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?

See my other posts where I explain. I don’t think it’s exactly the same but that there is a vague parallel. Creating a reasonably level playing field is fundamental to fairness in sport. Of course there has to be a reasonable cut off and kids within 12 month of age seems reasonable to me. Stretching it beyond a year, at age 5 or something when it’s such a large proportion of their whole life and development, seems unfair to me.

This is an aside though and just a tiny part of the OP’s point. Clearly I’m in a tiny minority on this thread but I absolutely see her point and the solution to her child having been disadvantaged should absolutely not be to turn around and do the same to other kids, especially in the face of evidence that those kids will probably already be disadvantaged. It’s sad to see so many here shrugging and effectively saying well you should have just screwed someone else over to equalise your child being screwed over.

This gets said a lot. Nordic children may start formal schooling later than British kids, BUT childcare there is excellent and heavily subsidised, so almost all children go to some form of nursery. The curriculum at age 4/5 in the Nordic countries is almost identical to ours. Nordic children start school at 7 already able to read and write, do basic maths etc. They just call it childcare, not school.

Dramatic much?

MN is ‘up in arms’ about it and generally I fully agree! I’m not here to convince you about my views but feel free to read my posting history and find one example of me spouting trans ideology. Guaranteed you won’t. I say cis because it’s a term that people widely use and understand but feel free to replace with ‘biologically female’ or anything you like, my point remains. I believe in biological women competing against biological women and I also believe in broadly fair age categories for children’s sport.

No child should start school aged 4. If they were 6 or 7 the age gap within a year wouldn't make so much of a difference but at age 4, one year means a lot in terms of development.

Regarding your personal situation. I agree with pp. You made the decision to not hold back your child. You can't blame Lucy's parents for doing what was best for her.

(I also have an August child and also regret not holding her back. She is doing fine academically mostly but she's always the slowest and smallest and I think it does dent her confidence.)

Anyone whose child is born between 1 April and 31 August has the right to request that they start reception outside of their usual cohort.

It is a fantastic option for lots of children - I'm sorry, it sounds a bit as if you may regret not having known about this possibility for your own child. I think it's great to make sure as many parents as possible know it's an option. It won't be for everyone, but for some summer-born children it will make a real difference to their ability to thrive at school.

How is holding you child back a year 'screwing someone else over'?
Fuck's sake get a grip people.

I think this is an enormously important point. People talk in awe about the systems in various European countries but I’m not aware of any where kids aren’t routinely introduced to basic concepts like phonics and letters by the age we call reception. Surely it’s just about labels?

I'm not sure about Scandinavia but in Germany you start school aged 6 or 7 and while from age 5 on you generally learn a little about numbers and letters it is certainly not equal to reception. Most kids start to learn reading, writing and maths pretty much from scratch.

My daughter at the end of reception was reading fluently and could easily do simple addition and subtraction. So what is called pre school in Germany is nowhere near reception. It also affects child to adult ratio and a lot of other things. Pre school in Germany is nothing like reception. It's not the same. I suspect it isn't in Scandinavia either but I could be wrong.

Haha lots of repetition in my post but I really hate that kids have to start school so early here.

YABU and precious I’m afraid

Why should my DD struggle in her natural cohort just to make way for Lucy to thrive?

Welcome to the world!

You need to stop obsessing about how things are unfair in your daughter’s life, and instead use them as tools to help her gain the resilience that ALL children and young adults will need to not only survive but thrive when things are ‘unfair’.

Sounds like you weren’t taught that by your parents. Why don’t you make a difference to your child’s life and change it for her….

Clearly I’m in a tiny minority on this thread but I absolutely see her point and the solution to her child having been disadvantaged should absolutely not be to turn around and do the same to other kids, especially in the face of evidence that those kids will probably already be disadvantaged. It’s sad to see so many here shrugging and effectively saying well you should have just screwed someone else over to equalise your child being screwed over.

By holding a child back, a parent is doing what is best for their child. They are NOT 'screwing over' someone else. The children who are summer born are by default disadvantaged in their first few years of school and the impact of this can stay with them into adulthood for some. Others will barely notice being 11 months younger and progress absolutely fine. It is only right that parents of those who are younger and not yet ready can wait for another year before they start school - THAT is making things fair.

We are all different and a fair system accounts for that and lets parents be the judge of whether their child is ready or not when they are only just turning 4. It is not at the expense of others

Shes missing out on sleepovers etc because your not allowing her to go and are over concentrated that she’s the youngest in the class. So to us my daughter and early august born, it’s never even been on our radar.

Yes YABU and precious.

What Lucy's parents have decided is best for her is none of your business. If there wasn't Lucy, there'd be Sandra born 1 September for your DD to compete with.

School starts far to early in this country, and parents should absolutely be able to make adjustments for their very very young children if they think it's too much. You could have gone the same for your DD had you wanted to.

I’m genuinely baffled here. Would you say ‘welcome to the world’ in response to the first part of that quote (which you have left off) which was asking why Lucy should struggle so as not to disadvantage OP’s child?

