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?

Having a bad morning @NewToThisDatingMalarkey ?

If you read my posts I have said Lucy is a lovely kid and I am happy she is thriving in school. There is no blame for her or her parents, just for an unfair system that increases the disadvantages for summer born children who don't defer.

Just to add, all parents have the right to request that their summerborn child start in reception at Compulsory school age (age 5). They don't have the right to send them. Its up to the admissions authority to decide what is in their opinion the best interests of the child (and many don't understand the statutory guidance, stating that deferring is not in the child's best interest when in fact the decision they should be making is, when the parent sends their child at compulsory school age is it in the best interest of the child for them to start in reception or in year 1) and in practice is a complete postcode lottery. Some local authorities say yes by default while others are known for being very tricky or deferring to the opinion of headteachers (which should be taken into account but not the final say). Academies are their own admissions authority and are particularly likely not to understand the guidance so it's more difficult to get agreement from an academy school.

@SapphosRock I think it's a great system though. Gives parents the opportunity to do what's right for their child. If it's not in the best interest for your child to delay their school entry, don't do it. If it is in their best interest, go ahead.

I don't understand how that is not fair. You have the option as a parent to do what's best for your child (if we ignore the postcode lottery for now).

Why didn't you delay your child, out of interest?

You say it's everyone for themselves. When making a decision about my own child I will always do what's what's best for them. That's not everyone for themselves that's doing the very best for your individual child because as it seems from your post you only care about your child. For parties why should a child only have parties to suit you? Other children in the year group went, it was appropriate to them, you decided it wasn't which was your choice.

Just to add you say August baby's shouldn't move down a year. They will only be a few days to a few weeks older than the oldest in the class anyway.

My DD went to a fantastic nursery, made lots of friends and we felt she was ready for Reception despite being only just 4.

She had six months of Reception which went well, then it was lockdown which impacted all children and their social development.

Since lockdown she hasn't struggled academically but she has socially with some of the other girls in her class who are older.

Lucy's sleepover was at the end of last term in July. DD has had sleepovers for the first time with her cousins over the summer holidays so if there was a sleepover party coming up in the Autumn I probably would have felt she was ready.

None of this could have been foreseen or was a strong enough reason to defer her, but she has been disadvantaged by there being an older girl in the class.

It isn't 'everyone for themselves' op... because the thing that allows the child to thrive (or not) is whether they are ready for the tasks they are being set and the behaviour required of them, not how they compare to their peers in that class. So the age range in the class isn't relevant and therefore it isn't "being selfish' to put your child in the year below. Some children are ready at the first school year they can join, some are not ready until a bit later, maybe 6 months maybe a year, but the only option is a year delay.
If a child is not ready and spends however many years struggling to stay afloat (people use the phrase keep up, but again that's not peer comparison that's keep up with the work and behavioral standards needed) this will have a knock on effect on their whole education (potentially), not because their classmates didn't struggle but because it is harder to deeply embed those foundational lessons when you're just about coping.
There is a big variety out there though, of course, some will manage to catch up, but it's about being ready not how old you are or how old your classmates are.
That's what everyone is trying to tell you.

My son wasn't ready, we didn't have a choice to keep him back in our area, but we got lucky he had a big developmental leap and caught up very quickly, it could easily not have gone that way he could be still struggling now and we didn't know that going in, if he was still struggling that would be nothing to do with the age of his classmates it would be his developmental readiness.

In my children's small school, 2 school years are taught together, the teaching is adjusted for the level each kid is at, so despite the fact that you have children as much as two full years difference in age together side by side they are all learning at their own pace, this is not destroying the confidence of the younger ones because they aren't comparing they are getting on with their day, and the reason they aren't comparing us because no-one is giving them the impression they are being measured against their peers (and they're not because that's not what school is about, it's about educating each child to the best of their ability).

At this small school all the races at sports day have a big age spread in them and it's not the oldest who wins its the fastest, my daughter is older than most her peers but is not athletic so usually comes last, in fact the fastest one is not only the youngest but is tiny for her age but is like a little bullet.

So, don't worry op, it doesn't take coming top to keep your daughters confidence up, that comes from self-worth which comes from how she is spoken to and treated. How she responds to losing (or winning) comes down to her personality, some kids are competitive and fight harder when they don't win, some kids are not and don't care where they place in a race (mine are like this, my son is usually daydreaming at the start line 😂).

