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?

We're applying to delay school entry (reception) to 2020 instead of this year.

My biggest issue is that although there are clear government guidelines for England that being summer-born is reason enough to delay, when you approach your local authority (or school in the case of academies & private schools) the approaches/attitudes can be very difficult.

For example in one area an April-born child, with no issues other than parents thought she wasn't ready, was allowed to delay. In another there's a late-August born baby, born 10 weeks early, who was not allowed to delay as she had no SEN/developmental delays.

There's new guidance being developed to resolve the inconsistencies and also ensure that children are not required to miss a year to "catch up" later in their school life (this would rarely be in a child's best interests). I'm hoping this is in place before we reach secondary school age.

@TinklyLittleLaugh - things don't always work out to plan though. My child was due in December but born very early in August. Others have so many problems conceiving that stopping TTC for x months is not realistic. It's not always as straightforward unfortunately.

There's new guidance being developed to resolve the inconsistencies and also ensure that children are not required to miss a year to "catch up" later in their school life (this would rarely be in a child's best interests). I'm hoping this is in place before we reach secondary school age.

I definitely think they should resolve how inconsistent it is, but I wonder how a grammar school area (like where I live) is going to deal with it. Realistically so many parents are going to want to delay because their child's chance at passing the 11+ will be so improved a year later.

My dad was late August born and it has affected him throughout school. He was always very independent and desperate to join his big brothers at school, bit in retrospect I think it would have been better to start a bit later.
Your friend knows her child better than you do and is in a better place to judge whether they are ready.

I am a teacher, and I have 3 kids, born, dec, nov, and march.

If any of mine had been august born, and it was available, I would have held them back a year. I don't think I would have done for April, May, June, but definitely July and August.

It is very obvious when you meet a group fo reception kids that some are just much, much younger than the others. In theroy a good teacher takes it all into allowance. In practice her/his pay may depend on results, which do not take it into account.

Nothing wrong with an extra year of play. If the reception curriculum was still properly play based and child led, like it should be, then it wouldn't be needed.

I should also say that both my dec and nov born kids are noticeably bigger and more mature than their peers and also highly successful in class. I sometimes think it would have been good for both of them to be in the class above, where they would be the youngest by 3 months.

For the most part, luck doesn't come into it though. I would have stopped ttc if it had meant my child was born in June or later.

Don't be so ridiculous and insensitive. Obviously I would have preferred it if I hadn't miscarried three potential winter babies in a row, but I did. I wanted a baby born autumn 2016, and got one born in summer 2018 - I wasn't willing to stop TTC-ing at that point, having been told that my best shot was to 'just keep trying until one sticks', and I don't think many people would have. My friend is pregnant with a baby due in August - do you think she should have said no thanks to the NHS IVF because it wasn't very well-timed?

LisaSimpsonsbff I don't think they are. It will only affect roughly one third of the year group anyway, and a large proportion of them will be keen to start their child at school to save on childcare costs, amongst other reasons. Even if there are more out of cohort children, it will roughly balance out. Other countries manage perfectly well with a bigger spread of ages in each school year.

I have a son who i end aug birthday, he has special needs and he was also very premature so should be end oct birthday, i was told i could keep him back a year, chose not too, hes now year 10, his kids his age and is not behind at all.
Your friends bonkers

In the years of yore... My Mum, an August born, was shunted up and down years because they couldn't decide where to put her. She started school, was kept back a year (so did Reception twice) then propelled from say Reception to Year 2.

She is a fully functioning human being despite that.

My Son is an August born and started in Reception in September. There are some obvious differences between him and his classmates born in September but he is doing well and they teach the children to their abilities - One child might have started with a picture book whilst another had a book with words in.

No way on earth would I have held him back

This is why to it's got to be an individual decision- my child is nowhere near ready for school in 8 months - emotionally, physically, he has poor language and not toilet trained. He will get there in his own time, but it would be the wrong thing to do in his case, without a doubt.

There’s a lot of incorrect information on this thread about starting a summerborn at compulsory school age. It’s not a given at all they have to start in year 1, or skip a year at some point.

If anyone is considering it I highly recommend joining the flexible school admissions for summerborns Facebook group and look into it properly. Even most schools don’t know the law regarding it or have never heard of it! Educate them!

I wonder when we will consider that perhaps all children might benefit from starting school a little later.

I have 4 summer term children although all April/May. The latest birthday being the end of May. They were absolutely ready to start school and absorbs lessons like a sponge.

My beginning of April summer term children are twins. One of the two would have massively benefited from a delayed start but not the other. My mid May child has SEN but academically sits where they should. They could however achieve much more if they didn't have their Sen condition.

The system is never going to fit every single child unfortunately. In Scotland the late spring children would be disadvantaged.

Perhaps we should switch to a system where reception and year one really are all about playing and socialisation skills - no formal reading/phonics lessons or writing and the later born children should be able to start in February. Kind of a massively extended preschool.

My mum didn't start my brother or me at school until we were over 5, both summer birthdays. It was relatively common then in our area, I seem to remember the September children in my class were part time for a while where I was full-time from the start.

She was horrified that DS2 was starting school at 4, he's not a particularly late summer (end of June). He was noticeably more tired than DS1 was when he started (a Sept born) but he was towards the top of class for maths and reading from early on. He's always been one of the smallest in size and not great at the sports stuff. Same is broadly true now for him at 11 and at secondary.

