To defer my Summer born daughter’s school start date?

[ThornAmongstRoses]

I have a daughter who should be starting school next September but she will have only turned 4 about a week before the start date.

For the last few months I have seriously been thinking about delaying her starting until the following year when she will have just turned 5.

I have done so much reading up around the subject and it’s quite clear that statistically (because I know there will always be exceptions) starting school after just turning 4 can be very detrimental to their education and achievements through their schooling compared to Autumn, Winter and Spring borns.

My husband is a teacher and is absolutely on board with the deferral.

I mentioned it to my brother a few days ago as his child is summer born (a year behind mine) and he totally laughed me off.

He said it was a pointless thing to do and if the younger kids struggle then it’s down to the parents to do more at home with them.

It was a bit of a black and white attitude I thought.

I told him that if it was as simple as doing some work at home to get the Summer borns to the same level as their peers, then there wouldn’t be so much information out there about the disparities between Summer borns and other children.

I’m not being unreasonable to consider this though am I?

I do understand there will always be exceptions and there will be many stories abouthigh achieving Summer born children, but that doesn’t detract from the fact that overall, Summer Born children do fare worse at school if they start when they have just turned four years old.

My brother has made me doubt myself

I delayed my son (May born and autistic) and I’ve noticed that the main objection people have is to you not following the crowd, as it were. Do it. Four and one week is incredibly young to start Reception.

[quote BasinHaircut]@Goosefoot what do you mean though? Unless we moved to a system where every parent got to choose exactly when their child started school, regardless of age, then what is the solution?

There has to be a cut-off, so someone always has to be the youngest. If you let all summer born children defer so they are the oldest, regardless of the reason, then that just means that the next youngest children become the ones at the disadvantage?[/quote]
Lots of places have school systems where there is some flexibility about school starting year. It's not really a problem, not all kids are ready at quite the same time.

The main reason this has become a problem however is that there isn't enough flexibility in the programs in primary school. Up until about age 10 there is just a lot of developmental variation that isn't necessarily reflective of kids intelligence, and which can't easily be pushed ahead.

And even play-based reception programs aren't run like pre-schools, which would be more developmentally appropriate for most four ear olds.

So children who are slower developmentally find themselves at a disadvantage their first few years, and the effects of that can follow them well beyond that.

One way to deal with that is flexible starting ages. Another way is changing the curriculum expectations.

But parents making decisions about school don't usually have much chance to do the latter.

@lanthanum

Do what's right for your child (not what's right for you as a parent, or what's right for her cousin). You know her best - if she's not really ready, defer.

Mine was prem in August, in the days before any option to defer. If she had been going to struggle, I would have fought for deferral - after all, we'd been told that we should expect her development to relate to due date, not actual DOB. As it happened, she was entirely ready for school, and we were quite relieved that she had been early.

You've obviously done more research than me, but in my experience, bottom sets tend to have a lot of summer birthdays, but there isn't any corresponding skew to the autumn birthdays in the top sets. I think the less academic kids have more of a struggle if they are summer birthdays as well, but the more academic kids thrive whenever their birthday is. So if you have a bright kid who seems ready in other respects (socially, physically - I know one July birthday who napped right up until he went full-time in late September), then there's probably little need to hold back.

I'm afraid that the research doesn't back this up. The group mist disadvantaged by starting school at barely 4 are very academically able girls.

My daughter turned 4 and started reception a week later. She’s doing brilliantly ... I didn’t think twice about Deferring.
I don’t think it’s fair on the child to be honest.

@FlouncerInDenial

You might want to check with a secondary school or two. The most popular one round here will prioritise children who are the correct age for the yeargroup

They cannot legally do that.

@HoppingPavlova

I have done so much reading up around the subject and it’s quite clear that statistically (because I know there will always be exceptions) starting school after just turning 4 can be very detrimental to their education and achievements through their schooling compared to Autumn, Winter and Spring borns.

Not saying this is incorrect as I haven’t read anything specific to this but it does surprise me. I’m in another country/school system but we obviously have the same challenge with the ones more towards the cusp. The research associated with our system (which I am familiar with) is that irrespective of age at school start they all equal out academically, with age no longer becoming a factor, by end of Year 3 and they then start to sit according to ability as opposed to age. So basically, yes, big difference in educational outcomes at the start due to age but after a few years this gap disappears. I’m just surprised there seems to be such a difference between school systems in this regard.

