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?

Good point Sunshine, I agree with you in that it wouldn’t affect many kids in reality. Just wondered what, if any, the impact might be within the class with a bigger age range, I’ll be interested to see if more detailed research becomes available on this. There wasn’t a deferral option when my DS was starting school, being late July child I have worried about him being the youngest but he seems to be doing fine so far. Thank goodness all of us on here care enough about our kids to worry about when they start school, others are not so lucky I guess

Disagree. Lots of evidence to suggest summer born babies are disadvantaged throughout their years of school - of course there are exceptions. But to use the argument that there has to be someone who’s the youngest is nonsense. There’s a bigger difference between a child of 4 and 5, and a child of 5 and 6. So yes, there will be the youngest but better at 5 than 4. Hence why services for babies extend to 5 years of age not 4.

Interesting, @turquoise88. Where do the really thick September-borns fit in? This is not a silly question - I'm genuinely interested...

@AntimonySalts I would have thought that if more summerborns that weren’t ready were delayed a year it would mean the teacher would have more time to spend on helping the less able autumnborns.

Sorry - just re-thought my previous post, and I don't quite mean it that way.

I do wonder about the really thick September-born children - but also wonder about the children who are skilled in other ways. You could be the densest child on the planet (academically), but could still be way ahead of your years in social/emotional skills. Equally, you could be academically light years ahead of your peers, but could be hopeless socially/emotionally.

As it happens, I thought DC1 wasn't ready for the social/emotional side of school in Reception, so I chose to start him in Y1 instead. I think I was right. I would have done the same with the others, had they not already decided that the playground looked like good fun

DC1 is still socially/emotionally less skilled than his peers, and he's 17.

However, there has to an arbitrary decision somewhere about schooling. 1st Sept - 31st August is the arbitrary decision. I think we need to bear in mind that pretty much all children with concerned/involved/interested parents (and anyone who bothers to post on here will fall into these categories) will do absolutely fine, and that there's no point getting too worked up about it when they're 4/5. There is an awful lot more to come!

@Turquouse88

Interesting. Every school we visited insisted that teachers can and do cater to every level so the brightest aren't bored and those atruggling are supported and not over stretched.
I didn't believe that was at all achievable and neither did teachers i know!

I don’t think it really matters how caring and supportive your home life is if you’re struggling at school because of your immaturity.
Yes, the 1st September-31st August dates are arbitrary, but the impact would be lessened if these dates were applied to all children one year later. I’m maybe biased though because I just can’t understand at all how a newly four year old could start school. The Scottish system is so different. The youngest you could start school here is 4 years 5 months, and very few of that age group wouldn’t defer.

@AntimonySalts what you’ve just pointed out there is exactly why some children benefit from being able to delay, one soze doesn’t fit all. It is impossible with the larger class sizes now to cater for each & every child’s needs exactly, yes that’s what they tell you they do and they do try very hard but it’s an impossible task. A child being that little bit more mature and independent means the teacher doesn’t need to spend so much time helping them all the time. Some children from a very early age want to be independent and do things for themselves & are eager to learn new things others, boys in particular are often far laziier, are happy to let others do everything for them & just want to be left to play not be constantly practicing how to get dressed or put their shoes on, or hold a pencil correctly etc. The delaying gives them the chance to get to these things when they are ready rather than being pushed to learn it all in readiness for school.

@antimonysalts

Exactly - for some children it's emotional immaturity that concerns parents, for others it's academic readiness. All the research points to ALL children doing better when they start school later.

And it's exactly the other years which concern me. It's damn near impossible to obtain agreement and funding (in our area anyway) to repeat a year further down the line if it becomes evident that they need it - not to mention stigmatising to be the child that had to repeat a year. There's a good reason that dyslexia, adhd and some SEN camnot be identified until age 7 yet i have to decide at 3 if they are ready for school in a year's time.
Summerborns are 90 per cent more likely to be diagnosed with SEN - more likely less able to keep up.

It's simple fact that summerborns do worse than autumn borns which is 1st Sept - 31st Aug is now no longer arbitrary

It's such a shame that so many posters are against delaying school entry because "I was born in August and always did well". The statistics are published that show that on the whole summer born children do less well, are more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD etc and may struggle emotionally and socially.

We've applied to delay. We have a boy, born at the very end of August, 4 months early, still experiencing developmental delays in most areas. We are supported by his nursery and health visitor, but still the whole process of delaying in our area is a complete headache. If we weren't so sure it was the right thing for him, we'd have given up. Keeping him at nursery is more expensive than sending him to school (even with 30 free hours), but we're prepared to suck it up. Because it's right for him. The teachers at the school say it's right for him.

It's actually quite insulting to read how some people think we're just trying to get an advantage, that we can't bear to send him to school yet or we're wrapping him up in cotton wool. We're just trying to give him the best start we can, after he had such a traumatic start to life.

