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?

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”

Haha, this is exactly what it's like where I am (near East Ren schools) - it's so accepted that Jan/Feb kids defer that it's now competitive the other way. And last year I had a friend with a March baby have him assessed to see if he could go early.

I'm not sure how I feel about this being an option. As an August-born myself, I was definitely less mature and socially confident than many of my older peers, but academically I was fine. I also have a summer-born who doesn't seem to have been disadvantaged in any way. Having said that, I've certainly seen summer-borns struggle with the first year of school, and they could definitely have benefited from more time to mature.

I do, however, have real concerns that if this becomes commonplace, it will potentially add another level of disadvantage to children from low-income families. August-borns whose parents can't afford to pay for another year of childcare or have a parent at home for that extra year, may find themselves in classes with children 15 months older, who already have the advantages that come with being born into an affluent family who have the means to support their children's development in various ways.

I'm not sure what the answer is - but I'm coming down on the side of it not being to put many children on the wrong side of a 15 month age-gap.

In fact, here's the statistics from Scot Gov (2018) to highlight how commonplace this is in Scotland and equally what a non-issue it is overall: 44% of Jan/Feb age group were deferred but only 4% of August to December-born kids. So it really isn't a case that everyone was doing it because they could.

Scot Gov deferral stats here

I do, however, have real concerns that if this becomes commonplace, it will potentially add another level of disadvantage to children from low-income families. August-borns whose parents can't afford to pay for another year of childcare

I worked 3 days, so the cost of wraparound care (breakfast club, afterschool club and holiday club) meant I was cheaper deferring and keeping mine in nursery for another year with the 30 hours funded. But this is a good point for anyone working full time.

How does it work with people claiming benefits and the expectation that they work full time once child is in school? If they voluntarily hold their child back from starting when they normally would is that seen as dodging employment and would it affect benefits? Genuine question as I have no idea, but seems like yet another way that the less economically privileged may not have the same choices and their kids end up doubly disadvantaged.

TiddleyWink I honestly don't know. Hopefully someone else will be along who does!

So your anecdotal s acceptable, but no one else’s is? Ok then…

There were around 2500 requests in England for deferral to 2020.

there are around 8 million children in school.

it’s hardly massive numbers and the over reactions on here are ridiculous.

I do, however, have real concerns that if this becomes commonplace, it will potentially add another level of disadvantage to children from low-income families. August-borns whose parents can't afford to pay for another year of childcare

I think this is the only real moral issue that needs to considered.

I know parents who wanted to defer their child’s start but didn’t because they couldn’t manage another 12 months of childcare costs.

A child’s academic prospects, and their emotional and social well-being shouldn’t be jeopardised as parents can’t afford to do otherwise.

I don’t know how it could be done but I do think that lower earning families should be given financial assistance (in terms of additional childcare costs only) if they wish to delay their summer born child.

If what is best for the child is only financially viable to some families then it only widens the gap between the poor and the wealthy.

In Scotland funding for nursery provision is automatic for January and February children so affordability isn’t an issue.

I don’t know how it could be done but I do think that lower earning families should be given financial assistance (in terms of additional childcare costs only) if they wish to delay their summer born child.

it’s easier now to access nursery funding (the free hours elements) for a further year. It used to be nigh on impossible, but now can be done.

The responsibility of UC claimants depend on the age of the youngest child, not what year they are in at preschool/school. At age 3/4 the main carer is expected to work 16 hours a week or spend 16 hours a week looking for work. At age 5+ the main carer is expected to work 25 hours a week or spend that amount of time looking for work. So if a UC claimant chooses to defer their august born child, the expectation to work more hours wouldn't kick in until after the child turns 5 in august, at which point they would be starting school the month after anyway. If the child has younger siblings, then that of course wouldn't apply.

Oh I know that, I just meant that a lot of families need more than 30 hours childcare a week and so they still have to pay out for those extra hours of childcare they need.

The prospect of paying out for that childcare for another 12 months (if a child is deferred) just isn’t financially viable for a lot of families.

Isn't that basically the same as school though? The nursery funding covers the equivalent of a school week. Either way you need cover at either end of the day - you'd still be paying wrap around if they were in school.

"it’s hardly massive numbers and the over reactions on here are ridiculous."

@JustLyra I didn't say the numbers were huge, just that there was an increasing trend. See the post below regarding Scotland if you don't believe me.

Also, your evidence was based on your own experience, in your own region. It does not represent a national trend.

Numbers in Scotland have always been higher as it’s a much more simple process. There are also more children in Scotland who start early, as there is also a process for that yet no histrionics over that?

The histrionics over this because of a child not getting a medal in a race is ridiculous.

There are simply not loads of people keeping their child at home for an extra year for spurious reasons.

That people are more educated in what can be done, and schools are being prevented from making stupid decisions to disadvantage children (making them go into Y1 skipping R or enforced skipping a year at secondary) is not a bad thing.

Turning it into a huge issue to the point of comparisons with the trans issue is just absolutely bonkers.

We kept our son back because we felt he wasn't mature enough to start school when he was eligible too. His birthday scraped him into P1 by 2 weeks if we'd chosen to send him. He did an extra year in nursery and was much better for it. He's just started High School and was ready for it. If he goes to Uni he will be old enough to do all the usual student things instead of waiting a year to take part. We didn't make the choice based on how superior / talker / faster etc he would be to his classmates.

@DreamToNightmare

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

It's so completely normal and not an issue in Scotland.

Most Scots view the English system and the arguments on this thread with absolute bafflement.

All things written about ‘Lucy’ just say to me that her parents made the right choice for her. It was obviously in her best interest and as her parents know her best they identified that a deferred year would be beneficial to her achievements & confidence in primary school.

Generally though, before and after school clubs are a lot cheaper than pre-school and nursery settings.

My childcare fees (prior to 30 hours free childcare) we’re £4.50 an hour compared to £2.50 an hour for the before and after school clubs.

I imagine that a lot of pre-schools and nurseries probably charge more than £4.50 an hour so for those parents, the cost reduction between that setting and the child’s before and after school clubs would be even more significant.

For some families the most financially viable option is to send their child to school as soon as they turn 4 whether the child is ready to start or not, and it’s a very unfair situation for the parent to be put in.

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

I don’t think anyone said ‘all’ but I’m pretty sure there is fairly solid research that shows on average this is the case. Teachers should be aware of this and able to take the steps (in an ideal world) to manage some of the issues that have been identified that do disadvantage summer borns on average, and tend to compound over time if not managed properly.

I really wish they started later in England. That would solve a lot of these issues, and not just by shifting the date when the youngest is born and stretching the age range in the class.

What on earth do you expect teachers to do abkut this? Tell Lucy she can't have a sleepover? Give her a 5 second handicap in any sports races? A good teacher will individualise a child's teaching regardless of their age/ability. The rest is none of their business really

Wow either your nursery must be cheap or your ASC is extortionate! Our wraparound care for the term was less than nursery fees for one month.

Nursery fees - approx £500 per month for 3 days with the 30 free hours (was pro-rata’d). ASC was £2.50 for breakfast club, £7.50 for after school. So £10 per day, or about £120-150 per month.

Wow either your nursery must be cheap or your ASC is extortionate

Our nursery was much, much cheaper than yours!

DC's nursery is £72 per day.

Breakfast + after school club is £13 per day.