Summer babies kept back at school

[ThisCollie]

So I probably am. In DD's year 2 class there are 3 children who have been sent to school a year later on account of being a summer baby.
All 3 children have caused trouble from day 1, especially the oldest lad, who on top of things seems bright.
Aibu to think that this happens a lot, because they are bored and would be better off in the year above?

YABU - the parents know best and this is just a coincidence.
YANBU - this seems to happen a lot and could be a factor.

Funny opinions on here. My August boy is 'held back' and is a stickler for rules and very calm. His best friend is only a few weeks younger. I can't understand what the problem is or why the sweeping assumptions. It's not for everyone, which is precisely why everyone wouldn't and won't do it.

My dd is a July baby. She is bright. No way I would put her back a year just so she could be the oldest.

.....yeah, because wanting their child to be the eldest in the year is exactly the reason why parents battle for CSA starts

It’s not same as them being September born as their parents have deliberately made a choice to hold them back. This is rare in England and will usually have been done because they are not ready i.e behaviour concerns that make parents think better having another year in nursery. I know that’s not always case eg in America they deliberately hold back boys to give sports advantage etc but not norm here. Like I say my experience at DD’s school was parents hoping small class size would help in same way as those parents hoped holding back would help but later becoming more apparent that dc had additional needs.

Whats CSA?

Whats CSA?

Compulsory school age.

When a child legally needs to be in school - I.e the term after their 5th birthday.

Thanks. Couldn't for the life of me work it out

You know, it's not about being bright, it's about being ready for school. You can be very bright and not be ready - physically, socially or emotionally.

Hi OP I sort of get where you are coming from. I'm in Scotland and the system is different but to simplify there is an automatic right to defer for some children. I'm not sure it's particularly helpful in terms of teaching to be honest - you can end up with situations where the oldest is over a year older than the youngest child in the same class and the differences can be huge. I have noticed a lot of the deferred kids are physically bigger than the others, more confident and tend over-shadow / boss some of the others. It may be coincidence but I don't think so. Research suggests there is a great advantage for the individual child to be deferred hence it's becoming more and more popular

I always think it's funny seeing English parents tying themselves in knots over this.

"held back", coddled, keeping them back, behavioural problems.

Whereas in Scotland we have had the opportunity to defer Jan/Feb (and autumn born) children for decades so that they start school at 5.5 rather than 4.5. In my area, most parents with children born in the last two months before cut-off defer, some don't. It's not a big deal, it's perfectly normal, the world doesn't end because this summer you'll have children starting school who were born anything between January 2016 and the end of February 2017.

I wish we lived in Scotland! The attitude to school starting there is so much better.

As it is at least I live in a local authority area where my DC is guaranteed acceptance of a CSA reception start. However it's still quite rare here and I'm mostly concerned about nursery's attitude as I have two friends who have done this and both of their children's original nurseries have refused to keep them for the extra year .

I ‘held back’ my child as I was advised to by his nursery teachers. I asked a local headteacher to come in and observe him and she said he wasn’t ready for school. His speech, toilet training and social skills were very delayed. It turned out he has ASD. There are many reasons why parents decelerate their children.

I also hear "but the deferred children are SO MUCH OLDER!" Yes, maybe over a year older than the very youngest. But my oldest's birthday is the first week of March, without deferred children he'd be the oldest. The deferred children in his year were just a couple of weeks older than he was.

It really doesn't cause problems at all.

@HSHorror that depends on how old you are.

OP I am sorry your DD is going through a tough time, but I think you are mixing 2 separate issues.

As other informed PP's have said, it's not about 'advantage' or 'holding back' - it's about making the right choice for your summer born child.

My DS will start school at CSA in reception, 9 days after his 5th birthday. He was born 10 weeks early; he had health issues, operations, speech therapy and is only now physically and emotionally ready to start school. As far as I'm concerned, he's going into his correct year group.