I am October birthday and was oldest in my class and always did quite well. (My mother wanted me to go but school said wait)

My ds is a May baby. He was youngest as was a friend's dd. BOTH of them should have been started later.

I thought ds, who was very tall would be picked on but he was picked on anyway bc he is dyslexic.

My friend's dd was immature. She fell into a LOT of trouble.

They don't go to school with only normal age children; they also go with "red shirts" who are older than others so young children are doubly hurt.

I personally disagree with this system as the cut off has to be somewhere. If summer born babies are held back then what about the Spring born children who will then be the youngest...there will always be exceptions to the rule but imo it shouldn’t be a given.

I’m abroad and there are at least 3 kids per class of 20 that were held back. My son is young in the year but not young enough so he’s at a disadvantage as there are some “repeats” who are almost a year older than him so much bigger and more mature. The disadvantage here though that from Year 3 you have to play sport in your actual academic age group so those that have been held back have to play with the year above...

FWIW where I am, formal schooling (learning to read and write) only starts in Year 1...

Interesting. Every school we visited insisted that teachers can and do cater to every level so the brightest aren't bored and those atruggling are supported and not over stretched.
I didn't believe that was at all achievable and neither did teachers i know!

Of course we'd stretch the brighter children, whichever month they are born. What I'm saying is that I've taught some Autumn born children for whom I don't feel that I've always been able to show their full potential because they've have this inbuilt attitude that they are the oldest and brightest and therefore know lots of what we are learning already and thus don't have to really try. I've heard children as young as Reception having little debates about which book band they have been moved up to and how this makes them better.

Please don't assume though that I'm tarring them all with the same brush - it's not that this is always the case.

We have a boy, born at the very end of August, 4 months early,

@tubspreciousthings I too would support your decision, not solely due to the fact that he was born late August, but largely because he was extremely premature.

My late August baby is due to start in 2019 but we are holding them back and they'll be starting reception in 2020.
Too many reasons to list, but stats in life outcomes (Not just emotional 'readiness' at age 4/5) are pretty overwhelming. Higher uni entry, better GCSEs and A levels. Improved sport attainment, more CEOs are winter born, it goes on and on and on. Also, my child has an older sibling who is 23 months older but would only behind year apart at school. The comparisons between them would always work out unfavourably to my younger one, and no matter ehatvprople say, siblings always get compared, even if only by themselves. I don't want my younger internalising that they are less capable, slower, weaker etc. It's an absolute no brainer for us.

I suppose I am agreeing, in a way - but I don't agree with children being kept down a year. I just chose not to bother with Reception, so DS went straight into Y1 with his peers...

I don't agree at all about the scenario of boredom for the little 4 year olds.There are so many things to learn about in life outwith the narrow parameters of school. If they are reading , that's fine , let them read . Lots of children have always read before they started school ? It isn't a problem. I really believe that this whole issue is around emotional maturity and resilience and getting sidetracked by academic achievement is secondary. ( btw 11+ exams are differentiated for age at 10/11 so arguing against advantage is nonsensical)Schools should be better at differentiation.
I agree that an arbitrary date has to be set but I agree with many pps that the risks would be less if all children started at least a year later .

I'm an August baby, didn't do me any harm, you are completely right - someone has to be youngest. We can debate as a society when school should start (we are young at age 4) but as it stands unless there's specific developmental reasons I think kids should start on time - it shows how wealthy they are to keep their kid in nursery for an extra year, most people can't wait for compulsory school age!

There is lots of research showing that summer borns tend to do poorer in relative results than winter born children. Not every child but as a proportion. As a September born I can say it's made life a lot easier being eldest in the year, especially in teen years.

I've an August born friend and she dropped a year and she reckons it made such a big difference to her that she's done it with her daughter when she started struggling in school.

To add, it's about mental and emotional maturity as much as anything.

Annie ... why is it about wealth? You still get your 15/30 Hours at nursery fir the "extra year"

There is a huge amount of research showing that summer born children are disadvantaged at school, and that the disadvantage remains until GCSE and beyond.
I deferred my August born daughter and she started Reception last September, aged 5. It was the best decision for her.
Parents should have choice regarding their own children and that's what the government are going to offer.
Flexible Admissions for SBC on Facebook is a brilliant source of support and information for anyone looking to go down this path.

anniehm compulsory school age is the term after their fifth birthday which is when delayed summer borns start school.
Parents who choose to start their children at this age agree that there should a cut off date but that there should be some flexibility with that and they shouldn't feel forced to send a just turned 4 year old to school if they are clearly not socially/ emotionally ready.
This flexibility means that children (if parents choose) will be at least 4 and a half when starting school which can make a big difference.

Like other posters in making this decision, I was more concerned about Y1 as the curriculum seems completely developmentally inappropriate. As this would not be changed in time for my son, I delayed his start so that he would be 'readier'!