And why don’t the parents of the august born kids have to teach them that life isn’t always fair? And that they have drawn the short straw in terms of birth month? Then work on teaching them the skills they need to thrive?

Really don’t understand why OP is being vilified for wanting to protect her child from disadvantage and told to basically get the fuck over it, yet parents of these summer born kids are not being told to just suck it up in the same way? So odd! As we have established, the OP’s child is absolutely being disadvantaged by Lucy so this isn’t a case of her not being affected and she should keep her nose out. It’s saying that Lucy matters more than the OP’s child which I don’t agree with.

OP, it isn't the point of your thread but I have an August birthday and remember at primary age feeling much younger than many and noting that the oldest were quite often winning everything etc. But by secondary school the gap had bridged and it hasn't bothered/affected me in any way in later life, I have done equally as well as the older kids. The only time it was a bit annoying was when my friends were getting into bars etc and I wasn't 18 for another year.
I know you weren't asking for reassurance but I thought I would share to give some perspective.

I am amazed so many people think the op is unreasonable. I live in Scotland and yes it is normal in some areas for January/February babies to defer but I don’t think it’s a fair system at all. In the area we are almost all January/February babies defer and it’s just because so many people want their kids to be the oldest in their year because they have heard about the advantages. Of course who can blame them I would do the same as everyone wants the best for their child. But the problem is that actually you can defer October, November, December babies too (with a little justification about them being immature for their age) so lots now to this. The problem is that families from abroad who perhaps don’t understand this unwritten rule that most families defer. Or maybe poorer families who want their child in school as it’s easier childcare. So you end up with in some classes children are 16 months older. Turning 8 four months before their classmate is 7.

"She is good at sports but being the youngest means she doesn't often win." Someone will always be better/faster/stronger than your daughter. Winning and not winning builds character in different ways. Have you taught her to lose graciously? Or to take other things from an experience other than always having to win? I feel like this is PFB syndrome gone wild.

I am in Scotland and deferred my son, he is now in secondary education. I deferred him because it was the right decision for him and he is definitely in the ‘right’ year group. He isn’t the biggest, the smartest or the fastest.
My eldest son is young in his year, he is and always has been one of the most academic, sporty, confident and articulate in his year. He is often chosen to do things because of this. Kids are different, one size doesn’t fit all so parents should chose what’s right for them and others parents should respect that.

Because Lucy's mum wanted her daughter to thrive. It's not Lucy's mums job to make the right decision for YOUR child. Lucy is confident and outgoing thanks to being held back a year. She could have been shy and low in confidence had she been the youngest in the class and her mum didn't want that for her. She made the right decision for her child.
DS is a summer born baby, but at the moment he's quite ahead, confident and eager to socialise with older kids, so the right decision for him is to get him in school with the older kids. If that changes before school entries begin and I think he'll struggle to keep up then I'll hold him back. The option is there because not all kids benefit from being the youngest. There should (there might be) be an option for winter babies to start earlier if they're ready earlier because not all kids benefit from being the oldest either.

Why should she lose graciously against someone who shouldn’t even be in her category? I prefer to teach my daughter boundaries and to stand up for what is right, not always to roll over, shut up and be ‘nice’ when they’re being treated unfairly.

How on earth does this affect you and your child? If you feel that your child is disadvantaged by being one of the youngest, you could ask for her to be kept down a year too. If you think that the disadvantages of that would outweigh the advantages, then don't. But she's not in a personal competition with Lucy. By the time she takes GCSEs and perhaps takes part in serious sporting events, these small differences in age will matter far less.

As we have established, the OP’s child is absolutely being disadvantaged by Lucy so this isn’t a case of her not being affected and she should keep her nose out. It’s saying that Lucy matters more than the OP’s child which I don’t agree with

We are ALL going to be disadvantaged by someone/something at some point in our lives.

You could start a National petition to change the rules if you feel strongly enough about it.

And you could teach your child to see her strengths as an individual, not in comparison to others, because my god, she is going to be compared and disadvantaged for many years ahead, and she will need to learn how to pick herself up and not see herself through the lenses of those who compare her.

Focusing so much on another’s individual’s personal and legal choice somehow disadvantaging her is only going to plough the furrow for her deeper….

A cut-off is a cut-off and the school should stick rigidly to it.

It always was the 4 September at my school.

I would move the threshold for starting school to 1st July and have all July and August babies start school a year later. It is ludicrous having little ones who were three years old only weeks earlier starting school. They benefit from starting at an older age. I have a summer baby. I also have friends in Scotland with a son who is a late November baby. He has been kept down a year because the cut off for starting school is February and babies born in Nov-Jan can choose to move down a year. He will move to a school that offers A levels or IB instead of Highers when he is a bit older. He will sit his final set of school exams when he is more than 18 months older than my child. I don't resent it. It is their choice. We thought about it, but on balance decided that finishing school at 19 would suit our child.