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?

Most parents don't make this decision lightly to be fair. That extra month won't make any difference to how much Lucy beats your daughter.

My daughter was 4 and a week when she started school and was not as t all ready in hindsight. Emotionally that is, to be away from us for that length of time. We withdrew and home educated until year 4 at which time she went back.

She's now going into year 8 and is fine in her year group, but it has taken years for her to seem almost as old as her mates who are the best part of a year older.

It's good there is this option. There will be many parents who don't bother, many whose kids are actually fine at 4, but for those who aren't there should be some flexibility.

It was their decision to make and you could have made the same one for your daughter.

I do agree that someone has to be the youngest though. In my dad's year a child who really should be in the yr above has been put into my dad's class. Thus child has an early June birthday, no SEN etc. I don't think it is particularly fair on her or the other kids tbh.

You don't need a doctors note, the child doesn't have to be premature or SEN, just needs persuasive parents.

Of course it moves the youngest. Someone has to be the youngest. The 'same school year' is meaningless it is the actual age of the child that matters.

I didn't know it was possible to move down from 1 April, I actually think that is awful.

So classes will have 13 year old teens in the same class as 11 year old children. How can this be good for anyone?

I agree with you OP, and I think you've had a hard time on this thread

Also agree with PP who point out that allowing people to defer benefits middle class families who can afford another year of childcare

Just because you can apply to start late doesn't mean its always accepted or you might be told a late start is ok but the child has to start in year 1. And even with a late start it can cause problems at the point of joining secondary school. There was likely reasons at starting school that it was agreed Lucy wasn't ready.
Age isn't always the definer. At sports day my son ran against his own year and the one above because there aren't many boys. He won against the older boys in anything involving speed but came last when it came to balance because he has different skills. She could have gone to the sleepover but you could have made your excuses and picked her up at bedtime.
Being able to speak well in the school play by that point isn't down to age its confidence. If your daughter isn't up to the lead roles now she probably won't be by next year but by year 6 she might be but Lucy might have gone shy.

If you give your daughter excuses not to be the best at things and compare who to her friends she will doubt her own abilities and always look for reasons why she can't be the best.

Oldest doesn't equal best. 🤦🏼‍♀️ Deferring isn't to have your child be the best by default. That's a really weird mindset.

My DD is the joint oldest in her class with another girl who was born on the same day. The other girl was prem, is the smallest in the class and has development delays. My daughter is probably one of the smaller girls in the class and academically bumps along around the middle- she's only just started catching up with her younger peers. There's a June born boy in her class who is at least 10 inches taller than his counterparts. Should he be forced up a year because on sports day he has an advantage- should we just not allow any child to be good at anything? The whole point of deferring summerborns is to give your own child the chance to be their best- nothing to do with other children.

Also why would a doctor, say my GP, who has only met my DD maybe 3 times in her life know better than me that she would benefit from being deferred? Also when do I get my middle class badge? I assume that comes with more money and property which would be greatly appreciated right now. 👍🏻🤦🏼‍♀️

My DD is a May baby and has 3 deferred children in her class. Never occurred to me to get cross about it or make it about me. Is that what we’re supposed to do? I missed that memo

I think there should be a max of 12 months between kids in a year group but there is often 18 months.
I think starting school at 4 is waaaaay early. In Australia you have to enrol in school before 6yo.. We do have pre-school though so maybe that's the same but that is optional and only a few days a week.
4!!!!

Totally agree with @WhereAreMyAirpods said. In scotland there can be a year difference between children in the same class. I’m a teacher and have regularly had children who are 10 and some who have just turned 9 in the same class.
This little girls parents made what they felt was the right decision for their child. I doubt it was mainly just due to age but have chosen to tell their daughter that instead. In my classes, the younger children have out ran older ones in sports day, the age difference isn’t huge and some children are bigger but doesn’t necessarily make them faster.
Id say, in a nice way, focus on your dd. You chose not to let her have a sleep over, she may be young but that was your choice not her parents.

Literally the most precious thread I've ever read in here and that's saying something.

Besides, 'I wanted her to be the oldest not the youngest' is probably polite school gate speak for 'I had concerns about her readiness and ability to cope'. People don't hold their kids back for nothing, especially if they're haemorrhaging money on nursery fees.

I skipped a year when I was in a school and was already the youngest, so I was 'competing' against girls two years older than me. I was still smarter than them. Fucking atrocious at anything physical, mind. But a right nerd.

