August babies shouldn't be allowed to move down a year

[SapphosRock]

My DD has a late August birthday, she is 6 nearly 7 and about to go into Year 3.

A friend in her class (let's call her Lucy) has an early August birthday but was allowed to move down a year. She is already 8.

No special needs, her mum just decided she would prefer her DD to be the oldest in the class rather than one of the youngest.

This has impacted my DD in a few ways. She is good at sports but being the youngest means she doesn't often win. On Sports Day Lucy came first in the year 2 running race. My DD came 4th so missed out on a medal.

Lucy had a sleepover for her 8th birthday and invited the girls in DD's class. Most went but I didn't think DD was ready for a sleepover as she's still only 6 so she missed out on a fun party.

Lucy got the biggest speaking part in the Christmas play as she is the most confident and articulate.

AIBU and precious to think Lucy should have been kept in the correct year group?

The cut off is the 31st March. Anyone born between 1st April and end of August can be deferred. Schools don't promote it much as it probably screws all their admissions. Also no guarantee they they will be allowed to continue this deferred entry into secondary school. I suspect you weren't aware that this option was available to you.

I was aware but I don't understand why a parent would do it just to make their child one of the oldest. It does feel like pushy, middle class sharp elbows.

Like I said before I do understand if the child was premature or has SEN.

Lucy is a lovely kid btw and clearly thriving. I'n sure she would be absolutely fine in year 4.

Just wanted to say that the standards expected of them will not necessarily be the same - the child's date of birth is often taken into account and scores are adjusted accordingly. The work should be appropriate for a range of abilities, and the children's progress is assessed against their own previous work, not someone else's. You might compare these 2 children , but teaching staff won't be, the children will have their individual targets based on their needs and ability.
Academically your child will not suffer by being in the same class as an older, more able child.
However I can see that for things that require confidence or physical strength, there could be an issue, but the difference will be less apparent as they get older.
What is the make- up of the rest of the class? Are there lots of summer born children?

My 5 year old is sat here happily reading books in his head, he absolutely loves maths & numbers & socialises really well with peers. I think he would have gone bonkers if he'd not started school til 7

I'm not suggesting they would do no learning until 7. I'm suggesting that there would be no tests or formal requirements or standards to achieve but that kindergarten would be tailored to the child, as it in other countries. Whereas here we are testing them on phonics when they are 5/6.

My dd was in mixed year groups for her first few years at primary. In year 1 she was a youngest, shy girl mixing with boisterous boys and girls practically 2 years older than her. She didn’t dare put her hand up and struggled with friendships as she felt intimidated. There was a much smaller pool of quieter, younger girls to make friends with and it badly affected her confidence. It really hasn’t done her any favours socially long term. She still has social anxiety with people her own age.

I know in this case there isn’t such a big age gap but it does impact kids who are less confident.

the child's date of birth is often taken into account and scores are adjusted accordingly

Indeed, DD1's score was adjusted according to her summer birthday for the 11+.

I don’t agree with any of that as it singles out a child as being different. The current rule works fine and if it upsets the OP then so be it.

There are barely enough places in special needs school to deal with those children that need them. They aren’t going to suddenly start opening up places for those with minor issues where deferring a year would be reasonable and sensible.

It's the best outcome for Lucy as an individual, but it comes at the expense of other children, and from a social justice perspective it is a bad choice.

There was a rule change for deferrals a few years ago which gave everyone the right to defer summer born children. Before that there were only 3 local authorities that allowed automatically upon parental request.

One of those was Lewisham, where I lived. About 6 years ago, Lewisham Council did some research into how its policy was being applied, and published the results on its website (long since deleted), which broke down applications for deferral by ethnicity and household income. It made for uncomfortable reading.

This is a borough with high levels of child poverty and a large Black population. Virtually all applications were for White children from high income households. The school year demographic then had wealthy white children embedding their privilege by deferring and being the oldest in the year, and poor Black summer-born children having their educational environment made materially worse because not only was there was now a wider age gap between the eldest and youngest, but the eldest ones were also the most privileged ones, so the impact of the age gap was more than just a couple of extra weeks.

Don't forget the importance of the gap between eldest and youngest in terms of summer-born disadvantage - it's not just that summer-born children as starting school too young, it's that their confidence is undermined from the start by being less developed than their cohort.

I wonder if all those posters berating the OP realise just what a Thatcher-esque "no such thing as society" attitude they are supporting?

In Scotland the cut off date is 1st March so you don't have very young children starting P1. You can also defer Dec, Jan Feb birthdays if you want and more are granted.

Countries where children do not start school until older usually have better pre school systems than here.

@RedRocketLolly

This is very interesting (if depressing). Thank you for sharing this.

It’s irrelevant what you think - it was a decision for Lucy’s parents to make based on what they felt was best for her. Which is exactly what you did for your child.

YABU. Lucy's parents made the decision they felt would best benefit their child. You could have done the same if you had wanted to do so.

My twins were August born and I have made the decision to defer their school start. I chose to do so after looking into the potential disadvantages for summer born babies.

I fail to see why wanting my children to not be disadvantaged makes me pushy? As to the middle class accusation. I'm from an ex mining village and from decidedly working class stick. Very snobby of you to suggest that only certain classes actually care about their children's schooling!

Stock even...

Hi OP I get what you are saying. I also have an August born who is now struggling. In my area this whole drop into the year below thing was not widely advertised when my child started school. It was also pandemic times and juggling work with lockdowns and everything else I was not exactly on top of things. I was told by a teacher the child would need significant developmental reasons for being put into the year below, that there was an assessment process. But it seems this was wrong and nowadays all August born parents are doing it just because - on mumsnet at least! I don't think it is fair OP - the rules are not clear and some August borns whose parents are not aware of this for whatever reason are missing out. Also if you send your child with their expected year group and regret it there is no going back it seems.

