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?

You’ve no idea why Lucy’s parents made the choice they did. It’s not always as simple as just the age, and even if that is why it’s a perfectly valid choice.

I’m sure the parents in my DS’s class think I held him back “just because” but the fact was he wasn’t ready for school. By Y3 and 4 he was thriving and probably would have cope with his “right” year group, but in R and Y1 he struggled every day.

DD3 was the opposite - she made the cut off by one day and lots of people felt I should hold her back because being there youngest is a disadvantage, but she was absolutely ready for it.

@HowManyTurtles i think they have changed the rules
I was offered deferred entry (England) for my April born child as she counts as a summer born and it’s an option for all parents if their child is born after 1st April
I queried what year she would start in and was told she could “now” start in reception so I got the feeling that wasn’t always the case
We kept her in her own year group though and it worked for her.
My niece has her birthday on August 30th and she went into the right year as well. Academically she did well but really struggled when she was the last one to drive and the only one of her friends now who isn’t legally able to drink.
However, she is now taking a gap year and will only just be 19 when she starts university next year so the same age still as most of them with the added bonus of having had an amazing opportunity to see the world
it really depends on the child - all we can do as parents is make the decision that’s right for our child

It’s much more common now that when a child is deferred they are deferred for the whole year and start R the next year with the new cohort.

Similar to the Scottish system where a deferred child starts P1 the next year. It’s much less disruptive to the year group than having a new start mid way through the year, or having a child who has never been at school start Y1 - that completely removes the point of deferral and just puts them a year behind.

They're very little to be nailing all of this to the summer delay, all this could change.

At 8, my August-born daughter in-year cohort was a year behind academically and struggled in just about every way. There were discussing of redoing a year or delaying entry to secondary.

At Y8, still in-year, she's middle ground academically, winning sports days and still faster than half the boys, and is more confident in school and socially than her February-born sister even with how hard all my kids found Y8 with puberty crashing into everything around them.

She's also more confident and likely to get better GCSEs than her September-born brother. The other end isn't all sunshine and roses when they're teens.

There is data around summer borns struggling more in some areas, but the same data shows issues for the oldest in year too, particularly as teens. Last I read, the oldest kids in year are statistically more likely to start 'adult' activities at a younger age because they're treated as more mature and make more friends with the year about them. I've seen this with my kids.

There are pros and cons to more cohort flexibility. Yeah, you have a wider gap between oldest and youngest - at the last school I went to, there was nearly 2 year difference between oldest and youngest. This can cause issues both for the oldest and the youngest children and more consideration is needed for things like sports and performances. However, it also means you can be more individualised to the child - when I started school as an August-born, I had to pass a school readiness test that involved me being observed while doing activities.

As one of youngest, yeah, it was noticeable in some areas, but it also played a big role in my finishing school because there were far more barriers to me just leaving compared to my siblings who were autumn and winter born. If I'd had to stay another year, I likely wouldn't because I'd have been able to leave without legal consequences.

The 'right' cohort is all about tradition rather than anything integral or better or more moral for children. It's okay to challenge tradition. England is really weird in it's history of rigidness with a cut off so close to starting so young. I don't think delaying is that great of a fix, but parents are bound by what the system will allow.

My DC's school won't allow held back children to start in R. Their argument is that the staff are highly skilled at managing the huge presentation of needs in terms of learning but it causes other issues. Schools have to agree a reception start.

Research shows that the youngest children, ie them born in summer time and particularly August struggle the most in school. This is why there is a flexible admission policy for summerborn children.
This shows August born children aren't ready for school.

If Lucy was born a few weeks later on the 1st September and her parents sent her "on time" meaning she still be in your childs class would you post saying the cut off date should be moved as your child came 4th in a race etc.
Lucy would still be Lucy, she's still be fast runner and confident etc.

Was Lucy born on her due date, was she early?

My child could go to reception this year however I am delaying until next year. I was due end of sept but due to complications baby had to be born in August. This meant my baby was born in the wrong year group for school. I think with help and support maybe they'd be ok in reception however I want them to be ready to thrive in reception and to be as confident as they can be for whole education.

Surely we should look at the child, a very bright confident August born child will probably be fine, a not so bright timid only just 4 year old will probably struggle. Same principle with September born, a bright confident September born will probably benefit from jumping a year, a less bright more timid September born will probably benefit from being the oldest in the class.

These are real little human beings we are talking about. I think that flexibility is important.

@LittleMousewithcloggson Yes deferred entry is an option for all after April 1st, but it is up to the head if they go into Reception or Year 1(Normal cohort for age). I think it would be complete madness to allow an April child to defer into Reception. This would mean that when some of their class mates were born, they were proper/full blown toddlers. It just wouldn't be appropriate. I can't believe some heads allow it!

