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

We deferred both our dc (july/ Aug borns). Really glad we did - we felt strongly that just turned 4 is just too young to be in full time ed. Why rush to be on the treadmill? I personally dont think it's just to do with how 'school ready' they are at 4, but how an extra year might benefit them throughout. I cant predict how things will pan out when they're older but i think we can justify why we felt it was the right choice at the time. My biggest issue so far is me feeling a bit awkward about it with other parents / teachers seeming to disapprove (with attitudes shown on here assuming you're trying to get one ahead on their child), but that's my issue so i wouldn't change what i think is in their best interest for that reason.

It was hard to decide but we don't regret our decision now it's made.

We've deferred my August born boy. Every educator I've spoken to (not just at the school, but friends and acquaintances) have said it is almost certainly the best thing given their experiences with summerborns. Look at the statistics and do your own reading and research; there are a lot of fallacies on here. For example, sport - the FA and Rugby regulators will allow children to play with their adopted cohort; anyone saying otherwise is wrong. Ditto the trope about skipping a year; yes, it is a possibility but a Local Authority would have to show why it is in a childs best interests to do so (and given that families are fined if they take a short holiday because that education time is crucial, making a child skip a whole year..?). Dont listen to other people (including on here); you know your child. And join the Flexible Admissions for Summerborns on Facebook. It is an echo chamber, admittedly, because everyone on there thinks that deferring is the right thing to do, but it is a brilliant resource. Good luck!

Haven’t RTFT. Until your last update I was on the fence (I have an August born so interested). However, now the school have said she’d need to skip a year at some point if she defers reception, I personally wouldn’t defer. I think it would be much more difficult for her to skip a year later on than to start at the “correct” time. How would they ensure she catches up on the year she has missed?

Some schools where we are organise reception classes by age - so one class is autumn winter birthdays, one is spring summer. Also, standardised testing is adjusted for child’s age (for SATs etc), so being summer born is definitely less of an issue than it used to be.

I was also an August birthday FWIW and never struggled at school - was always in too few in my year. But appreciate the stats say summer borns can find it difficult.

@mangoandraspberries

Haven’t RTFT. Until your last update I was on the fence (I have an August born so interested). However, now the school have said she’d need to skip a year at some point if she defers reception, I personally wouldn’t defer. I think it would be much more difficult for her to skip a year later on than to start at the “correct” time. How would they ensure she catches up on the year she has missed?

Some schools where we are organise reception classes by age - so one class is autumn winter birthdays, one is spring summer. Also, standardised testing is adjusted for child’s age (for SATs etc), so being summer born is definitely less of an issue than it used to be.

I was also an August birthday FWIW and never struggled at school - was always in too few in my year. But appreciate the stats say summer borns can find it difficult.

The school may have said that, but it is not true. It seems many schools still do not understand the law and statutory guidance on this issue.

In Ireland left all 3 my summer borns til 5 but it's v common here n no issue with schools in fact they prefer if they least 4.5-5yrs. my kids in no way advantaged academically because of it but now my ds 13 in secondary he so we'll able to cope socially compared to kids just 12 in his class. My youngest is 4 since July so glad she still in playschool this year!!

I have a summer born dd and a September born dd. With the exception of reception year, my summer born dd has always been academically ahead compared to where the September born was in any given school year. The summer born dd is not very mature for her age but this hasn’t impacted on her academic ability at all.

And my summer born didn’t struggle in reception but my September born had a slight advantage but it only lasted a year

My dc2 has gone at csa.
Im especially glad due to covid.
Dc1 was also SB but not deferred.
They are very bright but struggled horrifically in yr r with behaviour. And tiredness. I literally couldnt go through that again. Dc1 is top 5% for reading and 25% for maths. But has pretty much no friends (possible asd/adhd). It's not a good combination bright but really immature especially for girls. Also gets frustrated easily and gives up.

Also having been there i see schools dont differentiate well (not really surprising).
So if they get behind it's up to parents.

In Scotland the cut-offs work differently, the cut-off is the 28th Feb but if your child has a January or February birthday you can choose if the start school that year or defer to the next year. If the child's birthday is Sept to December the parents need approval from a nursery or social worker to support their request for deferral. My children have January and February birthdays!! I deferred for both of mine and never regretted it. A teacher friend pointed out to me its not really about when they are 4 and 5 it affects them more when they are older and they are the youngest amongst their peers. Particularly up in here in Scotland where it could mean they go to University at 17 and not old enough to join in Freshers week!!

My DD b'day is the 28 February and we're in Scotland. I'm deferring. It a contentious issue between my husband and I...

