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?

Since when have August children been allowed to do this? I was under the impression you could delay starting school for a few months and they’d join mid year but they would still be in the same year group as they should be

Since 2014 I think (and it’s anything from April) but lots of schools and LAs don’t actually follow it!

They don't have to "catch up" by jumping a school year.

The DforE expects children who were delayed by a year to remain in their adopted cohort for the duration of their school life, unless there are sound educational reasons to move them to their chronological age group. Even then, the child's wellbeing has to be taken into account.

The DforE reiterated this point in a recent statement www.gov.uk/government/publications/summer-born-children-school-admission/statement-for-local-authorities-schools-and-admission-authorities-on-the-admission-of-summer-bo

It's quite simple. You are entitled to claim the free 15/30 hours until your child reaches compulsory school age. In my DD's case, that's the end of this month as she was 5 in July.

However, I do completely understand the concerns of those who contend that it gives an advantage to more affluent parents and so on.
I don't pretend to have any answers to that problem, but it's not a reason to remove the ability of parents to request a delayed entry into Reception for their summer born child.

Since they realised that that system was stupid and unhelpful.

About 10 years or so it’s been more common.

sone schools try the “we don’t allow that” but thankfully more parents are aware of what blanket policies they can and can’t have.

Why do you attribute Lucy's achievements only to her age? Maybe the child is simply better and more talented than others (regardless of how old she is)

Yes she is pretty advanced, hence why I don't understand why parents are able to hold their kids back when it's obvious they won't struggle in the correct year group.

I didn't give deferred entry much thought but assumed it meant 4/5 year olds joined school when they were ready, so after Christmas, after Easter or straight into year 1.

I'm in Scotland and I do think it is an issue. Where I live the more financially secure always opt for deferral and those who are less financially secure do not. Not certain if the 30 hours childcare is making a difference yet as you only get 30 hours if in school nursery (of which there is more demand than places for the 'good' school nurseries) otherwise you get financial contribution towards cost of private nursery which by no means covers the fees.

My DS hasn't been particularly affected although there are a handful of older boys in his class who are extremely confident and able and they tend to dominate everything and have done since P1. It gets a bit wearing to be honest, especially as unlike previous posters, sports are organised by primary year and some of the boys are a lot stronger/taller than DS simply by fact they are older.

Parents are always going to say they deferred because their children weren't ready emotionally for school, but they are hardly going to say otherwise. I know this is an unpopular opinion but I stand by it.

I didn't give deferred entry much thought but assumed it meant 4/5 year olds joined school when they were ready, so after Christmas, after Easter or straight into year 1.

I know area differ and apparently it was like that when I was school age but when DD1 was that age we were told they'd stopped doing that as research showed it disadvantages summer borns as they had less time in school.

I think at the time there was also a school of though saying it was why summer borns did less well.

I personally suspect expectations conscious and unconscious play a role.

As my summer born were in lower groups struggling with some academic and social aspects but by Y3 had mostly caught up were in higher groups and had good behavior - even summer born DS who I think it did affect more than even late Aug DD1. Teachers often weren't surprised but other parents would be nasty - there a group or mothers in DS year who had Autumn born girls who were outraged seem to expected the everything to stay same as in reception class.

That was the system, but it was a double disadvantage for the children.

They weren’t ready for school and then they had to join an established class and had missed months/a year of learning - putting them at a further disadvantage.

That was the system, but it was a double disadvantage for the children.They weren’t ready for school and then they had to join an established class and had missed months/a year of learning - putting them at a further disadvantage.

Ironically this was me. I'm a summer born and must have joined Reception later in the school year as I clearly remember all the other kids knowing one another and not understanding how everyone knew all the songs we sang in Assembly.

I did okay at school so could have potentially excelled in the year below. Is that really a reason to move summer borns, just so they can be the best and most confident? I can understand why parents do it but it's an anti social move for the summer borns in the class below, as is demonstrated by my DD and Lucy.

You call me ridiculous but don't actually specify how exactly a teacher is going to solve any of the problems that OP is moaning about? Again... what exactly should a teacher do about a bloody sleepover and a race?

I think delaying a child has it’s pluses and minuses. On the plus side, child is more confident and may be more able compared to peers. On the other hand, those younger summer borns might feel later on that they did manage to keep up and they can do more ‘stuff’ (like travelling) before 30 or the age when they want to think about a family.

I think, thinking about the impact on everyone else etc is just too complicated. If it’s right for your child, do it for them. As a previous poster said - maybe it benefits the whole class not to have kids who are not ready for school there (as teacher time can be spent more on the others).

The anti- setting/streaming people say that it’s good to have more high achievers/advanced kids in a class because it helps everyone (though I’m a bit sceptical if it always helps the kid who is advanced).

Starting after Christmas or Easter is detrimental to the child because then they’ve missed a good chunk of Reception which provides the vital stepping stones of formal education.

Joining Reception at half way through the school year is not advisable.

All children are entitled the benefits of a year in Reception as that year is widely recognised as being so important.

For a Summer born to join after Christmas or Easter puts them at even more of a disadvantage.

Some schools do try and get the deferred child to start straight into Year 1, so missing Reception entirely, but it is now widely recognised and accepted that this is not in the child’s best interests at all.

Starting after Christmas or Easter is detrimental to the child because then they’ve missed a good chunk of Reception which provides the vital stepping stones of formal education.

Joining Reception at half way through the school year is not advisable.

All children are entitled the benefits of a year in Reception as that year is widely recognised as being so important.

