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?

They'd be better off changing the cut off date from September to maybe March, that way you wouldn't start your kids so early in this country - I think it's weird you'd have a kid one day past 3 starting school, that's just crazy! And they never really make back the time, so that's why they try to do fixes like allowing parents to hold them back. Which they wouldn't have to do if the cut off was changed.

Being the oldest in the class can have a great disadvantage with some children. When my September born DD started school (already 5) in a group with a lot of barely four year olds progress was very slow. She may have been better being up a year (or even having some summer born children who had been held back) just so she had some peers of her own age.
It works both ways

I think the cut off should be the same for everyone, (barring special circumstances) for the reasons redrocketlolly outlined. A year is a long enough time for one cohort of students.

Whether or not children should start formal learning at 4 or at 6 is an entirely different discussion.

Having said that 2 of mine are summer babies and one in particular is with a lot of kids who were kept down so over a year older. But he is very bright and would have been bored out of his mind to stay in kindergarten another year.

You do sound a bit precious but I do see what you’re getting at.

It should the the same rule for everyone unless there are extenuating circumstances.

I actually work in a school for SEND pupils and they start in year 7 and finish in year 11 like everyone she’s but they’re not in year groups. The classes are based on ability and capability.
It probably wouldn’t work in mainstream as a year 11 in with a bunch of year 7s would probably get bullied but it made me realise how mainstream year groups can really be a disadvantage to some pupils as they don’t take into account the massive age gaps between pupils and the ability gaps.

I think you've focused on the wrong thing. I don't think anyone takes the decision lightly and I think we are talking very small numbers of children who actually defer entry. I doubt anyone thinks of it in terms of getting the edge on other kids but they just don't want their child to struggle.

Each child is an individual and school isn't a competition, certainly not at primary level.

As others have said this is very common in Scotland
Older children generally do better at first but it does even out as they progress and

On a practical basis OP, if your DD enjoys running and wants to work on it, with the hope of a medal next year, maybe have a look at taking her to some junior parkruns - seeing her time improve week on week will give her a massive confidence boost, as well as helping her fitness and stamina.

YANVU. Where I am there is an 18 month spread in kids ages for first year of school. This allows for those that are ready early to go and those that would benefit from being held back starting later. It’s a nightmare for teachers as an 18mth spread means vastly different developmental stages and physical/emotional/cognitive abilities in the one class, however they cope and it’s been like that ever since I went to school many decades ago.

Your spiel about the running medal and play are odd. Mine are adults now and I really couldn’t tell you who won or starred in what at primary school and I’m sure there is no correlation whatsoever as yo where they have ended up in life. I had ones that started really early and really late and inbetween and now I’m sure no one would be able to pick who was who in that regard with where they have all landed. My ‘highest achiever’ in an academic and paying career sense was the earliest starter. They were academically behind for several years at school until kids abilities due to age even out and it becomes about natural ability.

You are very invested in something that doesn’t require this level of investment. Just reinforce with your child how well THEY are doing (no comparisons) and how proud you are of them for what they do no matter the output. That’s all that matters at this point.

Your dc is on their own journey. Don’t compare her to anyone else’s child.

You could have kept her back a year too.

People keep saying it is one month different. If a child is deferred from 1st April that child is

One year, four months and 30 days older than a child born on 31 August.

No I don't think it is appropriate to have that hig an age gap as a teenager.

i can see where you're coming from, but ultimately, they made the decision that was best for their dd in terms of when they thought she was ready to start school.. you had the same option and chose not to.

my son is the oldest in his year, his bff was the youngest.. there is all but a week between their birthdays. It took his friend until yr 5 to catch up to him academically, and i had to repeatedly make the point when my friend (their mom) was comparing that my ds was a whole year older than her dd... they may have had the same time in school, but that age/developmental gap made a LOT of difference.

Lucy may be better than others in her currrent year, but i bet she's comparable to the september-dec borns in their year. Your dd is august baby, she will always have that evelopmental disadvantage to kids born 8-12 months earlier til she matures/catches up.

I’m still unclear as to how it would disadvantage children younger than her.

She has to ‘compete’ with children 12 months older than her. I just don’t see how competing with children 12.5 months, or even 15 months older than her, is that significant a difference, especially not as they move through school and it evens out.

Achievement in primary schools is not a competition, outside of sports day etc where I promise you, medals are not won in order of birth month.

DD is a late July birthday.

Sports wise it was hard as she was always the littlest - but it had evened out by the end of primary school and she had a great Y6 sports day. She's now in various A and B teams for sports and plays netball competitively.

Academically she needed extra help in reception. I can remember the teacher saying "we'd usually tell you where they are on the reading scale but dd isn't on the scale yet. don't panic she'll be fine"...

In both cases I think the "battle" to close the gap worked in her favour. Her work ethic is very high and she is a high achiever.

OP won't you have the last laugh when Lucy has to start secondary school with her real year group? That's how it would work round here.....

