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!

It’s not common where I am at all, only for exceptional circumstances and the head teacher has the final say once school places have gone out. We are in a 3 tier system though (England) and it’s a real bun fight over school places for reception so I suspect that has a lot to do with it.

My ds is 31 August, we're in Scotland so he's right in the middle of the cohort but in England I'd have deferred because he's physically small for his age anyway, so to be in a class where he's also the youngest would have made sports and even just physical play quite disheartening. It's already quite hard to be the smallest boy in the class even if he is academically near the top of the class.

My child's birthday is end of August. I wholeheartedly regret their school entry not being deferred for a host of reasons. They were 11 months younger than several class mates

My late August baby has been completely fine starting school.

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.

A couple of my sons friends were held back, and then had to be pushed forward (i.e. do yrs 5 and 6 in just 1 year) as the secondaries the parents wanted to send them too wouldn't take them otherwise.

Not sure it particularly helped them from what I saw - they were physically bigger and more mature than all their class mates so stood out a lot by the time they were all in year 3. And their last year was a real struggle to get them to where they needed to be academically before leaving yr 6, with tutors after school etc. But then they are not my child so there will be factors I won't be aware of.

This! My youngest is 21st August and just started Recwption - youngest in his class and I couldn't entertain the notion of him not starting school for another year!

Why is that? Interested to hear other people's negatives about not delaying.

I didn't with my very late August daughter but then I was late August too and I feel I was fine. Daughter probably does struggle academically at times but in Y3 was about average for where she should be. I am a bit concerned about Y4 though :/

I think it’s a good thing more parents are choosing to defer, if that’s what is right for their child. My DT’s would no way have been ready to start school at just turned 4, they’re old for their year so were almost 5 when they started which was much better for them. I would have deferred if they were summer born.

I don't really understand not deferring to be honest. Surely it's an unnecessary buzz kill when they get to year one and suddenly can't learn through play any more. Why not give your August baby another year of fun first? That's without all the population level stats on outcomes.

Missing the point a little but how does deferring work with secondary school? Does this mean all the July / August kids will be starting secondary school a year later too?

He wasn´t behind, he was bang on target. He is the age he is...

Yes in our county they just stay with their new year group throughout.

Where I live you can’t defer. You can miss reception but then the child starts at year 1 which cause problems. There was one child that did this. In one of my DCs class there were 3 DC born in the last week of Aug.

edited to add - they are all doing well and now in secondary.

My Russian friend was telling me how it’s very common to keep kids back a year, force them to repeat if they grades are not good. No matter the age of the kid.

I am from Ireland, 5 years of age is typical. 4 is no longer encouraged.

They are in education now up to typically 22 years of age, four year degree or apprenticeships. why wouldn't you want them a year older?

Research shows longer engagement and higher success rates are linked to older age commencement.

Nursery was £800 per month for me even with 30 free hours and tax free account. My child isn't summer born but if she was, another year of those fees would have been out of the question.

Not saying it is always the case, but often deferring is like having a SAHP or being able to home educate: it's a privilege not everyone can afford.

There are some children whose ability and maturity mean that they are ready for school, even when they are summer born. There are some who really aren’t ready too, but equally, some older children find reception difficult.

If you want children to repeat a year, you would presumably have to determine whether their progress, or lack of it, was due to immaturity or to finding learning in general more difficult.

In my family (in Scotland) we had a March born girl and a Feb born boy. 5.5 and 4.5 when starting, both ready at that point but by time first important exams rolled round in secondary, due to way local areas did things there was an almost 2 year difference in the ages they sat them. And that was a v bright girl and an average boy.

All that to say, 4 is too young to be starting school!

The fault lies with the postcode lottery system in the UK where some councils are fine with it and others aren’t. Therefore, it is a smallprint reading issue. In other countries, it’s a normal choice all parents are aware of. That should be the case here, so it isn’t a perceived middle class luxury. I am sure your child will be fine OP - thousands of August borns are but the fact that some parents choose this because they can is not (to me) shocking.

Compulsory school age isn't until 5 and there's no chance I'd send mine before that. But everyone is different, other countries who start much later seem to get great results, I don't see any benefit apart from nursery fees to a 4 year old attending school

I'm an August baby and when I started primary 30 odd years ago, you could start in either Sept, Jan or April. I started in the January. I'm sure that was a nightmare for teachers, but it feels better for kids. DD1 is an end of June baby and I don't think deferring her a whole year would be beneficial, but she ideally probably needs an extra couple of months in nursery. A Jan start would be perfect for her. As it is, I think we will be sending her at 4yrs 2months.

Russian schools teach very differently to our schools (or at least they did when I spent time in Russia around 15yrs ago). They were strict, rigid, lots of learning by rote etc. I completely see how that is in line with repeating years.

I think people's ideas are starting to catch up to research. We know that the earlier the kids start school, the worse the outcomes tend to be. We know that they should prioritise play. Scandinavian countries have moved school start to the year they turn 7. Countries like South Africa, Russia, some Asian countries this has always been the case.
People used to say ' ohh but she is so bright!" ( such a pet-peeve of mine.. anyway) But parents are beginning to realise that it has nothing to do with intelligence. They are starting to think of the social and emotional side of a 4 year olds development. Realising that their kid would have been deprived of a full year's play( and thus development) when compared to a baby born in September/October.
It is honestly mind-boggling to me that the UK still lets 4 year old's start school. We are trying but the policies are nit changing. Hopefully when enough parents are educated on child development, the pressure will come from the parents.

We're in a country where deferring is pretty common and always has been. Dd would have been literally the youngest in her year (born on the cut-off date). We deferred her - she was absolutely ready cognitively/academically, but very small physically (was still the smallest in her class when she started a year later as one of the older ones) and not high in confidence. It's worked out fine - and in fact the cut-off date was moved forward by three months the year after she started. She's not the oldest in her class by any means either.