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?

😅 get. A. Grip

I would move the threshold for starting school to 1st July and have all July and August babies start school a year later.

I agree that’s the solution. Four years and one day is bonkers to be starting school but making school year groups span 15+ months in age isn’t the answer.

Would be good to hear other teachers experiences of summer borns? In my teaching experience, it is one factor which COULD contribute to a child's achievements at school but I have never seen a big correlation between the two and I even taught a solely summer born year 1 class. I would say that factors such as SEN, social and economic background, family background, individual personality play a bigger part than birth month.

I agree with others - the option is there, and it's up to parents (perhaps with input from nurseries, GPs or HVs if applicable) to make that decision. It really does sound like sour grapes here OP, I'm sorry.

Full confession: when we were TTC my eldest I tried to aim for a Sept birthday, because I was really exercised with the schools thing and the data around summer borns. She was duly born in September. She's not started school yet, is likely to be the oldest and tallest in her year and is academically far ahead of where she needs to be, to the point where I'm worried about the conversation I'll need to have with her teacher in order not to come across the way some posters are surely ready to accuse me of here . Good planning eh?

And actually among friends with summer borns there was only one where I'd thought hmm, if he was mine I'd defer. They didn't defer, he has struggled socially in Reception and I suspect will soon battle academically too. Another friend has the teeniest lad but he's got an older sister and stands up for himself just fine, mixes well with other kids etc.

And I was the youngest in my year, always top/near the top academically but crap at sport. I'd have maybe been middling at sport in primary if deferred.

It's all anecdote but I'd say it's quite a nuanced issue. The real losers imo, as PP said, are new arrivals who don't know the system and those who need the childcare that school provides.

Yep YABU. Pfb maybe?

And it’s almost always the pushy middle classes who want to defer

That’s interesting. My birthday is January, I started in the spring term (so just turned 5), loved school and was pretty much top of the class from day 1.

Towards the end of 3rd year Juniors (now year 5) my parents (pushy? Don’t think so. Middle class? Definitely) looked into me starting high school a year early. While I probably would have coped academically, they decided that socially it would not have been in my best interests.

Its just interesting that, back then, advancing your child was though to give them a potential advantage, whereas now it’s holding them back.

Come on OP, I don’t believe for a millisecond that you decided not to defer because you were worried about the negative effect on other kids!

I know you wish Lucy’s Mum had thought like that, but don’t try to kid us that you did!

My daughter went back to school today (Scotland) she’s still only 5 but most kids in her class are 6. I wanted to hold her back a year but we weren’t allowed. No child should start school before the age of 6 in my opinion

I wouldn’t worry. Just try to build confidence as best you can.

Lucy is an 8 year old receiving education at the same level as your 6 year old.

Think about that. She might be smashing it now but the poor girls lost a whole years worth of the very limited time when her brain is super plastic.

Most CEOs, directors and self starters are April / May babies; thought to be due to the higher level of education for their age without the confidence issue of being literally ‘the youngest’.

Don’t worry, you made the right choice! I would never drop my child a year and if I had the choice would fight to put them up a year. .

How fucking heroic of you 🙄

Just though it was a tad unfair my DD is expected to work / perform at the same level as a girl 13 months older than her.

But this will always be the case with a school year that runs for...well, a year! I have a dgd with a September birthday. She's nearly a whole year older than her friends with August birthdays. By no means does she seem to have disparate levels of achievement or advantage.

I fear that you are projecting your expectations rather wildly here so far as winning Sports Day medals and school productions are concerned and as for sleepover parties, that's entirely your decision. You chose to let her miss the fun.

It all works out in the end. This I know from 40 years of motherhood. Don't be bitter about other children's achievements and blame them for it!

We were told (DC with SN) that at some point they would be expected to move up two years so they "caught up" with the correct year. Most likely to be done by going to secondary with their correct age group as secondary schools wouldn't want them tonstay back a year.

I wish I could have deferred DD1 for a year - but at time that would have just meant her missing reception and going straight into Y1.

She is literally at cut off date and I think it would have been easier on her in many ways though despite that she's done well.

