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?

This is always gonna be the case though, I'm 27th august 94 one of my friends at school was 1st September 93, neither of us deferred a year

But it's essentially the same thing, plus one month? One month doesn't really make a difference does it!?

The issue is at secondary. The school could turn round and say they must go to their rightful year group and then that child misses out on a year's education.

Secondary schools have to make a decision based on the best interest of the child and in a country where so much emphasis is made on not missing even 1 day of school how is it ok the best interest of a child to be made to skip a year. From my experience with our local secondary schools summer born children have not been asked to move cohorts.

also the FA have a dispensation policy for children to play in their adopted cohort.

Every parent is making the best decision for their child who they know very well.

Reading this thread makes me so glad I'm in Scotland where this just isn't an issue. Around 50% of January/February-borns are deferred without any fuss or drama - my DC included.

maybe as it becomes normal for summer borns it won't be an issue but as this cohort come through senior I expect it will be an issue, senior is cruel

• and high school teachers also recommend deferral for Jan/Feb birthdays: it can be very difficult starting high school if you're still into trampolining and want to play games at break time but your peers are now wanting to talk about boys and make up. That's when high school is cruel - when you're seen as immature and are having to grow up quicker than you feel ready to.

Reading this thread makes me so glad I'm in Scotland where this just isn't an issue

Ditto

The issue is at secondary. The school could turn round and say they must go to their rightful year group and then that child misses out on a year's education

Does this actually happen?

Do is a very late August birthday.

He would have loved to have been held back a year more because all the tryouts for sports he went to he was the smallest and absolute youngest.
Plus he was sent off to full time boarding school, (no half term returning home for him) just a few days after he turned 7 when already there were 8 year olds in his class.He had only been 6 years old a few days before
I think that affected him more than anything.

Both of mine were summer babies (May and June).
Both started at 5 which is what's recommended in these parts.

I was 4 myself starting school and even though I could already read before I started, primary school was miserable. I always felt on the back foot. I was the 3rd youngest in my class (still recall to this day the two younger than me - 48 years later!!)
4 is too young imo

That’s becoming more and more rare now.it’s accepted as best policy that the children stay with their cohort.

also the FA have a dispensation policy for children to play in their adopted cohort.

This isn't strictly accurate. There is a dispensation policy, but it is only for children who have developmental delays, it does not cover children whose parents have merely chosen to educate them a year down for academic reasons. Which appears to be the case here according to @SapphosRock.

If the sport is being played against another school (as opposed to an internal sports day, for example), the opposing school needs to be informed.

My children started school at the beginning of the term in which they were 5 so my eldest started at Easter, it didn't seem to impact badly over the years except she was so desperate to start school by the Easter. Not sure why that was dropped.
Whenever there's a line drawn someone will always be on the 'wrong' side of it. Many many years ago when the leaving age was going up from 15 to 16 a lad in my form was beside himself with anger, he was born at 30 seconds after midnight so on the 1st September and he had to stay the extra year! 'She should have bloody pushed harder!'

They have formal nursery before 7, like we have reception which is mostly playing. Ditto year 1

My DD came 4th so missed out on a medal

You said that someone has to be the oldest and someone has to be the youngest in each year group.....based on that, someone has to come 4th, someone has to come last? That's the way the world works.

The party thing is daft, as that was your decision not to send your child, she didn't miss out because Lucy is older, she missed out as you didn't feel she was ready.

It.wont have been a decision that Lucy's parents came to lightly, and in a few years, it really won't impact either child all that much.

I have only read the OP’s opening post and I’m pretty sure the mother who deferred her child’s start did it for far more complex reasons than, “she wanted her child to be the oldest in the class.”

I have deferred my August born and he starts Reception this year a week after his 5th birthday. There is a lot of research that discusses the problems summer born children have can have throughout school (socially and academically) which I why I didn’t want me son starting school just after he turned 4 years old.

It’s not about wanting him to be the oldest in the year, it’s about me not wanting him to struggle.

There are three September babies in my son’s class so although my son is starting at just turned 5, there will then be three other 5 year olds in the class within three weeks.

Its hardly a big conspiracy.

This really, really isn't common practice at all, in England anyway. I've never heard of anyone doing this in any school I've taught in. We can actually sight 'August baby', as a reason why a child may not be performing as expected. It certainly is an advantage to be born in September.. and to be the oldest in the class!

We can actually sight 'August baby', as a reason why a child may not be performing as expected.

Sight. Lovely stuff.

I live in Germany and summer babies have the option to start school a year later. They start at 6 years old here. Husband and I would definitely keep DS back a year if we think thought it would benefit him... We're not going to make a decision based on the other children in the class 🤷🏼‍♀️

I actually agree with you, OP. Here in the US they call it "red shirting" and it's typically boys who are "held back". Funnily enough the families who think they need to defer also happen to be the ones who strongly value sports, so their boys end up playing (in at least one case I know) against kids who are around 18 months younger than them - And being the captain, strongest player, etc. A lot of non-school sports clubs do enrollment by date of birth now, rather than school grade, to counter the effect of it.

I also recall there being widespread amazement in one class that so-and-so was such a whizz at basketball. Of course he was - he was 18 months older and about a foot taller than his teammates!

Exactly! I'm very surprised that more people on here don't see the wider impact of "Lucy's parents doing what's best for Lucy."

this reminds me - I need to get a dispensation for my son from the FA again - aged 17! At least it's the last time.

it's really weird producing a letter about the difficulties he had aged 3 now he's waiting for GCSE results and has a summer job! But boy am I grateful - no way could he have played football with the year above.

As for wider impact, it's really positive.

Here in the real world, we aren't worried about superior sports teams, we are worried that our child can't speak, and it's much better for the default year group if our non-speaking child gets another year to practice speaking as then they slot in better with the adopted year group.

As with most things in primary school, parents see the extra-curricular stuff more than they see what goes on in the classroom. 29 children have to adapt to a child who can't speak in their class. One year later, they don't. Everyone wins :)

Heaven forbid we should ever go back to three term entry. I with a few others made up the final thirty in a reception class that started with ten children in September and then ten more started in January so had plenty of attention for their first few weeks of school life.
My mother was not happy although did a great job with home edding - she tells me Easter was very late that year as well so I had only about six to eight weeks in reception. Could have been a great disadvantage both academically and socially.

how ridiculous.
my twins started school aged 5 yrs 4 mths as they are may born. no additional needs. I just didnt think they were ready to start at aged 4.
i dont feel bad that they are 1 yr 3 mths older than the youngest in their year at all. my children my choice. it was the best thing i couldve done.
im sure more parents would do it if they were aware they could.

No secondary school would ever say that. Ever.
How can it be in a child’s best interest that they move up a year from year 6 to 8.
That is exactly what its based on. A child’s best interest.