Unfair to defer summer borns

[ifyoudont]

Dd was born late august, is the youngest in her year but instead of rest of her class being just under a year older than her , there’s 4 children who are nearly a year and a half older because they were born April -august the year above and deferred.

Somebody has to be the youngest and somebody the oldest but surely the fairest way is to keep the age difference within a year.

Dd is doing well academically and socially and only really struggling during playtime and PE as she is smaller. A boy in her class has early May birthday but because he was deferred instead of being 3+ months older than her is 15+ months older and the biggest and strongest in the class leading to several incidents where he has injured her.

A family member has a baby due in June and is already mentioned deferring them without knowing how advanced or behind they are going to be.

I definitely do think there are a few exceptions where it can be necessary but it seems to to be often done just because it can. Maybe there should be be stricter guidelines and some sort of test required?

AIBU? If so what am I missing?
I don’t hear people share this opinion often and haven’t shared it with family member

If the child was born in August they joined kids older than them unless they officially deferred.

The September birth meant they were the oldest in the year and not the youngest

You should have deferred her OP. No way would I send a just turned 4 year old to full-time school. Compulsory school age is 5 for a reason. You know that she will have to sit all day at a desk at just turned 6.
Don't interfere in other patents decisions to give their child more time to play and not start school until they are 5.

I think the window should be narrowed to July/August borns only, and even then it should be when there are additional needs. I don’t mean diagnosed conditions, as a lot of conditions that may impact development are not identified or diagnosed at that age. It should only be permitted where there is evidence that the child meets a sensible criteria of genuinely not being ready to start school.

I wish we could have defered DD. She is adopted and had FASD but as she is an october baby the nurseries wouldn't keep her on and we couldn't afford for one of us to give up work.
She is still working years below and would have really benefitted.

Lots of misinformation on this thread- it is a national policy that parents of summer born children can apply for their child to go into RECEPTION one year later. So age 5 rather than 4.

My point is that as you say, the August child can easily defer. It's not difficult to do that.

Trying so hard to prevent your child being born on 31st August instead of 1st September is mad.

I am end of July and wasn’t deferred. I was actually top of my class all through infants and primary. Proof some of us younger ones can actually be quite smart and ready for learning, even at a young age!

I can't think of anything worse for a small child confidence than being singled out and put in the "short children" section either 😅
And what about the average sized children, do they go in the large children or small children section? Or can they have the privilege of both tall and short friends because of their averageness 😂

"but instead of rest of her class being just under a year older than her"

Why would the rest of the class be just under a year older? Surely there would always be a spread throughout the year.

I hear this often from parents who have summer born. It's odd.

Not then they couldn’t.
It may be the case now,

Do you have 30 children and 1 teacher and 1 ta? I can't see that working in the majority of schools. Even mixing 2 year groups together has challenges.

It really depends on the area and school. Was a very straightforward process for me because my council approves all requests and the school I wanted had the council as their admissions authority. When we go to secondary a parent has already said the school we want approves several requests to transfer in their adopted year group each year so I don't anticipate any challenges.

Mum of a deferred summer born with EHCP here. DS's school didn't know anything about it but let me get on with it, now his Year 2 teacher told me at the parents' evening that I have done the best thing for him.

YABVVVVVU. Let schools (yes, about repeating reception if needed for a non-deferred child) and parents decide what's best.

It’s not just about intelligence or being ready for learning.
Theres so much more to it.
See the research I posted earlier

Oh, I was actually anticipated (European country) and was a social death even though I have been a straight A student throughout my career, top uni marks and PhD. There is so much more to academics.

I am Aug 13th ( due end Sept) and my DD is ,Aug 28th. We were t made to repeat years.Why did they do that?

I see what you're saying and it is admirable, but I don't think you would be disadvantaging another child if you defer. You would however give your daughter the same advantage that is open to all her peers.

That's beside the fact that the world isn't fair. So why would you not give your child a leg up when it's available? Would you not be disadvantaging her in the process if you don't?

I did it because I thought at the age of just 4 my DD was too young to start school. And each year I see very tiny four year olds struggling at drop off with starting school and think if only they had had a few more months to mature and then start school close to the age of 5. That's what I gave my DD and she is thriving at school and always has. If parent make a different decision that is totally up to them but I made the right choice for my daughter and I don't really care if others think it's unfair- we know summerborns are significantly disadvantaged as a cohort and I did what I could to reduce this for her, and other parents of summerborns have that option. I think school should start at 5 for all children.

When did they et change it?

They literally play all day and then have at most 15 minutes of learning. It's always been normal to start that young in Scotland!

I'm not sure how you have confused my post. Children don't start at just 4 in Scotland as they do in England. They are at youngest 4.5 years. Having experience of both systems the Scottish is the best. I was talking about the OPs DD starting school incredibly young.

That’s entirely normal though isn’t it? I’m not in UK, but where I am there is an 18 month age range between children starting first year of school. Ours can start at 4yo providing they will turn 5yo by the 31st July in the year they start, or can go later as long as they have started by the time they turn 6yo, however if you turn 6yo after the end Nov, you get dispensation to start in following school year end of January. It’s always been like that.

That means there is an enormous difference in ability, as a child 4.5yo is very different to a child potentially 6years 2 months if you take the extremes. Obviously, the 6yo’s do so much better in the first year or two or three, however, studies in our system show that around school year 4/5 they start progressing based on natural ability rather than an age advantage, and by end of primary school age is not a factor in results. So, basically the people holding kids back to give their kids an academic advantage will be short lived in the scheme of overall schooling lifetime.

That's strange. My understanding was that children who deferred, missed reception and went into Yr1, otherwise they will be leaving school and sitting GCSE's a year later than they should. However, I've just seen that the law has been changed, which is ridiculous. It might not make a difference to those children now, but once they are older, that year will be significant.

People have to do what's right for their individual child.

I have two summer borns. One was deferred and one wasn't.

The right decision was made for each of them.

At the time DS was deferred it was a fight to get the school to agree to him going into Reception the next year as standard was to go into Y1, but his HT is now a firm backer of the policy that deferred children should go into reception (not solely because of DS). It's a much more sensible decision.