For a Summer born to join after Christmas or Easter puts them at even more of a disadvantage.

Some schools do try and get the deferred child to start straight into Year 1, so missing Reception entirely, but it is now widely recognised and accepted that this is not in the child’s best interests at all.

I couldn't disagree more with this. All my August/July children either started in the summer term of Reception or deferred until Year One. I don't believe the benefits of Reception are that great, if children are in a home environment which offers them love, warmth, stimulation, music, reading, play, conversation and all the things that really matter to small children.

I don't see where the disadvantage is. My PFB ended up with an Oxbridge First and is now well known in their particular sphere, and the others seem to be following a similar trajectory. They are all nice, interesting, kind, well balanced young people. I don't see how attending Reception could have benefited them in any way.

I didn't start mine at school in reception, they stayed at home until they were going into year 3. We didn't home school, we just lived and they learned some stuff from life, like learning numbers through money. One was an early reader and actually good all round, one wasn't.

One thing that I found interesting was the one who was way behind on starting school had a teacher who had taught reception for some years and had just moved to year 3. She told me she felt like her career had been a waste of time. I was a bit shocked as she was great but she said it was due to my son so I asked why. She said she had just had to accept all the stuff she had worked so hard at teaching 4 and 5 year old was so much easier when they were 7 or 8 and she felt like reception was a waste of time.

Don't think that it is particularly a good idea to base that on one child but an interesting point of view none the less.

Then I guess all the research into the matter can be thrown in the bin then.

Thanks for putting everyone straight on the matter.

I see that in the world of MN the belief continues that one personal anecdote is enough to rubbish any large scale research that has been done….

😀

She said she had just had to accept all the stuff she had worked so hard at teaching 4 and 5 year old was so much easier when they were 7 or 8 and she felt like reception was a waste of time.

Which is probably why a lot of European countries (as said by a previous poster) don’t require children to start school until they are 6-7 years old. I’m not sure our Government and their childcare contributions could accommodate that though.

It would be interesting to know how European countries financially support families to keep their child at home or in pre-school care up to the age of 6+.

Could many SAHMs afford not to work for 6+ years?

Could working parents afford to pay high nursery / pre-school fees until their child was 6?

Its really interesting to think about how different countries manage to do things so differently.

Yes @DreamToNightmare is correct, statistically speaking summer-born children do worse. That is simply a fact and supported by every study I have ever seen, including ones carried out by Cambridge University, the DfE and the IFS. If there is a study which shows birth month has no relevance, I would be interested to see it since I am not aware of one, and I used to work in this area of research.

Of course there are individual exceptions, as there always are, but the data show what the data show.

I wasn't sure what to make of it to be honest. My husband is from a country where school starts at six so he didn't want them to go at 4. We were "lucky" in a way as DH had to take a medical retirement from work following an accident so he was at home and I was able to go back to work once the youngest was 4 and didn't need a parent picking him up or carrying him round which DH couldn't do but he was involved and able to supervise.

I'm an autumn baby so was always one of the oldest so never knew what it would be like to be an August baby.

With the teacher I'm not sure if she was just jaded with reception but she did say my son in the space of a few months went from the remedial group to gifted and talented but presumably not all would do that.

So did you know you could delay school start until compulsory school age (as you have said previously) or is this in fact what's accurate?

It's clear you disagree with delaying (and to each their own) but you have suggested you knew you could do it but didn't, which isn't quite the same thing.

@DreamToNightmare Obviously one anecdote doesn't negate all the research, but no research is ever going to be perfect. On average, just-turned- 4-yo children who have two working parents (which the majority of them do) are better off at school for the simple reason that there's no other provision for them. They aren't going to learn anything sitting at home on their own while their parents are at work. Likewise, children who are brought up by parents who are themselves poorly educated and who have no interest in education are far better off at school when they've just turned four (and, probably, at nursery before that). But children who are young in their school year and who are brought up by an educated and intelligent SAHP would not particularly benefit from Reception - unless they were an only child with no other opportunities to socialise and play with other children. But you don't need to be a research scientist to work that one out.

Obviously one anecdote doesn't negate all the research, but no research is ever going to be perfect. On average, just-turned- 4-yo children who have two working parents (which the majority of them do) are better off at school for the simple reason that there's no other provision for them. They aren't going to learn anything sitting at home on their own while their parents are at work

I wonder if I'm misunderstanding something but surely that provision exists - nursery?

@TheWayTheLightFalls You could well be right. I don't know anything about nursery as my DC never attended one. I just assumed nursery stops when school starts...

@DespiteBeingSummerBorn EYFS funding remains available if the child has deferred their school start - it's for three and four year olds (30hrs a week for most, 15hrs for high earners - and there may be other exemptions, apologies, not my special subject). So that child would just stay at nursery, I would think. That's the financial side of things. And nurseries do go past 4 - my DD (Sept born) was at nursery until 4y 10m, her Oct born friend is staying at nursery until the day before school starts - 4y 11m. Maybe there's something else to it that I'm not familiar with.

Anecdotally, if you're two working parents, it's much easier round my way to have a child in nursery than school - former likely to cover longer hours and sometimes holidays (for £).

I deferred my April and June born children. It made no difference with regards to childcare cost because they had 30 free hours at nursery just like at school. However our nursery do the after school club for the school and nursery together so if they’d needed after school care it would have been in the same place.

for some parents another year at nursery might be easier than school if their nursery continues over school holidays and has extended hours. For other it will be easier when children are at school if they access cheaper after school/school holiday care.

I think what works best financially depends on individual circumstance and what provision is available locally.