’s education is too important to shoehorn them into certain class groups because rules are rules. Having leeway for those on either side of the cut off is absolutely right.

It depends on the child but if we'd had the option to hold DD (July born) back a year we would have taken it. She has really struggled with school and she's about a year behind where she needs to be development wise.
Unfortunately deferring a year where we are just meant she would skip reception so she would have been with the same peers from year one but also would have missed a year of school.
It's been really bad for her confidence to be bottom of the group and to struggle so much. She's always telling me that she thinks she is stupid and she really isn't. It's just hard when shes competing with children 6 months to a nearly a year older than her for the most part.

I was summer born & the youngest in the year. Had literally only turned four when I entered primary school. Didn’t affect me in primary school. Had friends, did well academically. However, that changed when I turned around 13-14. My friends matured far sooner than me... they wore bras and make-up long before I did, talked about their periods etc. I really felt like an outsider. By 16 I had caught up with them but my self esteem was in my boots. Then it all kicked off again when they could have driving lessons, go to pubs & nightclubs etc & I couldn’t. I didn’t feel I could contribute to the conversations & the social life changed & I couldn’t be part of it all for at least a year. They still socialise together, sometimes I’m invited, mostly not because their friendships were cemented at a time when I was too young to participate. Conversely, 2 boys in my primary school were initially a year ahead of me (birthdays July & August). Then they did P7 year twice, and so we went to secondary school together. They were definitely the lions of the pride. They were bigger than the rest, played first 15 rugby before the rest (the rugby team had such Caché @ our school it was unreal) & they had so much self confidence they were massively popular with the girls in our year. They still have that aura about them today. We’re almost 50 now. As a result I planned my children for the autumn - September & October birthdays. I think my daughter might have been ready for school a year sooner, but my son defo needed that extra year at home.

My neice was born on the very last intake day of August , so almost a year younger than the eldest children . Her gae never hampered her , in fact she ecelled at A levels and is now at Oxford

Yes you are wrong! This is something I feel really strongly about. Why should we rush our children through an education system designed to get them ready for work?

I have done this for my DS and haven’t regretted it for a second. No developmental delay, we just wanted to give him the best chance in life. Why would you follow the rules blindly rather than doing what you believe is right for your children?

We can chose where I live (and they stay in that year group) so we chose to delay. In my view parents should be able to choose either way in all counties. An arbitrary 31 cut off date does not allow for children all being different.

We did it because we felt he’d be happier in the year below and I know we made the right choice for him.

Children going to school at four only dates back to the early eighties anyway. My older siblings went at five. Four is too young in my opinion.

2 of my 3 are summer born. I don't think that there is any doubt that it is all a bit easier if the child is more emotionally mature. I think that the DC have reached their potential educationally ( some issues but not related to age) but it took time and rather a lot of frustration and silliness on the young ones part and just frustration on mine.i am sure they would have benefitted from another year in nursery and starting school proper in year 1.
It is known that physical maturity helps as far as excelling at spots is concerned. I don't know what one might do about this but it is a real advantage for autumn born children.
There are loads of exceptions of course but I do think expecting just 4 year olds to sit quietly on the carpet, sound out letters, get their pe clothes on and off, manage lunch and the loo etc is a bit mad when they could carry on playing and exploring for that year and manage better at 5. Surely learning to read at 6 rather than 5 doesn't have long term negative effects.

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.

But if he had been born a day earlier then he would have been in school a year ago being judged by the same expectations - and would very probably not be exceeding expectations - there may well be a child in his class who is August born who is actually more intelligent but is a year younger.

Being Sept/Oct born is a massive advantage, your son (and mine) are being judged against children who are younger than them, some by a year so just because they are exceeding expectations, it doesn't necessarily mean that they are "Very Intelligent".

They will most likely just make him miss Reception and he will be put straight into year 1. We have a summer born(v end of August) 4 year old. She started in reception in Sept and is happy and is doing really well eg has learnt all her letters before school, now knows her phonics sounds and can already read little books with sentences. She is certainly not disadvantaged.They dont 'appear' ready but they tend to just get get on with it. Keep them in nursery longer if you don't mind them missing Reception; we decided the transition would be really quite hard as year 1 learning is a lot less play focused. In an ideal world we'd all be following Scandanavia and sending our children later.