I'm also a Feb b'day and whilst academically I was ok, I think, socially and emotionally I would have benefitted from the extra year.

Also, in Scotland, kids choose there options for their exams at the end of 2nd year and I just think that making decisions like that at just turned 13 is really early.

@MissOrganisedMe

In Scotland the cut-offs work differently, the cut-off is the 28th Feb but if your child has a January or February birthday you can choose if the start school that year or defer to the next year. If the child's birthday is Sept to December the parents need approval from a nursery or social worker to support their request for deferral. My children have January and February birthdays!! I deferred for both of mine and never regretted it. A teacher friend pointed out to me its not really about when they are 4 and 5 it affects them more when they are older and they are the youngest amongst their peers. Particularly up in here in Scotland where it could mean they go to University at 17 and not old enough to join in Freshers week!!

My DD b'day is the 28 February and we're in Scotland. I'm deferring. It a contentious issue between my husband and I...

I'm also a Feb b'day and whilst academically I was ok, I think, socially and emotionally I would have benefitted from the extra year.

Also, in Scotland, kids choose there options for their exams at the end of 2nd year and I just think that making decisions like that at just turned 13 is really early.

This is exactly the worst issue per the research: academically bright girls in particular having social expectations put onto them that are not age appropriate. But the school considering it fine as they meet academic targets in the early years. It can do untold damage to creating a love for learning, self esteem and healthy social relationships with peers.

The ideal thing would be for the Government to align the CSA with those in countries with superior education systems, i.e. when children turn 6-7. At that point the academic and emotional development is less pronounced between the youngest and oldest, wherever the arbitrary boundary for "year groups" is drawn.

Covid was the perfect opportunity to do this. Obviously it wasn't taken. But given we have such a disfunctional system in the UK surely nobody can blame parents for doing what they are legally entitled to do, to limit the potential damage to their child. And if that child might have coped at school at 4, they will absolutely thrive at 5.

I’m surprised at how many posters seem so strongly against this (though I see the vote is different), despite the volume of research available. @ThornAmongstRoses you and your DH have looked at the studies and you’re making an informed decision. I was fine/my dc are fine doesn’t contradict the research and in your shoes I wouldn’t allow personal anecdotes to sway me.

I’m in Ireland where the norm used to be 4 (in my case 3 yrs 10 months!) but over the last ten years or more that’s been changing and it’s now much more common that children start school closer to or at 5. You may find that more parents make the same choice as you since the rules to discourage the delayed start have changed.

My summerborn DC was born in August but should have been a Sept baby. I have not a doubt in my mind about starting him at CSA, even though I know girls siffer the worst effects.

As with all things OP, following the science is the best bet, most of the time.

I’m surprised at how many posters seem so strongly against this (though I see the vote is different), despite the volume of research available
It's strange but maybe they've got spring babies and want summer kids to be youngest not their own kid

I guess there's no real decent amounts of research yet, because this is all newish, but it'd be interesting to hear from 18 yr olds whose parents chose to defer, what they think.

As a sporty person, I think I'd be very cross if my parents had deferred. The rules for sports teams are different - you must compete (well, at any decent level, it's probably fine if you're in the school netball team) - in your actual age group. This would possibly mean that you end up in no sports teams because of this (ie they can't fit you in the 'higher' year group due to timetabling). By deferring, you're making a decision on your kids sporting life.

Haven’t RTFT but we didn’t defer DD (early summer) and did defer DS ( end of August). DD(15) did struggle a bit first, but now she’s in advanced classes. DS(12) had always been academic and tbh would be fine in the next year up.

But, he took a while to potty train ( DD didn’t) and was generally “ younger” than DD in his behavior at preschool. DD was outgoing and mixed well with older children, she’s always been a strong personality.

So do what feels best for your child. There isn’t a right or wrong answer. I think DS has benefited socially and now the age gaps are less relevant. Through his hobbies he has friends between 11 and 13.

@arethereanyleftatall

I guess there's no real decent amounts of research yet, because this is all newish, but it'd be interesting to hear from 18 yr olds whose parents chose to defer, what they think.

As a sporty person, I think I'd be very cross if my parents had deferred. The rules for sports teams are different - you must compete (well, at any decent level, it's probably fine if you're in the school netball team) - in your actual age group. This would possibly mean that you end up in no sports teams because of this (ie they can't fit you in the 'higher' year group due to timetabling). By deferring, you're making a decision on your kids sporting life.

But again these are archaic rules that presumably will be challenged and changed because by definition they are illegal because they disadvantage summerborn children who have a legal right to begin formal schooling at compulsory school age, and participate fully in all activities that are offered through education regardless of that.