It sounds like your daughter was ready for school, she was hitting all her milestones and you weren't worried. Coming 4th is a good position, that's a long way from last so she's clearly holding her own physically, despite being one of the younger ones, so I think she'll be aok and I can see why you're asking the question but education is not a race with anyone except yourself. The confidence of your dd is built mostly from home life, good relationships and recognition of her strengths, effort and contribution.

Such a spiteful, cruel thing to say. How do people type things like this? Take a long hard look at yourself. (It’s bollocks, also.)

But she's not being disadvantaged. Lucy is only days old than the oldest kids in the class.

Sour grapes. Sounds like Lucy's parents made the decision you wish you'd made.

Agree, you could have done the same
I'm and end of august baby whose best friends birthday was 2 weeks after mine making me youngest in the year and her the oldest
We were both fine, get over it and stop being jealous of poor Lucy

Your dd will be doing sleep overs with the rest in no time and probably won't even remember missing that one, so I think disadvantaged is probably a bit strong.

Even when all the kids are in the year they 'should' be in you will still get some children who aren't quite ready for a sleep over when others are, this is nothing remarkable, causes no harm and they just join in when they're ready.

The only thing that really causes any harm is being put in situations they aren't ready for whether that's educational or social ones, holding on until you're ready, even if that means you don't get to participate in the first opportunity to come along, doesn't do any harm.

My daughter and son are in almost the same position as Lucy is except they’re both September children and in the correct year for their age.

so if it wasn’t Lucy there’s potential for it to be other September children.

Even though the year before they started school was challenging it’s definitely put them at an advantage.

Such a spiteful, cruel thing to say. How do people type things like this? Take a long hard look at yourself. (It’s bollocks, also.)

Spiteful and cruel... I find the OP's attitude towards a child who has has a delayed entry, which they are fully entitled to have, spiteful. I feel so sorry for the Lucy's and their parents who made this decision in the best interest of their child and will always get this shit from other jealous parents.

Please can you elaborate on why it is bollocks though? Why do you not agree the OPs child might have benefitted from a delayed entry? If so what brought you to that decision. FWIW I think if the OP was happy with her own decision then she wouldn't have posted in the first place.

Your child is not being disadvantaged by not coming in the top three in a race - lots of children will be exactly the same.

You made a decision about the sleep-over - at 6 (or even 5) mine would have been fine - your child isn’t mature enough so you decided to say “no” which was your decision to make.

The reality is that it is everyone for themselves - you made the best decision for your child and Lucy’s parents made the best decision for her. There’s enough research out there to show the disadvantages summer borns have throughout their education - it’s not about winning a race at primary school.

People aren’t “out for themselves” as they are doing it for the benefit of their child. Because they think it’s the best thing for their child.

It can be a really hard decision to make, me and DH went back and forth for well over a year as to whether we should do it or not, and it wasn’t helped by fighting against attitudes like yours.

There is no way my son would have been ready to start school a week after turning four, he just wouldn’t have socially any emotionally coped.

Yoy obviously felt your daughter was fine to start school.

Should I have been forced to send my child to school when I know he would have struggled just because your child was ready for it?

Every child is different.

There are loads of Summer Born babies thriving at school and there are others that are struggling.

Why on earth you would advocate a child struggling, and all the long term effects that can have (not just academically), is beyond me.

When a parent chooses to wait for a CSA start it can cause very conflicting emotions and Lucy’s parent’s decision has absolutely no bearing on your child whatsoever.

They felt their daughter wasn’t coping in the school environment whereas you felt yours was.

As I said above, if you would prefer a little 4-5 year old to struggle at school rather than watch them flourish then it says a lot more about your character than it does Lucy’s parents.

The OP hasn’t got any attitude towards the child, she’s only concerned about the impact on her child - as any good parent would be. See my earlier post explaining why I believe her that august kids in the ‘right’ cohort are disadvantaged by the average age of the class being pulled up. She shouldn’t be forced to hold her child back when it’s not the right decision for her child, in order to avoid her being disadvantaged in her correct cohort. As the OP has patiently explained.

Personally I would avoid delaying my child’s start unless absolutely essential for medical reasons. Certainly where I live this isn’t common practice at all and I would be concerned about my child being viewed as ‘backwards’ or stupid and getting picked on. Wrong as it is, some kids can be very cruel. My child also got a lot out of going to school with nursery peers and would have been upset and confused to be left at nursery for another year.