However post GCSE she was disadvantaged - she couldn't at 15 find work like many of her 16 year old friends - she also couldn't apply for cheap bus pass scheme till 16 - which meant it was peak time for everyone claiming so instead of week or so took months adding to transport to college costs for us.

So I disagree I think its great there is more flexibility in the system now.

I mean there are 11 months almost 12 months gaps between some of the kids in my daughters class and I don't see that being any different to 'Lucy' age gap. Her parents made that decision so there isn't really anything anyone can do. My daughters one of the younger ones in her year but is one of the top performers in her year (her teachers words) and the tallest girl. There are a lot of children I know whose parents have kept them back a year all for different reasons but all to benefit the children.

DD was born full term, developing as expected, achieving as expected. Why would I when it would disadvantage the younger kids in the class she moved into?

Cool, pat yourself on the back for being a superior person to Lucy's mum. Your medal is in the post.

Of all the ridiculous threads on here, this gets an extra special eye roll from me.

My friend in New Zealand told me about this system when her kids started school. Is it not really weird for the eldest ones who start in a class of only two or three kids, then are joined at random times of the term by new pupils? Isn’t it annoying for the teachers constantly to be settling in new joiners? Don’t the kids struggle with being the new one in class all by themselves? And don’t kids feel a bit upset that their birthday is on the same day as a new and scary experience?

But there will be children born in September who will be 11 months older than your daughter. That’s how the education system works here and has done for decades..

My birthday early September I was held back a year which I'm very grateful for. It helped me to sit year 5 twice.

I find it interesting people claiming there is no advantage gained over other children in deferring your child. Of course there is otherwise there would be no need to do it. You can't gain an advantage without disadvantaging someone else as your child does not exist in the abstract but as part of a cohort and there are not unlimited opportunities. Whether we want to admit it or not, we are all competing against each other, from that part in the school play, to the class rep all the way to university/jobs etc. For example, if by sitting exams a year later, the child is more likely to get better results than they would had they went earlier, their university place (or college place of job or whatever) is gained at the expense of someone else.

For those saying 13 months is no different from one year, a spread of age across a class must have an impact at some point so when is it, if not 13months is it15 months , 2 years? Would be interested to know at what spread of age they feel their child would be at a disadvantage.

I am not arguing that parents are wrong for deferring as we are all just trying to ensure that our child is given the best opportunity to succeed in life but surely we must accept that we are part of a society and our choices do impact on those around us.

Surely no heads would allow an April born child into Reception if they defer? My niece with a June birthday was told she'd have to go straight into Year 1. She has no problem with deferring a July or August child but before that they'll start at the correct cohort. They have the right to start the term after their 5th birthday, but it is up to the head whether they go into Reception or Year 1. I can't imagine many would for April-June children!

I don't believe that a small age gap has any relevance as to why your DD didn't win a medal OP. My brother was always the youngest in his year, but was just naturally gifted at sports and always did very well academically. You sound very jealous.

Freakonomics isn’t Gladwell. It’s Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner. I say this not to be a pedant but in case anyone is looking for the book, as it is a cracker. Glad we’ll wrote Outliers, which is on similar themes and is also excellent. I can’t now remember off the top of my head which of them had the chapter on age and sport- think it might have been Outliers.

One day off 17 months if we take the extremes of 1 April and 31st August. So I new born baby will be going to school with a child who is currently walking, talking, weaned etc.

Agree with 1st July threshold but you can be sire the June parents won't be.

Maybe it would be better if all children in Reception can attend as part time as parents feel appropriate. This is the case for all children until the term after their 5th birthday, so some Reception children can just do 3 mornings the whole year as if in nursery and Reception is part of EYFS after all.
But there would be no option to defer, the cut off has to be somewhere but part-time attendance allowed for all in the Reception year.

For example, if by sitting exams a year later, the child is more likely to get better results than they would had they went earlier, their university place (or college place of job or whatever) is gained at the expense of someone else.

Its just one factor among hundreds, possibly thousands. Someone's going to be slightly advantaged by age cuts offs, no matter how you do it.