I have two August born boys and if I had been able to defer my eldest, I would have done and it would have been great f him socially and academically. His younger brother, however, was more than ready and is thriving at school.
What I did do with both of them was to start part time. Firstly going two days a week and slowly building up to full time. As your child is not 5, they can't make you send them and our school was really understanding.
I wish we had a more sensible system like they do in many other countries with children not starting formal education until 6 or 7 and properly subsidised kindergartens but sadly our country isn't like that. I hope it works out for you. She will be fine honestly.

@arethereanyleftatall

I guess there's no real decent amounts of research yet, because this is all newish, but it'd be interesting to hear from 18 yr olds whose parents chose to defer, what they think.

As a sporty person, I think I'd be very cross if my parents had deferred. The rules for sports teams are different - you must compete (well, at any decent level, it's probably fine if you're in the school netball team) - in your actual age group. This would possibly mean that you end up in no sports teams because of this (ie they can't fit you in the 'higher' year group due to timetabling). By deferring, you're making a decision on your kids sporting life.

Novody seems to feel the need to interview kids born in 1st Sept about how hard or damaging it was for them not to begin school aged 4 so I doubt the answers from those born on 31st Aug, or a few weeks earlier, would be much different. Unless an adult made them feel crap about them not fitting into arbitrary crap rules an adult decided, in which case that adult needs to look and themself.

My grandson started school two months after his 4th birthday. I think it has been difficult for him - and research has shown that children starting school early can find it difficult to keep up.

If it were me, and it is possible, I would ask that his admission be deferred. Being several months younger can mean a child is at a very different developmental level - both emotionally and intellectually - than older children.

@Hardbackwriter

The one thing I would say is that these threads always seem to proceed as if the summer-born child will be the only one in a class of September birthdays. That wasn't my experience, and it isn't statistically likely. There may be a big difference between them and the oldest child in the class but the difference between them and the other children born between May and August - which should be roughly a third of the class - will be much less pronounced/non-existent.

This. I also think it depends on the child as pp have said. I am a summer born and many friends were, all of whom performed well and out performed many who were 5 not long after starting school. Obviously others weren't in that boat but I'm not sure for some of them the extra time would've made much difference. Unless I thought my child would struggle as an individual I would personally avoid the delay. But then I was more than ready for school by the time I started and I'd therefore be worried of the converse - that a September/October child would be stunted by not being able to start at the younger age of the summer born kids. As I say, I think it really depends on the child

@ThornAmongstRoses

If she does start in reception she is going to be a whole year older

Of course she won’t.

She will be 2 weeks older than the ones who turn 5 in September.

Or 6 weeks older than the ones who turn 5 in September.

Or 10 weeks older than the ones who turn 5 in October.

She will only be a “whole year older” than the children who are Summer born.

And thus you widen the gap and Make things harder on the teacher who has to teach a more spread out cohort Instead of being 52 weeks between oldest and youngest there’s for example 57, but now Sarah’s mum thinks she’ll defer because she was born at the start of July and then Johnny who was born on the 20/6 June too. Now there’s 62 weeks from oldest to youngest

Yeah, we should focus on what's easier for teachers not what's best for children.

Perhaps education professionals, presumably having awareness of amd access to the same academic studies that parents do, should be lobbying for ALL children to start formal education later.

While they are not, individual parents are not in the wrong for protecting their children from the worst impacts of a disfunctional education system.

when i went to school, everyone started at 5 plus.
i wonder why when it changed. still the law is 5.
there were no nurseries attached to infant schools in my day.
well not out in the burbs anyway, maybe town was different.
i remember when i first saw a sign in london, day nursery, and wondering what it meant.
in other countries school start is generally 6 or 7. they do ok.

@alexdgr8

when i went to school, everyone started at 5 plus. i wonder why when it changed. still the law is 5. there were no nurseries attached to infant schools in my day. well not out in the burbs anyway, maybe town was different. i remember when i first saw a sign in london, day nursery, and wondering what it meant. in other countries school start is generally 6 or 7. they do ok.

They do more than ok. Those are the education systems which tend to produce well balanced and well educated children, who massively outperform UK children later on. There is solid statistical and empirical proof that starting formal education later is better: it is not happening in the UK because the Government has other priorities.

They do more than ok. Those are the education systems which tend to produce well balanced and well educated children, who massively outperform UK children later on. There is solid statistical and empirical proof that starting formal education later is better: it is not happening in the UK because the Government has other priorities.

It seems to be common to the English speaking countries. I'm not sure why that is.