It's about what's right for each individual child.

Deferred children are entitled to 30 free hours of childcare a week until the term after their 5th birthday. Which will mean it’s free as long as they’re born in April or after, which they will be

Maybe you should have conceived on NYE op?! 🤷🏻‍♀️

It's not really about being the youngest, it's about the gap between when they turn 4 and when they start school. The school that I went to back in my home country decided to make it April, so that the youngest child would be nearly 4 1/2 when they started, which is much more ideal.

I can totally understand why a parent would want to hold their child back a year at school. My daughter is July baby and it was apparent through most of the years of primary school that she was a lot less mature than the other girls in her class. It was a small year group and most of the other girls had Sept - Dec Birthdays. Given the chance back then I would probably done the same, I think the only option then though was to skip reception and start in year one (so in my opinion be even more behind). If you had done the same then she would maybe be the Lucy of her class. It is difficult because at the end of the day someone has got to be the youngest.

Having said all that, DD is now a confident adult just starting her second year of her PHD - it took her a while but she definitely got there. Try not to worry/compare your dd with others - there will always be someone you consider a 'lucy' in your childs life along the way. The best you can do is encourage her to do her best.

I think the problem is that if people with kids born in April/May defer their kids because they’re able to (as a PP said, it’s generally more economically advantaged middle class people who can do this because paying another year of nursery fees etc rules it out as an option for many) then what that does is, at the same time as benefitting their child, actively worsens the disadvantage faced by a (probably poorer) August born child whose parents can’t afford to delay school a year. Instead of being younger than some classmates by 11 months they are now younger by 15 months. The teaching will always default to the average ability of the class, so the child whose parents didn’t or couldn’t defer them loses out in many ways. As well as the social side as described by the OP.

Yet another example of (broadly speaking) the kids of poorer and less educated parents being disadvantaged and the achievement gap being exacerbated.

Personally I agree that a cut off has to be made somewhere and that barring significant medical issues or something, kids should be sent at the correct age. Not everything in life is fair, just because a middle class parent wants their child to be eldest doesn’t mean that they shouldn’t just suck up the ‘bad luck’ of their child’s birthday and use the resources that they have to support their child make a positive start at school.

If lots of people deferred then the ‘normal’ month to be youngest just shifts and the problem is moved onto someone else. Who then may want to defer - where does it stop? Someone always has to be youngest, but I guess that’s ok as long as it’s the poor kids 😡

This isn’t a decision that Lucy’s parents have made in isolation which doesn’t affect anyone else. It does, and those people have a right to be annoyed. I would be!

My DD came 4th so missed out on a medal.

This line makes it sound like a reverse (which will now get the post delete on MN as a form of trolling).

Because surely any parents would recognise that the youngest child coming 4th out of a group of much older kids is actually quite good

I do think people only think about them being little, not how it affects as the years go by.

Starting at four is too young, but the answer is not to keep children back artificially

None of our children should be starting school until they’re 6. Our system is shit.

but Lucy’s parents made it work for Lucy. Good for them.

I think that schools should stick to a 12 month age range (aside genuinely exceptional reasons).

Whether the current age range of 4 years 1 day to 5 years 0 days is the right one might be a different question.

It started with a few late August children so didn't increase the range but it's crept and gives a much wider age range.

FWIW, I was at a school which did it the other way round so the early readers got pushed up a year. That started with the Sept/Oct children but ended up running all the way to June ones so we had about a 21-month range. Quite a few of the younger ones (me included) were capable of being there academically but struggled socially.

This thing about competition and advantage and being the best keeps coming up in your posts.

That's not really the approach or the point of primary schools.

YABU. Lucy's parents made the right decision for their daughter and that is their business.

My son is in the 'correct' year with a November birthday. He won a couple of races on sports day, largely because he is very tall so his long stride helps. Should he not compete as it's unfair to the shorter kids? No, of course not!

You don't know the full reasons behind the decision Lucy's parents made. I know a family whose daughter is August born and in the year below where she 'should' be. No SEN etc and looking at her, you would think there was no reason.
However, she was born at 24.5 weeks weighing less than a pound and spent many months in NICU. So, her parents felt delaying her school start was the best thing for her.

It is possible to push them forwards, you would have to demonstrate that she is exceptionally bright and able from both an academic and social perspective.

I'm not sure it's necessarily in her best interests though, as being the youngest is a marked disadvantage - you'd need to be sure she'd remain as capable throughout her schooling, which isn't a given.