I will say though that in our system the teachers are not fans of the younger kids. Makes it much harder for them to teach the class with such a large development gap between the older and younger students which is quite obvious at that age. The older ones are easier for them to manage and teach at school entry. I have had a few go through and with my young one I was literally dragged into the classroom every day for their first year to listen to how difficult they were. Of course they grew out of it, went on to be a poster child for studies showing my that they caught up with the other kids after a few years and in fact, due to natural ability, then went on to outdo everyone else by end of schooling and got a place in an extremely competitive and challenging university degree. My others were miles ahead in first year at school but bloody hell, nowhere near this one in regards to achievement when they finished school.

There is lots of very robust academic research in the UK showing summerborns suffer a disadvantage (on average, obviously) throughout education right up to degree level. It's thought the effect of being one of the youngest in the year is more pronounced in the UK because children start formal education much earlier than in the best education systems: the difference between 4 and 5 is huge, whereas the difference between 6 and 7 is smaller.

Just because something is true at population level doesnt mean it holds true at individual level. Parental education, other socioeconomic factors and how much you read to your child etc will have much more of an effect on their schooling than when their birthday is. I'd also guess that the summer born effect is worse for boys than girls as they can be slower to develop and be able to sit and concentrate at that age.

So I'd just go with how your daughter seems with her peers...I have an almost summer born and she would have been really really bored at nursery with younger kids for a year. In her nursery a lot of kids went to pre school in her last year so she ended up being the eldest by quite a way and she was bored and never really bonded with the kids as much as she did with her year group. Kids learn social things from copying their friends as well and I wouldn't really want a year of missing out on social aspects...again that totally depends on your childs personality eg how confident and social they are

There has to be a cut-off, so someone always has to be the youngest. If you let all summer born children defer so they are the oldest, regardless of the reason, then that just means that the next youngest children become the ones at the disadvantage?

Of course there is always going to be a 'youngest'. I think the problem is the age cut offs ... why does the youngest have to be just 4. Why not 4 and a half as the minimum age, when they'll be more ready generally.

Parents can't afford to 'vote' by deferral either to show it's too young; childcare is expensive. But if everyone had to wait until they were 4 and a half, then perhaps all the children would do better.

Ultimately OP most of what you can get from this thread will be anecdotal opinion. You have read the research, you know the effects and like you say if she'd been born just a little later nobody would question her starting at 5. Girls in particular suffer a disadvantage from starting school so young, the research proves it. While it is possible she may be "fine" you have no way to know this in advance and I'm sure you don't want her to be "fine", you want her to enjoy learning and not be stretched by a curriculum that is constantly targeted at a year above her actual age. A year is HUGE in children development, particularly when so young.

I also know that deferring is becoming increasingly common with some councils offering it as a simple tickbox on the application form. But even the stubborn ones who have made it hard for parents to get agreed and try to scare them out of doing it are gradually changing their tune as the weight of evidence of the benefits grows, and as headteachers see it for themselves in the children who have deferred. It will not be an unusual thing before long and by the time she applies to secondary school, I suspect it'll be a non-issue. Trust your own judgement and the statistics.

But that’s the system we have @marveloustimeruiningeverything. We don’t have a system where kids start at 4.5 and the youngest kids is always going to be 4 as that’s the cut off.

Yet other countries, many with far better educational outcomes, manage without starting formal education age 4.

@marveloustimeruiningeverything

There has to be a cut-off, so someone always has to be the youngest. If you let all summer born children defer so they are the oldest, regardless of the reason, then that just means that the next youngest children become the ones at the disadvantage?

Of course there is always going to be a 'youngest'. I think the problem is the age cut offs ... why does the youngest have to be just 4. Why not 4 and a half as the minimum age, when they'll be more ready generally.

Parents can't afford to 'vote' by deferral either to show it's too young; childcare is expensive. But if everyone had to wait until they were 4 and a half, then perhaps all the children would do better.

Yup.

I really think most of the push to kids entering younger comes from a desire to offer childcare cost relief. And for most parents that's the real appeal as well.

It's interesting to follow how it's progressed in different jurisdictions. Where daycare is largely state funded there isn't so much of a rush to have children enter school.

Where that's not the case you can often see, as working mothers became more and more common, how things have changed. Initially a lot of reception type programs were set up as half days, then more and more they were brought into line with the day for older children so as to simplify childcare. And ages have been pushed down, and in more and more places there are pre-kindergarten or pre-primary programs - so those kids are entering at 3.

@Porcupineinwaiting

Yet other countries, many with far better educational outcomes, manage without starting formal education age 4.

Yep.

I think England should start marching it's starting date forward a month at a time so that eventually children don't start until they're at least 4 1/2.

