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?

In Scotland our cut off is February , I deffered my now 4 year old with a feb birthday 2 days before the cut off because he’s really not maturely emotionally or educationally ready , when he starts next year he will be exactly 5 and a half and he will be in a much better position to thrive where as he would have really struggled and not done well this year. I wouldn’t even consider that it’s selfish for me to do it because there’s other kids it might disadvantage

I've never been very keen on it, unless there is a reason for it - special needs, illness, etc. August is one thing, but it's any child born from April that can defer, which is a huge age range, and I dont think is particularly fair on everyone else in the class.

Saying that, I've now found myself seriously considering deferral, as theres a reasonable chance my now preschooler will miss a lot of her reception year due to needing major surgery or chemotherapy, and so although she's only just a summer born, and I'd normally never consider it, it may be the best thing for her education.

It's tricky :-(

Then why not defer? You post clearly states that your child was not ready for the type of party she was invited to, so sounds like you feel like she is less mature than what is coming in that year for her, hence would have been better suited to CSA so she can be ready for social/emotional aspects that will appear. Lucy could have been born 1 September and had a sleepover, would you have made such an issue then, or when she came third in the race and ‘took your child’s medal chances’?

Good God!! It’s not an older child, she might be a month, a week or even a day older than the eldest child in that year!!
give the summer borns more time to play, they miss out on that due to the time they are able to start nursery, missing two terms compared to autumn born!

@Somuchgoo I'm so sorry to hear that best wishes to you and your girl and I hope everything goes well.

Yours is a scenario where deferral makes complete sense.

My Finnish DIL started learning to read around the sane age as in the UK.They go to early childcare and then at 6 preschool, but they do reading and numeracy in these settings , they are just not defined as 'school'

@JustLyra

"Because it’s not about that. It’s about kids being ready for school or not being ready."

Wrong. There is a growing trend of parents deferring their children 'because they can,' when they are perfectly academically, sociably and emotionally able to join their actual year group.
It's all part of some weird competition to ensure that their children are the most advantaged. Any parent can say that they believe their children 'aren't ready,' it can all be just a bit of a game.

That said, I absolutely agree that deferral is right in some circumstances - the PP whose child is having chemotherapy, for example. Absolutely warranted.

I'm so sorry, your dd should definitely be defered.
Op, who are you to ok judge that Lucy should be deferred? For all you know she could have special needs. One of mine does but nobody in the school knows that apart from her teachers. Its really best not to judge

But from the OP Lucy wasn’t deferred, she had time in her “natural” cohort and moved down a class presumably because the school agreed it would benefit her in some way.

I’ve worked in schools for 20 years. It’s not remotely a pattern that is being seen in any I’m involved in.

There are still tiny numbers of children deferred. Tiny.

To add, I get so fed up of people wittering on about Autumn born children/deferred children always being "more advantaged."

I have taught many, many Autumn-born children who are disadvantaged because they are bored and should be in the year above. The 'I am the oldest and the best and I already know everything so don't have to bother' attitude is horrible tbh. Obviously not all children are like this, but several are.

Would much rather teach a summer-born child who is less able but has a can-do attitude.

@JustLyra Anecdotal evidence, though.

I also work in a school. It's on the increase as a trend nationally.

It's not tiny numbers opting for deferral in Scotland. There are at least a quarter of children in DS year who deferred start. Out of the Jan/Feb birthdays only one child had not deferred.

That’s really interesting - why do you think that is?

Is deferral more accepted over there?

Would any arguments (from those against deferral) that have raised in this thread even be an issue in Scotland?

Would any arguments (from those against deferral) that have raised in this thread even be an issue in Scotland?

I have had three children go through schools in Scotland and have never heard any of these arguments at all.

We don't have grammar schools. Children who start as deferred in P1 move onto secondary school with the class they have been through Primary - although our system for allocating primary/secondary places is totally different too. No parents chucking their toys out of the pram because a deferred child beats their child at sports day. Some deferred children super confident and clever, others not.

It's just SO not an issue.

In my experience they wouldn’t be an issue - at least I’ve never heard someone even questioning whether it’s reasonable. Some parents start their January and February children in August but many more defer here - in my DS case the assumption was that I’d defer, which I did because it was right for him. I don’t now many children with an earlier birthday defer but it’s possible to defer September/October children if they won’t be 5.

Theres automatic early years funding for January/February children where for earlier birthdays it’s at the discretion of the local authority. I’ve never known funding not to be given for those who defer though.

I’ve also never heard the suggestion that deferral gives a child an advantage over other kids, or that that would be a reason to defer. The decision is wholly about the readiness of the child to start school. In my mind there’s some seriously fucked up competitive parenting going on to complain that a child might be the oldest in the class by a month or two, and that that might disadvantage other kids.

It's fair because you could have chosen the same path for your child as 'Lucy's' parents did for her. But you didn't. You can't say it's unfair, you had the option too.

Shame you didn’t do what probably would have been good for your DD and kept her back a year.

I personally think a cut off is needed but then differentiation in the classroom and sports etc.
There has to be a cut off somewhere.
Holding kids back is generally a middle class thing where they can afford an extra year of nursery etc. Same in Ireland. The less wealthy tend to send them asap and the wealthier hold them back until later.
Most teachers I know would want a Sept not an Aug baby. In both my DC year groups the older ones are more confident & are much more likely to get in teams etc

I do think prem babies should be able to join correct year for expected birth date however. Prem babies born in Aug have defo disadvantage

my son is 31 august born. He was basically an absolute emotional bombshell at just turned 4. There is absolutely no way he would have coped with school. He will start this year, at just turned 5. He can sit still, he’s excited about learning to read and write. His friend will be in his class - who was born on 1 sept! Contrarily, I have a July born son who although quiet, was fine to start school at 4. Different strokes for different folks.

I’m in Scotland and I’ve never heard anyone say the parental choice for age to start school for Jan/Feb born children is anything other than a sensible plan!

Some children would do better if they waited a year, others are ready and wouldn’t benefit from being held back.

Of course you do get some parents who will try and convince others that their child is so advanced that deferring them would be appalling and theirs is “more than ready” and “so, so ready”. And you get others who defer because then theirs will have an advantage in sports and socially. But in reality most parents just want what’s best for their child, which isn’t always being the oldest in the year.

Football is always by year group. The cut off is 31/8

Whereas round my way in Scotland - where the cut off is different anyway - the local teams (away from school) go on birth calendar years. The 2009 squad, 2010 squad etc. Irrespective of what school class you are in. Simple.