I do appreciate that my post is an oversimplification but it was in response to those posters who claim that the decision to defer only impacts on the individual child. We do not exist in a bubble, so by deferring we are placing our child at an advantage, therefore someone else will be at a disadvantage.

We all do what we think is best, but my point is that our individual actions do have consequences for society and I think, while the OP maybe is unreasonable in terms of the specifics, the overall point of allowing deferral is worthy of discussion.

Also If we have a system where you can gain an advantage that is not available to all then it is inherently unfair. While in theory deferral is available to anyone in reality it is not. Be that because parents cannot navigate the system, or for financial reasons or whatever.

Same here - I got told by our school that the child would need significant developmental reasons to start in the year below. Being summer born or a little bit prem (as my child was) didn't cut it for us. I wish I pushed more though because if this thread is anything to go by it feels the whole of mumsnet has deferred into the year below! I dont begrudge people taking advantage of these rules for their kids, but I wish schools agreed on the rules and that it is made clear to all parents.

Lucys mum has done what is best for her DD.
Your DD is August as well tou have the choice to do the same if its in the ibterest of your DD.
being competitive about things is ridiculous!

My DS is a Jan baby in Scotland that means I can auto defer school start for a year which I will be doing it's in his best interests and all friends who are teachers agree. He isn't behind socially, or SEN it's just what is best for him.

while the OP maybe is unreasonable in terms of the specifics, the overall point of allowing deferral is worthy of discussion.

But what deferral does is soften the impact of hard cut offs. If we decide that deferrals aren't fair then we'll be increasing advantage for early autumn born and increasing disadvantage for summer born. It would be moving goalposts, because those goal posts have to be planted somewhere.

How is Lucy's presence causing her to struggle? Coming fourth in a race isn't a struggle, by the way.

It seems to me the only problem she faces is that her mother isn't satisfied with her achievements and compares her jealously to other children.

She doesn't you can make exactly the same choice!

On the contrary, I think all children should have the option to move down a year during their school years. Sometimes, the child has had a bad year, or has had personal issues, and the option to re-take a year could prove very beneficial. Not just for August children!

I failed all my O levels and re-sat them in the sixth form, that extra year gave me the chance to pull myself together, get the grades I needed, and then I did my A levels with the year group below me, and got my A levels.

My OH would have massively benefitted if he'd been allowed. His parents relocated during his third year at secondary (year 9 now), and he couldn't get a school place for several months. Then he really struggled in years 10 and 11 and got poor O levels. If he'd been allowed to go back a year and do year 9 in his new school (with the kids a year younger), he'd have done a lot better (he eventually got his O levels and diplomas at a college of FE once he'd left school).

It just seems unfair that the option is there for parents who simply want their child to be the oldest, and by default the best at everything

What makes you think that the eldest are best at everything, by default? Of course they're not. There are a huge number of factors that lead to which children are the most and least able in a class. And certainly as they progress through school, age is quite insignificant compared to innate ability and parental involvement. It's only really in reception that the difference is relatively noticeable. But even then it's not a given that the oldest is most able, by a long way

I have a 14 year old boy and can assure this is not the case😡

In England children don’t have to start school until they’re 5 so if Lucy’s parents had done this from the beginning you and your DD would never have been any the wiser.
Its not that deep as Lucy is only marginally older than the September children in her class.
Glad to see you’ve taken the comments on board, I’ve not RTFT so you may have addressed this. Don’t worry about what Lucy is doing and advise your DD to do the same.

I think I would be looking to change my childrens school.

I am sure that I am not the only one to think that it isn’t normal for 12 year olds to be shagging each other.

If you think it is then I would be looking to change the people I surround myself with.

queenofwobbles
it is illegal for schools to have a blanket refusal policy and should be challenged on that.

by deferring we are placing our child at an advantage, therefore someone else will be at a disadvantage.

Who though@user1471447974 ? Usually, yes, that logic applies. But in this case I honestly can't see who is disadvantaged. The children in the class the cold should be in, aren't. It makes no difference to them that the child isn't there. It could even advantage then if it means the class is smaller.

The children in the cohort that the class does join, don't seem disadvantaged on any meaningful way to me, either.

Child, not cold!

The date you are born is luck of the draw. When you start to allow movement in goalposts then you build unfairness into the system as it relies on parents knowing and accessing the system and having the funds available rather than automatic right of access. (This obviously does not apply to children who have additional needs.)

Im not saying I disagree with building in flexibility but it is not a decision without consequence.

I'm still yet to see any explanation for how this trend for deferring helps in the long run.

If all parents do it, all that's then happened is the entire class will still have up to a year between them at youngest and oldest, but the cohort will be a few months out of line with the academic year.

None of your business