@BasinHaircut

But that’s the system we have *@marveloustimeruiningeverything*. We don’t have a system where kids start at 4.5 and the youngest kids is always going to be 4 as that’s the cut off.

It's meant to be for the benefit of children. If it doesn't benefit them it should be changed.

Education is meant to follow the evidence base. Developmental readiness is important.

We did this with my son (started reception at 5yrs 2 weeks), was the best thing we could have done. You know your own child and whether she is ready or not. Some would be bored to be kept back and happy to go at just over 4 whereas others would benefit from the extra year. There is a Facebook group called something like ‘flexible start for summer borns’ which was useful for me to find out how to go about it

I was urged to defer my late August born DS. I didn't. He's now in uni studying medicine.

My September born child was so bored and desperate to start school in the year before reception
My summer born child did struggle a bit in reception but was above average by year one . She looks a lot older now in year 10 than the year 9s I have to add -a year makes a big difference at certain ages particularly around puberty and though an august deferred child would be close in age to a September child they could look a lot older to the summer. born kids.
Also doesn't it disadvantage those summer born kids in the right year if there's a kid 13 months older than them?

I don’t know how it works with state secondaries, but with selective private secondaries around us (London), admissions to year 7 is absolutely dependent on date of birth. Ie they will not let you apply for a place if your child’s date of birth doesn’t fall within the right cohort.

Systems that allow you to defer without reason pose issues of fairness. The practice used to be rife in the US - known as red shirting. The consequences are not necessarily positive. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redshirting_(academic)

I think it’s all on a individual basis, you will know when your DC has met their milestones compared to their peers.

My DS, spring born , started school at 4.5, very much ready for it and would have been ready from aged 4 in all honesty.

My DD is a summer born, late August, was due mid September. She’s 14 months now and far ahead of where my DS was. She’s at nursery full time which helps loads, for us deferring a year wouldn’t be a consideration. As even now she’s a feisty thing compared to my DS.

My friend her DS is a September baby and struggles, he is 9 now, some kids do just struggle, when they are born has nothing to do with it.

Thanks everyone for your continued replies. Just on the bus to get home from work and reading them has helped pass the time. I can’t remember them all to reply individually though but I’ve taken in everything that has been said.

I’m not concerned my daughter is behind. She can count to twenty and recognise the written numbers and she knows her ABC and can identify all the letters. She knows all her colours and shapes and is an absolute whizz at puzzles - she can sit and do a 60+ piece without needing any help from me or her dad and she is always chatting away.

Her childminder has never expressed any concerns about her, developmentally or socially.

Me and her dad are both educated to degree level (he works full time and and I work part time) and we spend lots of time doing things with our daughter to encourage learning, she likes to have three books read to her every night before bed.

I know there are lots of protective factors that prevent the likelihood of difficulties (statistically speaking and case study wise) but I can’t help that think that just because she’s ok now, that doesn’t mean she will be ok with formal education when she’s just turned four.

Me and my husband are very driven by research, statistics, papers etc and they all seem to point to the fact that summer born children are at a disadvantage that can last many years, if not through the duration of their education.

I just feel a bit overwhelmed by it.

It does help though that we dont have to make a final decision until April time and by the time they month comes around we’ll have a much better sense of whether our daughter seems ready to go or not.

You do whatever you think is right for your child.

Thankfully it seems now that most schools have to have a very strong case as to why they would put a deferred starter into Year 1 as opposed to reception. The Department of Education say that if the school want to send the child straight into Year 1 they have back this up by explaining why they think missing out on Reception is in the child’s best interests.

I’m not saying you’re wrong, maybe this differs by area, but I have a summer born so I’ve been looking into this. As I understand it, in our area it’s the opposite - the local school will happily defer a summer born’s entry into reception until the summer term (which I think I’m going to do - it’ll be expensive but still cheaper than if I had a September-born I suppose!) but they require a very strong case indeed to allow the child to enter Year 1 with the younger age group.

This government guidance is worth a read:

assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/921254/Guidance_for_admissions_authorities_September_2020.pdf?fbclid=IwAR327y1MqBJX8SxcQ0VkItaIq_VMvgKc_R6TMbQaD14mF0jDFTEN04zPbW0

@ThornAmongstRoses I’d also consider planning for the unexpected, in my family one of our relatives was born also of end of August.

She suffered from serious health issues during her secondary years, MH related, and ended up having to redo a year as she had missed so much. She technically ended up being two years older than the youngest peers.

Always a consideration of the un expected

( she was privately educated)

There is nothing in your most recent update to suggest that your child individually might need to defer. Don’t allow a fixation on the studies blind you to the needs of the individual child in front of you.