To be shocked deferring by a year has become this common?

[Killiam]

My DS is 4, his birthday is august 28th, he started school this year.
Today I went to a session at his school where parents were invited in to see what they have been doing etc.
After I was talking to some parents and they noted more than once how tiny he is, I said ah well he has just turned 4 so makes sense. This is when I learned of his class of 24 kids, 4 of them should have started the year before 1 June birthday, 2 July and 1 August. The next closest in age to my son is a June baby so no other July or August babies born his year at all!
DS seems to be doing well but when I asked the other summer parents why they decided to defer they basically all said they just felt their kids needed more time, nothing the separates them from DS.
DS does cry most days going in and couldn't write his name or anything before starting.
The school is in central London and is very diverse but lots of Eastern European and Asian parents and Ive learn that in most of those countries 6 or even 7 is a more common. starting age so I wonder if that plays a role?

AIBU to be shocked it is so common to defer now? Starting to wonder if I made the right choice!

@NeverDropYourMooncup a judicial review decides whether a decision has been made in accordance to the applicable regulatory framework. The question would be whether a local authority or school that rejects out of cohort applications as a matter of routine is acting in accordance to the DoE guidance which states "Authorities should consider whether there are good educational reasons for a child to join their normal age group, otherwise the child should remain with their adopted year group." I would argue that if they are doing this as a matter of routine, they are not in fact doing so for good educational reasons and are therefore not in line with the applicable government guidance.

But if it did get them an advantage and you could afford it, why wouldn’t you?

I had an early summer born ds but if he was a July or August birthday Id have deferred.

I have a late summer born child and although not ready I glad I let her go in her proper year. It's very rare where we are so might be a London thing. Do they still have to jump a year to catch up or that gone now.

The rules in Scotland have now changed and you can actually defer any child who has not turned 5 by the time school starts in August in the same way you used to be able to for Jan/Feb birthdays.

I had a daughter who started P1 at 4 (Nov birthday) and then a son who I deferred so he started school at 5.5 (Feb birthday). The difference in their starts to school was stark, DD was ready on paper, had friends from nursery, pencil grip, could sit and listen to a story etc. She was compliant but just didn’t try very hard because she didn’t give a shit, she just wanted to play, which is completely appropriate for a 4 year old. When DS started he was so keen to learn, confident, picked things up quickly and did his best without being stressed out. Part of this is their personality, but I believe their ages factored a lot too.

I was so glad by the time youngest DD started this year that I could defer her, she’s an October birthday and just started school and is about to turn 6. I am particularly pleased because her P1 is completely play based, so she will be in a play based classroom until she is nearly seven, which I think is much more gentle on a child’s mental health and doesn’t crush their love of learning.

@ISpyNoPlumPie Genuinely not being goady, but why do you dismiss @SunriseMonsters in the way that you have? You haven't addressed any of his/her comments. Instead, you have deflected and been rather rude which actually serves to put your comments in a poor light and reinforce Sunrise's points.

Are you honestly saying that you wouldn't do something that could be hugely beneficial to your child and their long-term future on the basis that you don't think it's fair on the other kids in the class or to society in general?

@Comedycook Unless there are sn or a child is delayed developmentally then I really don't agree with deferring. Someone in the class has to be the youngest...
I wonder if this is a middle class thing... can't bear the idea of their child not being the best in the class at various things...they basically want to gain an advantage amongst their peers.

It’s not, it’s an ‘I don’t agree with just turned 4 year olds attending formalised education’. It’s not in their interests and it’s not something I want for my child.
Schools were booking open days for my DC’s intake while my child was still TWO YEARS old! It’s utterly ridiculous. They are barely 3 by a month and school applications are open. It’s entirety too young imo and it doesn’t suit all children, the law clearly agrees hence me having the option to defer my child’s entry.

It’s actually the opposite way round, especially for boys, the younger ones trail behind at secondary then university level….Im in Scotland amd know loads of kids (boys especially) who have been deferred a year, amd know of no one who regrets this choice, but I’ve heard of plenty regretting not deferring

No, it only allows them to say "no" if they can prove it is in the child's best interests for him to go straight into YR8 from YR6. Even if the kid is an absolute genius, with secondary transfer being so difficult socially and emotionally for most children there is literally no way they can prove that is in his best interests, overruling the parent and the child and the teachers in his primary school who actually know him.

So there is no way they can legally meet the criteria to reject the transfer with him staying in cohort. The "circumstances of the individual case" means the above: it is referring to the criteria in the legislation that states they must demonstrate it would be in his best interests, as an individual, to move from his adopted cohort and not start secondary school with everyone else and instread be dumped in YR8 with existing friendship groups knowing nobody and having missed YR7. Have you requested the secondary school's evidence for their assertion that this is in his best interests? The onus is on them to prove that moving him from his cohort is beneficial for him, not the other way around. If they can't then they must accept him into YR7 in his cohort that he's been in throughout primary.

I think it depends on the school. My DS was a late summer baby and started in the September so he had just turned 4. It was a small village school with a full time teacher and full time TA with only 6 kids. He thrived even though some people (the owners of the private nursery he attended ) thought he was too young. He is 20 now, it didn’t have a negative impact on him at all although deferring him, I think would have.