Shantotto was about to post exactly the same thing

My brother and sister were borderline and ended up being the youngest in their years. My brother was very bright and it didn't affect him at all. My sister could have benefited from waiting, perhaps, but she had started reading very early, so no point there, and certainly not thereafter. She did well at school anyway.

My own DS is also borderline, but ended up being the oldest. He wasn't ready to start school earlier, and really benefited from waiting a year, as he was more prepared academically. He's doing well at school too.

As others have said, it really depends on the child and not just their age.

Hmmm not sure - my daughter is April born and my son September born. Like you said - someone has to be the youngest. And if she’s just putting the child in school anyone and not teaching the child then what on Earth makes her think her child will be ahead anyway? Being a year older does not mean the child is a year smarter if she doesn’t put the effort in.

My 1st is a June baby and I thought about applying to defer, but at the time we needed to be applying there was not complete cetainty as to whether he would then start reception a year later, or just join year 1 so though having done reception at all.

So he started this September and is do I g fine so far.

I do still worry a bit though about how it will work out over the next few years.
He is also quite little physically (as was I).

I was a late August birthday and do wonder if I would have found it easier if I started later as I was due in September anyway.

I never felt like I quite knew what was going on!

4 is way too young for full time school IMO

My dd is July birthday and the second youngest in her class I do sort of wish she had been able to have waited another year. She is doing well but always having to work extra hard and always just slightly behind the majority of the class. As a result her confidence and self esteem are very low and she sees herself as not being very clever. As she is now in year 2 the gap is reducing in terms of ability but it's taking much longer for her confidence to catch up!

Clearly it's your friend's decision but I would be very wary of asking for my child to delay starting school primarily because of uncertainty over how this might be treated in later years. For example- will an summer born child be 'allowed' to stay with the same school year group throughout his/her school life or will they at some point be expected to 'jump' a year? How will it be seen by peers/school/universities etc when he/she is older- ie if they are the only one that turns 18 in lower 6th will they be made fun of? Will Universities etc ask questions? Will they spend their teens explaining to schools/colleges etc why they seem to be a year older than their peers?

Where I live in rural Ireland, the school year runs from Sept to June but the birthday year runs from the following January so the oldest children in the class will have birthdays in the winter term January - March and the youngest children have birthdays in the Autumn term, so the equivalent to an August baby in the UK is actually the December baby in Ireland.

My DS was 5 in the April and started Junior Infants 5 months later in September and was the oldest child in his class, (by one week). He definitely benefitted from starting later. I think 4 is far too young to start formal schooling and I think countries that start at ages 6/7 have it about right.

I think your friend is very sensible.

Like nojellybeans and other on this thread, we chose to defer our August born son, who had ( has, but largely resolved) a complex speech disorder. I'm an educational psychologist and read as much if the research as I could find and realised this was a battle we needed to fight and win for him. He spent an excellent 2 years in a small specialist speech unit and had just begun mainstream school in year 2 ( he's chronologically a year 3 and the oldest in his class by 4 days). We had the battle of our lives to defer him. His SEN actually made the LA less keen to defer him ( one more year of costs I guess). His receiving school have been great and we are so, so proud of him. Deferring him was the best decision we could have made. He's thriving socially at academically with a genuine peer group, not always running to catch up. He is so obviously in his 'right' cohort and this deferral is now a complete nob-issue. He won't skip a year when he moves to secondary school, there are statutory guidances and judicial presidents on his side.

I am so pleased we stood our ground about deferring our son. As parents, and as a psychologist, I knew this would make a huge difference to his education and emotional well-being. I would encourage parents who are having doubts to give deferral serious consideration, if it's right for your child then ask for it (assertively!).

I was talking to a parent of Summer born twins who have deferred start and applying for them to start in Reception the following year, it is not an easy process but they are getting there. The parent said they had received comments ‘they will cope’, ‘they will soon catch up’ in respect to them wanting them to be older before starting school. Their argument (which I agree with) is why should they ‘cope’, shouldn’t it be a positive experience that when they are actually ready for they will get the most out of it, not just cope and get by. Speaking as a parent of a 10 year old Summer born who started at 4 years 2 months, I would 100% have deferred his start and fought for him to go into Reception if it had been an option. Unfortunately this is a relatively new thing. It could be argued my ds2 ‘copes’, the reality is he treads water, he strut
Giles and socially and emotionally he is year behind. He starts secondary in September, I am scared at how he will cope (he does have some additional needs which do not help). My 7 year old summer born dd, on the other hand, has flourished and I probably would not have deferred her start as I knew at 4 she was ready.

It was big news in early education a few years ago that delaying your summer borns entry to school doesn't mean they miss reception year, and that they no longer need to have medical issue/SEN/prematurity etc to qualify for starting them at 5. This is based on years of research saying that summer borns are disadvantaged. Some summer borns catch up yet some always lag behind. Research supports play based learning for as long as possible. It's infuriating that the parents who want this for their summer borns get so much flack from other parents. For the record, I have June and August borns who I didn't have the option to delay, and both really struggled in the first few years of primary and undeniably world have benefited from a later start. My winter born had no issues academically. I strongly support flexible admissions for summer borns.

A deferred child won't be a year older than a lot of their peers. In many cases they could be as little as a day older than the next oldest. My DD's best friend at preschool would normally be in the school year below if she wasn't deferred - he is 8 weeks younger.

A University won't bat an eyelid at an application from an 18 year old, or a just-19 year old starting - lots of teens do resits, diplomas, foundation years and take gap years meaning they are a bit older anyway.