Academically very bright but emotionally not ready for school. We deferred and it was the best thing we ever did. She really matured with the extra year in nursery and skipped into school happily.

Ditto for my son. It has been brilliant for him.

The youngest child in our school class got a scholarship to a very good private school due to his intelligence and got put 3 years ahead so age doesn't matter.

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.

I don't think this is what op is saying - in some cases if a child is August born you can apply to LA to have them put in the year below - so it's not about starting later but in the correct year group - it's about starting later with the next year down and thereby becoming the oldest in the year. Usually only offered to 30/31st August babies and prem August babies but its a great advantage if you can get it.

I'm a later summer baby started school nursery age 3 years and 1 month. I've done absolutely fine up until leaving high school. It was a struggle to get a job at 15 as we finished school in May.

@Fowles94 Oh, come on. That logic is along the lines of, 'My gran smoked 60 a day and lived to 103 so smoking doesn't matter'.

If a child born in April 2018 and a child born in September 2018 both start school in September 2022 then, of course, generally speaking the April child will be advantaged surely? They are 6 months older than the September born child. This whole thing is just about giving advantage to summer borns. Fine. But it just moves the disadvantage to the Spring born children. There is no data available for this yet as this is a relatively new change to admissions policies

But that couldn't happen! That's the point. A child born in April 2018 would start a whole year before a child born in Sept 2018 - That is why Sept have the advantage. Spring born are in the middle.

The youngest child in our school class got a scholarship to a very good private school due to his intelligence and got put 3 years ahead so age doesn't matter

3 years ahead? bollocks

Tigertooth delaying and starting reception with the year group below is for all summerborns, which is any child born between April 1st & August 31st. Our son was 5 in June just gone and started reception September just gone. He just simply wasn’t ready for school the previous year and his preschool and school completely agreed with us.

Having an August child and knowing what she's like now it would have been good to deferr her. At reception age I wasn't too worried.

There's a clear split in ability in her class which is essentially two clusters split in to Autumn/winter kids and Summer born kids. Very few Spring born. All the 'brightest' children are in the A/W group. The advantage to being the eldest carries right through to secondary school.

Maybe that poster was in Scotland, tiger? (The April/September message)

Tigertooth delaying and starting reception with the year group below is for all summerborns, which is any child born between April 1st & August 31st. Our son was 5 in June just gone and started reception September just gone. He just simply wasn’t ready for school the previous year and his preschool and school completely agreed with us.

No - looking at the original post, that isn't what Op is saying - her friend doesn't want her child to be the youngest in the year, so she's not accepting a usual right to deferral of starting whereby they then join the correct year group at a later starting point - she is suggesting trying to get her child into the year below - thereby going from youngest to oldest in the year. It's a totally different thing and can be done but only with good reason ir prem's or medical grounds.

3out
Yes maybe - 20yrs teaching here but I don't know the Scottish system at all - but I do know that my DS3 should be doing his homework now and I'm faffing about on MN! Gotta go...

Interesting the number of people on here who allege that the reason they or their offspring or someone else struggled at school was because they were Summer-born, when it is actually quite likely that they're just not particularly academic.

Tigertooth it is easily done as that’s what this whole thread is about. Any child born between April 1st & August 31st (summerborn) has the right to request a delayed entry to reception the term after their 5th birthday at Compulsory School Age, which will make them the eldest. My son was 5 years and 3 months when he started instead of 4 years 3 months had he have started the year before. He is the eldest in his year by 3 months. He started reception and he will stay with that cohort all the way through school.

It really does depend on the child. I have two summer borns. DS1 (8) and DS2 (5). It would have been a disaster for DS1 to be held back a year. He is the top of his class without even putting full effort in. He needed the stimulation of school (an academically selective indie). If anything, he could move up a year. It’s not the same for DS2. He would have definitely benefited from starting a year later as things have been a struggle for him, both academically and socially. However, he’s making good progress in Year 1 and started to catch up now.

Tigertooth

If your child is born April - Aug you can apply to have them start reception a year later (when they are 5) rather than when they are 4 and a few dsts / weeks / months. Not just for August 30th or premies!