And any blanket policy on "we don't allow children out of age cohort" is illegal, for this exact reason. The legislation and Dept for Education guidance documents are absolutely clear on this. The burden of proof is on the secondary school to show it would be in his best interests to force hom to move cohorts so if the primary and his parent and the child say no, it's not in his best interests, then the secondary school cannot possibly meet the legal test to force him to miss a year. Get the parent to lodge a tribunal case asap and support them. And speak to the secondary staff and explain the legal requirements as clearly they are so ignorant they have no idea!

Is that not how it is though? P1 and P2 use play based pedagogy here, with more formal learning in P3.

Thank you. I've given up with engaging with that poster because they are rude and inflammatory and yet, as you say, refuse to actually answer anything you say anyway, just send personal comments. I think maybe they didn't understand the point about logic so trued to deflect it with personal insults instead. Horrible to have people behaving like that - telling others they are causing inequality by trying to do the best for their children - so I appreciate you calling it out. Ironically, I'm a lone parent, and deferred my child. I'm hardly the super rich with a private yacht!

We had someone in our year at secondary who should have been in the year above. The general consensus was that he must be thick or he'd be in the correct year. Nothing about his ability in lessons suggested he was thick, it was purely decided upon because of being too old to be in our year. Not suggesting that this was fair, just what happened

My child was due in October but came early and was born in august so he’s in the wrong year group. So best laid plans and all that….

My daughter will be 4 in June, due to start school Sept '25. I have just finished the paperwork to request she start reception in Sept '26 instead. She is doing fabulous at Nursery, but being the youngest is hard. EYFS is playbased but Year 1 isn't. I would rather she be 6 when expected to be sat at a desk because I think it's too much for an only-just-turned-5-year-old.

I was a summer born child and looking back I can see more immaturity in me than my autumn born peers at school and that definitely made primary school more difficult.

We are a low income family, so I disagree with others who are suggesting its a middle class thing to do. My daughter will get another year of 30hrs free funding so could theoretically do mon-fri 9 to 3 at nursery next year which is the same hours as the Reception children.

Definitely not a thing now thank goodness as it's so common.

I think its the reverse. My eldest is a late Summer baby and we didn't defer. He has found sixth form hard, people learn to drive from 17 and drink from 18. He will finish sixth form before he can have a legal drink and watched a lot of friends pass thier test before he could start. I think if he'd always been with the cohort below him, he'd enjoy being the first to drive and drink.

Presumably you are an adult and therefore this occurred before there was an option in England and Wales for parents to choose whether summer born children to start aged 4 or 5. It was not an option until a few years ago, although it's been the case in Scotland for decades (but for "spring borns", because their academic year is different).

Therefore, presumably there was a different reason for this child you knew when you were at school being deferred/ repeating a year. That used to happen sometimes, if a child missed a lot of school for some reason. Two of my schools (in the UK, 1990s) tried to make me move up a year because the work was too easy.

That's entirely different to a child starting school with other children in Reception who are just a few days younger than them in some cases and remaining with them throughout education.

All very well and good in primary - get to high school and suddenly it's a bit weird that there's a 15 year old in a class of 13 year olds. Your child is going to stick out like a sore thumb. Ditto when they hit university and they're the oldest by a mile.

Huh? They are a few days older than the Sept born kids in their class. 🤣

I wish I had started a year later. Weirdly some children in my year were a year younger than they should’ve been.
I’m summer born and was early so if I’d come on time I would’ve been in the year below!!

Well logically if this trend continues in a big way our children's year groups will change from June to June year groups and May children will become the youngest.

It's generally encouraged by nurseries in Scotland but does remain relatively a middle class thing. My friend is a TA in p1 in a school in a poorer area and there are about 10 kids this year who just aren't ready for school at all. Multiple not reliably toilet trained, unable to sit for any length of time, having to have full support at activities, so much time at drop off with lots of tears. In my council area most people defer.

I deferred my youngest as he is speech delayed and currently on his second year long wait for speech and language therapy. He is in an amazing playgroup where they are outside 3 hours a day and there are only about 16 kids in total to 4 staff. They go for a trip out twice a week and encourage independence. I've seen a massive difference in him and I know he is not ready for school academically or socially. In what world would I put him into a class of 25 when he will sit silent in that setting for the entire time, come home bursting for the toilet because hes too shy to ask to go just because he happens to be 4.5?

My eldest was 4 and he was academically ready but 4 years in he is really struggling and in hindsight a wee extra year maybe wouldn't have been the worst thing.

My much older June child started when there was a second intake in jan still in our city. The first term she was there was mostly wasted as she was settling in. Last term in reception was ok. Like many disproportionately numbered June-August babies in the U.K. (it shifts depending on where the school year ends and makes you the youngest in other countries), she was later diagnosed with ASD. She would have been much better going to school at 5, but it wasn’t an option then unless you were prepared to lose the reception year.

Young people are required to stay in education, training or employment until they are 18, however this is a duty on the local authority to provide education, training and employment opportunities, not a compulsion on the child or their parents themselves.

Children are required to either be at school/ college, in an apprenticeship, or in part time education/ training plus working 20 hours per week, until their 18th birthday.

Most employers/ apprenticeships/ FE colleges won't accept someone until they have GCSEs, anyway so there will be no alternatives to school available.

And in reality if you have raised your children to value education they are highly unlikely to suddenly decide on their 16th birthday to walk out of school, are they? And do what?

It's a complete non-argument.