I'm interested in this theme whenever it comes up. I was born at the end of August and was always the youngest in my year. I passed my 11+ a year early , so i had just turned 10 when I went to secondary school, took my O levels at 14 and my A levels at 16. There were several of us in my class like this, mostly born in the summer. I don't think we honestly felt any different to the others, maybe I pushed boundaries for freedom a bit early and the only time I really felt I was missing out was when the others got to be 17 and could learn to drive and I couldn't. I'm still good friends with my old schoolfriends, especially the oldest in my year who is nearly 3 years older than me (she got kept down a year at some point) At that time parents wanted to push their children a bit and it seemed to work, none of the younger ones in my class seemed to struggle.

For me there is a bigger issue around the Year 2 exams being used for targeting/prediction purposes. This is where the age gap matters, and using exams results from year 2 to track future progress is wrong imo. By all means use them to check where the kids are but nothing more.

That’s a valid point but it’s also valid for a September and an August born in the same class.

You can console yourself with the fact that Lucy's Mum is probably a right nightmare and will be forever a thorn in Lucy's side with her over-competitive, results-driven outlook.

Concentrate on helping to make your daughter's life a happy one, focused on performing to the best of her ability, rather than beating other people.

I wished I would have moved my August baby down a year. He was born 5th August and he was in a class with children nearly twelve months older than him. He was barely out of nappies at night and still having an after dinner sleep weeks before he had to start school, it was too soon to send him to full time school with a shirt and tie on also, having to sit at a desk all day, it was cruel when I look back.

There are no cutoffs in Ireland, a child can start school once they are 4 by the September and they must start by the September of the year they turn 6. Since free preschool (3 hrs a day school term) was introduced (eligible from the Sept of the year they turn 3 and cannot be older than 5.5 yrs by end of the June) children tend to be older. My DD turned 5 the Sept she started, her BF turned 4 the previous May, a couple of children turned 6 after Xmas.

The English system doesn't work, summer babies are statistically more likely to struggle throughout their academic career in all sorts of ways. The system that works better (in some other countries) is to have a December-January cut off (so the children are classed by calendar year of birth) but a September start, that way all the youngest children in the class are 4 years 9 months when they start school (and the oldest are 5 years 8 months). It's not the gap which makes the difference, as there will always be a year's gap between the oldest and youngest, it's the fact that some children are starting formal education at only just 4 years old and they're not ready for it yet.

OP, YABU in complaining that Lucy's parents did the best for their child and not for yours. But the system needs changing anyway.

It's only unfair if you see school as a competition. If it's about each child accessing it at an appropriate level for them, it makes perfect sense and arguably yes, could be offered to all students, so those who are super ready could go a year early etc. Those saying it should be the same for everyone are going entirely contrary to the principle of "every child matters" . Shall we just abandon all differentiation and acknowledgment of different pace and style of learning so they are all given the exact same work, help and support, regardless of what they actually need?

I am originally from New Zealand and have lived here for almost 20 years. I am also a teacher so see the impact of being born in August. It is certainly an issue for some children, but not for others.

I taught a family with two boys and a girl. Both boys had August birthdays, one beginning of the month and one at the end. The girl was had a December birthday. I taught the boys when they were year 3. They both did very well academically and socially. Both are now in their 20s and have been to university and have succeeded. Their sister struggled academically and still does. It's not necessarily the age that makes a difference.

The oldest child in the class I've just finished with (year 2) is the child in the class who finds reading the most difficult and a couple if the brightest boys have May and June birthdays.

On the other side, DS (10) best friend is August born and went to school when he should have. Got to Year 5 and his parents felt he was really struggling. They moved his school and put him back a year. He's just repeated Year 5 and is doing so much better.

As to my comment about being brought up in New Zealand...I think their way of doing things makes much more sense. Children start school on their 5th birthday. Children also stay in the first year of school for longer than a year depending on their age. The academic year runs from February to December so it's slightly different. For example, I'm August born, making me in the middle age wise for my year group. I started school when I was 5 and had one term at school before the end of the year. I then spent the next year in that same class. Most children do this, although some just do the term and then go to the next class in February. It means the age range is much greater in the early years but evens out by about year 3 or so.

The main issue in the UK, in my opinion, is that children who are potentially days past being 3 are in school. My DS's are lucky as they are born in September and October and so were very ready and almost 5. DS's friend had been 4 for 3 weeks and was definitely not ready!

You absolutely don’t know the circumstances though. We are going to delay our June born child because my husbands posting will be up in either the November or December. We think it would be more beneficial for her to wait until the next year rather than start her at her first school then pull her out two months later. I genuinely couldn’t care less whether other parents would be upset that their child might be a year younger. We all do what is best for our children.

If you didn't make decision for your daughter as you said then why are you moaning when someone else has for theirs, I would probably do the same

Me too. I’m undoubtedly biased because I am a September born who moved to secondary school a year early, and therefore had friends in my year who were 18 months or so older than me. It made zero difference. I was top of my year and went to Oxbridge. Had I been made to stay on at primary school an extra year - as Lucy will be - I would have been bored out of mind.

I also have two September born children who would both have been ready for school at 4, but were 5 by the time they started. Yes, they are doing well academically, but since the youngest could already read at 4, I’m confident that would have been the case anyway. The eldest is the smallest in his year and is definitely not winning any medals at sports day, nor are they by any means the most confident in their class.

This is all anecdata. But logically, I think if you accept it’s ok for there to be 11 months and 30 days between children in a year group, then I don’t see what difference a couple of months makes.