Maybe the children your DD is having trouble with have had their own difficult journeys to get to where they have. Or maybe they're just little shits. Either way, please don't make assumptions about children who are deferred, it's a legitimate option and it should be more widely shared.

I hope she starts to have a better time soon

They’re not being ‘kept back’, they are starting school at compulsory school age.

Would you even think of it if they were a couple of weeks older and born in September? 🙄

Wouldn’t they be more likely to be disruptive if a year younger and not emotionally ready for school?

Are you saying your school don’t differentiate for brighter kids?

So much about your post is ill informed and poorly thought through, I wonder if you’re just being goady.

@RaspberryCoulis - I would turn this around and say - if it makes so little difference why bother having the deferral policy. It is definitely advantageous to be a year older than some of your peers,

This curriculum change was in last 10y i think.
But it was obviously harder in my parents generation.
However i think all the grouping in primary probably holds some summer borns back.
Fundamentally 12m is probably too much of a difference after all some kids have sublings that far apart.

Also kids do seem to still be difficult until 5/6 so startjng at 4 you are more likely to still be in that phase. Meaning judgemental other parents.

Dc1 was bright and i think that was part of the issue. She may well have been bored in reception and year 1. But struggled with the writing.

It’s different scenario to Scotland or USA etc. Its normal there to defer/parents have a choice when to start. It’s not the norm in England so isn’t usually something done just because you can. I’m not saying all held back DC have additional needs just that for parents to be thinking of deviating from norm and doing it there’s often a reason. Of course the 3 DC OP mentioned could just be badly behaved but my guess would be young for age and not ready for full time school still with issues in year 2 making them stand out from peers may have additional needs.

It's not about getting one up on your peers by being the oldest though, @NotSoLongGoodbye. Lots of people who have children in Scotland born Jan/Feb just really don't think their children are ready for school at 4 and a half. So they defer them. Other parents send their children at 4 and a half and are quite happy with that decision.

Ask any parent about why they're deferring and they'll say that their child is socially immature, not ready, would benefit from another year in nursery... not that they are deliberately not starting them to give them the benefit of being among the oldest the following year.

In Scotland there is also the issue of the age on LEAVING school - my oldest is leaving in the next few weeks having turned 18 already, along with the deferred children. The youngest children who started school with him who were still 4 and a half won't be 18 until Jan/Feb next year.

Place marking

The teachers will have been be differentiating the learning from day 1 to suit various abilities regardless of age. The idea that ‘bright’ but disruptive children are simply bored is complete bull these days.

I might have felt my dc2 was at an advantage over a child up to 13m younger. Except now i know both parents are drs. And think well mine is probably still comparatively disadvantaged.

If there is advantage to be eldest then there is disadvantage to be youngest.

But logically if you can already see at 3 that a child is
Impulsive
Nit ready to learn sounds
Gas speech issues
Behavioural issues

It makes no sense on a school or individual level to make that worse by them being youngest.

It's not like our state schools are amazing well funded places that get the best out of every child.
They try but with 30 kids.
Most people would have preferred to have a mar born than have to go through all this.

In fact it may be more that dc1 school failed her complete in yr r that it was so bad i couldnt risk that again. Maybe it was quite damaging

Not all parents defer so that their children are the oldest in the class...

I wanted my third born deferred due to speech issues. He wasn't developmentally ready.

My youngest misses the cut off but won't be ready next August. He is even further behind developmentally than his brother. Born very prematurely. There are very valid reasons for parents who battle it out with their local authority.

Surely this would also apply to the early September birthday children too then??

It’s not same as them being September born as their parents have deliberately made a choice to hold them back. This is rare in England and will usually have been done because they are not ready i.e behaviour concerns that make parents think better having another year in nursery.

This isn’t a thing - unless you are schooling privately maybe, I’m not sure if they allow it. The government definitely doesn’t fund extra years of education for children who have parents who don’t think them ready for school yet.