Don't forget the importance of the gap between eldest and youngest in terms of summer-born disadvantage - it's not just that summer-born children as starting school too young, it's that their confidence is undermined from the start by being less developed than their cohort. I wonder if all those posters berating the OP realise just what a Thatcher-esque "no such thing as society" attitude they are supporting?

Thank you, this is what I was getting at. It feels like every person for themselves rather than working to a fair system.

I think it's ridiculous to assume, just because a child is older, that they will automatically be better at everything, or to assume that the parent held them back a year just so that this would be the case. You mention your child coming 4th in a race. DS1 was the oldest in his class, so older than some of the other children by almost a year, and he never came anything other than last in a race. If he had been running against the children in the year below, it still would have been the same. He is crap at running, despite being tall and thin and looking as if he should be good at it!! Perhaps that little girl is just good at running and would be no matter what age her competitors were (within reason of course).

The option is there for every parent to keep their child back a year if preferred. That particular mother availed of the option and it has been beneficial to her child. Some children, however, are very advanced (I don't necessarily mean academically) and will thrive at school even if they are the youngest in the class, so their parents will be keen to let them start as soon as they are eligible. It's swings and roundabouts. DS1 did very well in his transfer test (we're in NI) and the fact that he was one of the oldest in his class may or may not have helped. But interestingly the two children who got the highest scores were twins and also the youngest children in the class. They did exceptionally well - no tutors or outside help etc. They were just two very gifted and intelligent boys.

My dd will be almost dead on 4.5 when she starts. Tbh even at this point I can't imagine her wanting to wait until age 5 to start school even if she had the option. For every negative you're citing for your dd this might actually also be a negative for the other girl too. Eg you say your's is too young for sleepovers but the other girl might have been desperate to go to sleepovers the year before and had nobody to go with. It's all arbitrary anyway. Some parents would allow their kids to have a sleepover at your dd's current age, some will never allow it. It's a decision you'll have to make either way eventually. She may win all the races but I'd imagine that's at least on some level because she's actually good. My dd is physically very good and can outperform a lot of her much older friends in gymnastics/running/bike riding etc. I'm not sure her yeargroup would make much difference. And yes the winning ATT might be a confidence boost for the older girl but on the flip side she might be in for a rude awakening if she ever tries out for national athletics, for example, where the age gap is presumably much broader anyway.

I have 2 friends who's LO's birthday is in September but starting school at the same time as mine. A couple of years ago I would've been worried about this concept as they were so ahead with speech and emotional maturuty etc. However tbh you can't even tell the difference between them now and the advantage is definitely levelling out. I really think the 'advantage' by school leaving age is probably trivial.

I think you're massively overthinking it tbh. In an ideal world the decision to hold kids back should be based on educational statements. However we all know that this can be really hard to fully acheive in time for school so there has to be some leeway for parents to use their own intiative. It sounds like your dd and this girl actually get on well and your dd is happy so please don't do anything to spoil this because of what essentially sounds like jealousy...

There's no fucking way on earth I'd send a child who had only just turned 4 to school. Nothing to do with being the youngest in the year, all to do with being too young for school (however 'ready' they are academically, English schooling is far too formal and rigid for my tastes).

Agree it depends on the child. Some kids will struggle with ‘being last’ and other kids will overcome it and thrive. Some children will do better if they are moved back, others will do great even if they’re the youngest. Do what’s right for your child. Sounds like her parents decided she was struggling too much and felt she would benefit from going back. If she’s very young for her age maybe that’s best. I agree with you on the principle it might not encourage resilience though. X

Everyone is entitled to do it if they wish and it shouldn't be seen as pushy. I was advised that my ds should defer by one of his nursery teachers (he struggled socially). A few weeks before the end of term another of his teachers said they thought he would be bored in nursery for another year as he could already read. I weighed it up and opted for him to start reception for his correct age. It is hard to know what to do as a parent. There are positives and negatives eg. I'm not sure how he would cope with being singled out as a year older than the rest of his class.

Children also change a lot. My ds is now 8 and has changed SO much since his nursery days so 'fits in' more although he still seems younger than some of his peers. So Lucy may seem like a bright and well adjusted child now but a year or so ago may have really struggled.

My DD’s bestie is an August baby. She has always been one of the ‘most’ children in the class. Most articulate, most academic, most medals etc etc. She’s also one of the tallest. To be honest, you’d think she had been kept back a year (although she def hasn’t). Is suspect it’s because she’s from a relatively affluent family who spend a lot of time and money on and with her, and her mother is a teacher, coupled with natural ability. It’s certainly not because of her year group.

All children are different. Focus on getting schools adequately resourced so teachers have time and training to teach children as individuals, whatever their challenges.

@RedRocketLolly that's not the individual's problem though. I'm not middle class, but if I was, I wouldn't be potentially disadvantaging my own child to appease strangers or to level the playing field (by a minute fraction).

It may be a problem but I don't see how you can blame the individual who is acting in their child's best interest.

What months were the children who came second and third born in? Let's be having them too.

Malcolm Gladwell covered this re sports in Freakanomics. It is a real advantage for those who are the oldest in the year. So, ergo, a disadvantage for the youngest. I definitely agree that it is an issue

it's entirely dependent on the child and therefore having the option is by far the best thing.

But that's not what it is. Some august borns may seem more "ready" than some February borns, but the february children don't get the option to delay?

A school classroom should not contain children 14 or 15 months older than some of the others. There will always be variability in maturity, it doesnt make sense to disadvantage a few to benefit a few others.

Mine wasn’t and I still managed to achieve better marks than most of the class, despite having an August birthday.