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!

If you're worried is it possible to take him out and start again next year?
I know it very much depends on the home/work situation and availability of preschool options etc. However I do know people who have done this following discussion with the teacher. Their child was just not emotionally mature enough even though academically able. No SN or anything, just too young for the class at that time. This wasn't in the UK though.

I think it's silly, I would have done the same as you unless there were exceptional circumstances.
I just think deferred children are held back a whole year and that's an awfully long time when they get to secondary school age. They either have to skip a year at some point which must be stressful or they're finishing school a whole year later?!
I think what's actually needed is more flexibility in reception and year 1 to do age and ability appropriate work.
I say this as a July baby who went to school when deferring wasn't a thing. Also one of my DDs is April born and she was so ready for school, if she had been due to start when the had just turned 4 I wouldn't even have considered deferring for her

But finding learning hard is also a really good reason to defer / be held back, regardless of age. It gives the children a much better chance.
I remember growing up that the oldest children in the class were rarely if ever the most mature. Conversely, the youngest children fit in just fine and even when they didn't quite, it was better than the alternative of them being bored stiff in the lower grade - where they definitely wouldn't have fit in at all.

.

Repeating years is pretty common here too, but there's no real stigma attached any more - it's considered part of moving at the pace of the child.

Absolutely standard here, I don't know any summer-born children who DIDN'T defer.

I think it’s great that the option is now there. My DH was an August baby and from things that have been said about his schooling I suspect he would have achieved more academically if he had been able to start a year later.

My own dc are home ed but if they had gone to school I wouldn’t have sent them until they were CSA which is the term after they turn 5.

If you compare a summer born baby (say august) that child will be just 4 when he starts school. A September born baby is 5 when he starts school. If the august baby is deferred, he starts school at 5, same as the September baby.
How is a deferred child a year older when the finish school?
The inverse is true, a summer born baby that is not deferred, finishes school a year earlier !

I think it depends on what nursery a child attends. Private nurseries don't advocate for deferring because there is no vested interested for them. However council nurseries usually do educate the parents on the benefits of deferring because they are educating facilities and not just glorified babysitters that are run for vast profit which is what private nurseries effectively are.

I think you are unreasonable. I think it's shocking to expect children to start school when so young.

My child was not at all emotionally or socially ready at 4. Luckily where I live he started at 5 but it would have been so wrong for him a year earlier.

I would never send a child who has just turned 4 to primary school if there was any way to avoid it. As a previous poster said that would mean they would be 11 months younger than some other children in the class which surely puts them at a disadvantage emotionally and academically.

All my 3 are summer born, June, July & the youngest same birthday as your son 28 August. The eldest 2 have done really well and never seemed younger socially or academically. I don’t think I will defer my youngest purely because there has to be a youngest and that’s just when she was born, I wouldn’t want her when older to be pissed off at me for effectively ‘holding her back a year.’ If she had an additional disadvantages other than her age I would probably think differently.

This. I bet people would quickly reconcile themselves to the emotional readiness of their 4 year olds if exam results were weighted to reflect the age of the child when sitting the exam.

Surely these children should be kept within the same year even if they start school later (as used to be the case - you could start in January). Otherwise it's just creating a bigger problem as the April-borns end up as the youngest in the year, and even worse, will be expected to keep up with kids who are 15 months older than them - an even bigger disadvantage.

I agree with this

My children are among the youngest in their classes and are doing very well. I think they would have been desperately bored if we had held them back. They have been exactly ready for each school stage. It's hard to know when you are making the decision, but deferring isn't without its risks either.
In the countries where kids start at 6 or 7, their nursery or kindergarten system is a lot more school-like than in the UK. In countries where they start school aged 3, they may be in school but they have several more years of learning through play. In the end, 'school' is a label that doesn't actually tell you much about what is happening inside the building.

It’s tough isn’t it.

You want is best for your child - and endless studies have shown those that are older in the school year do better in absolutely everything.

I have seen that some (private) secondary schools insist you are in the right year however, so I don’t know how that impacts things in the longer term.

I have a few friends with August babies wrestling over this - wanting to put them in academically selective schools at some point and the very real issue that their being younger will probably impact their performance and therefore likelihood of success.

My August bday DD is now in Y3 and for the first time I now wish I'd held her back. She's starting to really struggle with the level of focus and that's expected of her at just turned 7. In maths they're doing decimals already (eg 0.6 + 2.5) and she got no fucking idea what's good on.

She also gets on much better with some Y2 friends from outside clubs and is teased in class for being a "baby". She's much shorter than the girls in her class and is also emotionally immature compared to the ones who are turning 8 now.

I've just got to suck it up but I wish I'd taken the option more seriously. I'm a June birthday and so was very dismissive of the idea but primary school content in KS2 is now 1.5-2 years ahead of what we were taught at the same age in the 1980s, according to my friend who works in education policy .

Having said that I've also heard that many secondaries only allow in year admissions so going from y6 to y8 would be much worse than being behind in your natural year

In other countries children tend to start school later than in the UK, and I think there's a lot to be said for it. So deferring is certainly something I would think about seriously for a July or August born child.

They aren't allowed to force children to skip years like that.

No, it's not that they "should have started the year before". The option exists for parents of summerborns to start them in Reception at 4 or 5. You chose 4, they chose 5. I'm not sure what's "shocking" about it?

All research on education and child development is very clear that starting school at 5 or 6 is more appropriate and starting formal education earlier can be harmful to learning and life outcomes as well as both physical and mental health. At a population level these effects are pronounced and persistent and lifelong. It's a no-brainer really for anybody who has looked at the data to wait until 5 now that the option is there unless they have very specific reasons for choosing to send their child earlier.

The option has existed in Scotland for decades, and in most countries with better education outcomes than ours and happier, healthier children school starts at 6.

People are allowed to make different choices to you.

Does depend on the kid though.

Two friends have a child born August 20th and the other Sept 20th (or so). So a month apart but two school years.

The Aug 20th child has just started school and is fine. They are tall, sporty, confident - they’ll be fine.

The Sept 20th child wouldn’t cope. They can’t manage their emotions. They wouldn’t manage the responsibility. They wouldn’t cope with the more formal learning.

Etc etc

Dd absolutely would not have been ready, her birthday is also 28th of August.
Luckily I live in Scotland so it wasn't a problem.

I grew up in Ireland where it was the norm, there was no date for cut off and parents would choose, so children born in May or June could be either age, usually the older age. It wasn't a big deal.

Our cut off here in NI is early July. My eldest is April born, we could've deferred her but we felt she was ready and she's doing well although she does seem young compared to those who are nine months older.

My youngest was born just after the cut off so she'll be just over 5 starting school, which I'm very glad of, the extra year will be good for her.

We do know that children who are older in their year group do better, but that's at a population level. The highest achieving child in my DC's class was born on 30 June and is the youngest in their class. Likewise my bff is a ridiculously successful lawyer and was born in early June and was one of the youngest in our school year.