The parents of summer born kids that I know have been very aware of the need to get their kids school ready and have worked hard with tue good nursery that they have ensured they attend in the preceding year and built a relationship with reception teachers to support them in developing the skills they need and making a positive start. For all those spitefully telling the OP she has ‘failed her child’ it could be equally assumed that Lucy’s parents couldn’t be bothered to put the effort in to prepare her for school with her cohort and avoid her being marked out as different. I don’t think either are true, but the nasty accusations of bad parenting are only going one way on this thread.

Anyone else have any good examples where other countries have managed it better?

Scotland:

• cut off is March to February, so even the youngest kids aren't as young when they start
• automatic right to deferral for January and February borns
• because early years funding continues for the deferred year, by time working parents have paid for wraparound care for school it is cheaper to defer them; so deferral isn't just for parents who can afford it
• as it is so commonplace for January and February born kids to defer (about 50%), it is just as likely to be the competitive parents who don't defer: there's a lot of 'oh but they were just so ready'; 'oh, I thought I would defer but they would have been bored'.
• composite classes are used in a lot of bigger primary schools. For example a p2/p3 composite class would have the youngest of p2s in with the oldest p3s - this makes sure the teacher can more easily differentiate and kids aren't working at an inappropriate level.
• they're currently trialling deferring October- December as well, I think it is.

It's not a perfect system - there's no Reception year for example, so those starting youngest finish school and head to uni at 17 - but Lucy would be one of many deferred kids in her year and OP's child would also have deferred, and the youngest kids need only be December borns so much older for the year already.

None of this could have been foreseen or was a strong enough reason to defer her, but she has been disadvantaged by there being an older girl in the class.

But Lucy is probably only days/weeks older than the next oldest person in the class?!

If it wasn’t Lucy’s sleepover it would have been a September born’s sleepover.

Would you have let your daughter go to a sleepover of someone who turned 5 in September? If so, then it’s really no different to Lucy having had one.

If you wouldn’t have allowed your daughter to go to a sleepover of a September born child then Lucy’s sleepover is irrelevant anyway.

You’re acting and behaving as though Lucy is almost 12 months older than everyone else in the class when In reality she’s probably only days/weeks older than many other children in the year.

As I said before, there’s no huge conspiracy that allows all these ‘advantaged’ summer borns crashing into the classrooms they shouldn’t belong in and trampling all over the opportunities of others.

You’re being ridiculous OP.

Just like you I was pretty naive to this subject. Educate yourself on this subject, you are coming across very jealous. It's proven that summer borns are more likely to need additional support through out school. Lucy's mum has her reasons and good on her for doing this. It's not an easy decision to make for a lot of parents and your attitude towards it is really bad. My son will be a taking his GCSES a year later and a whole year more mature, which is massive for a teen.
Winning at sports day is not what it's all about. Please go educate yourself

Some nasty accusations there from you @TiddleyWink

The OP hasn't been able to give any examples of real disadvantage to her child - losing a race isn't a disadvantage. There are plenty of academic papers and examples from parents here which demonstrate why starting a year later is better for some children. It's an option open to every parent and quite honestly nobody else's business but the parents.

*Would you have let your daughter go to a sleepover of someone who turned 5 in September? If so, then it’s really no different to Lucy having had one.

If you wouldn’t have allowed your daughter to go to a sleepover of a September born child then Lucy’s sleepover is irrelevant anyway*

Indeed.

Reading comprehension clearly isn’t your strong point! What a horrible thread, I’ll leave it there.

Thanks @TiddleyWink

And yes I would let my DD go to a sleepover in the Autumn as she will be 7 and has been having sleepovers with her cousins over the summer so it won't be her first one. I explained that in an earlier post.

Surprised so many parents would allow their 6 year old to have a sleepover for an 8th birthday party.

My niece was born 1 day too soon, she was also premature. So if she had been born 1 day later she would be starting school the year after next instead of next year. My dd is also summer born and will be starting next year, the difference between them is huge, my DD is likely to be ready, my niece will not. My eldest was a winter baby and is one of the older ones - she was not ready at all, she has struggled massively because she wasn't ready and has fallen behind her peers. I think children start too early in general in the UK and ALL parents should be able to defer if they don't think their child is ready because age isn't the only factor, it also depends on personality.