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

I don't see the issue it was your choice not to defer.

In Scotland its very common and not seen as such a big thing (about 60% if Jan/Feb - the equivalent of July and Aug children) and it's been extended so funding is automatic to Sept-Dec children.
The majority of teachers will tell you deferral is best.

My Jan born DS1 was deferred and its done him the world of good already let alone when he reaches exam years. We will be deferring DS2 as well.

I think your argument kind of falls down because children vary so much anyway! Like seriously my child is genetically big (father is 6F 3") he is now 11 in year 7 and is 5F 5". He is taller than me (at 5F2") and taller than some of the year 10s.

He started reception (not deferred) aged exactly 4.5 more or less (his bd is March 1st, so 6 months and 1 day after August 31st). He was the same size as a lot of the year 1s and some of the shorter year 2s. Later the school closures from covid messed-up year 2, and in the summer he went for a visit to his new class and was taken by a new teacher to a year 5 visit and promptly brought back when someone who knew him mentioned he was going into year 3!

I don't necessarily support deferring children, but your argument that it disadvantages a smaller child by making there be bigger children in the class is silly.

They introduced deferring a couple of years after my youngest started school. At that time if you deferred your child’s place they had to join in year 1 so lost a whole year of schooling.

I think, if anything, the deferred kids are going to be behind in their mental growth.

That’s an interesting tension, because aren’t we in a ‘meritocratic’ society which does have a strong competition for very limited resources and future jobs?

It seems strange for April born kids to defer. I think that might be excessive unless there are special needs. However, I’m in favour of July/August kids having the option.

DS1 was born end of August. I deferred him for a term, which was all you could do back then. He still wasn’t quite ready. He was teased for still liking Thomas the Tank Engine. Throughout the whole of primary school and most of secondary school he felt socially behind his peers - puberty, interest in girls, alcohol etc. Academically he was fine, but his confidence was low, due to always being the youngest. He couldn’t even go clubbing with his friends after the A level results because he was still only 17. If I’d been able to defer him I would have, and I think he would have been happier as a result.

To be honest OP everyone has the choice to defer/ delay start. If you feel strongly about you DC being the youngest then maybe you could consider it. ? The playground incident could happen anywhere as children of all ages are in the playground. I think it is a great idea for a very young child who is not ready for school but I do ageee it is being used by parents wanting there child to be the best in class.

I think the deferring options has mainly been used by middle class parents so their child has the advantage of being the oldest . However it should really only be used for children that are already at a significant disadvantage so that they don’t have the further disadvantage of being the youngest. Hopefully universities will start to consider age at which exams are taken.

I wish that the terminology used wasn't so emotive. Children shouldn't be described as being 'disadvantaged' or 'punished' just because they are born on the 1st of April.
Likewise a child born on the 1st of September isn't automatically 'advantaged' just because of their date of birth.
There's a heck of a lot more at play than the date they made their way into the world.

@ifyoudont what country and what is the cut off date>> i started school at 4 and it did me no harm in scotland. our cut off date is 28th feb/

I'm August born in Scotland, I didn't even know this was a thing.
The oldest in my year was born in January 1992 and the youngest March 1993, so quite a big range.

Kids can’t start school in the UK until they are 4 so you can’t be in the UK.

The boundary is already drawn in that children can defer if needed.

Beyond that, no boundary is needed.

In England and Wales we send our children into full time school stupidly early. Many, many little four year olds just aren't ready for a 9-3:30 day, five days a week.

Even my Feruary-born child used to fall asleep within 10 minutes of getting home from school. My summer child had a hellish start, which affected his relationship with - and attitude towards - school for the rest of his education. Sadly, deferral wasn't available back then. His SEN weren't picked up until high school. More time to get equipped physically and emoptionally for scool would have probably helped him a lot.

If parents feel their child would benefit by delaying full time school, good for them. They are assessing their child and deciding on what will most suit that child's needs.

It doesn't matter if it's August 31st or May 17th - if the child is not equipped for a full school day, deferrment is as valid option.

No one is disadvantaged by another child's deferral. Education isn't a competition against other children, it's a bid for each individual child to achieve their potential.

Scottish kids are at least 4.5 when they start though. In England some are literally just turned 4.

That makes a huge difference in some kids at that age.

@YourWildAmberSloth in what way will that year become significant when they’re older? If a child born on 31st August was deferred, they’d end up being one day older than a child born on 1st September in their class.

My DS is at uni now, and several of his friends took a year out after A levels, so they’re a school year above. But it’s not caused them any bother.

At what point in their lives do you feel deferred kids will suffer?

I honestly thought deferring meant you just skipped reception. It is really odd to be a year group spanning 18 months- the differences might not be obvious at 4 but they will be obvious at 11.

I do persoanly think people would think hard about deferring. Every summer child is super young and small and that year between 4 and 5 is massive. It is so easy to look at them and think they aren’t ready. I remember my 4 year old August boy going into school and he looked so tiny. My heart broke as he walked in and I looked at the much larger children and I wondered if that was for the best and should I deferred. He cried for the first week and I felt awful

Fast forward to year 6. He got the top SATs in the year and was one of the tallest children the year. I keep telling him how lucky he was not have been born 2 weeks later and be stuck in the year below!

how a child seems at 4 isn’t how they likely will end up. Deferral should be only be used in only the rarest of situations. I dread to think how it would have affected him if I had deferred him and he was allowed to start reception a year later.

I definitely am in the UK, a school with a nursery a child can go the term after their 3rd birthday, it isn't compulsory but its there to use.

I definitely am in the UK, a school with a nursery a child can go the term after their 3rd birthday, it isn't compulsory but it's there to use.

That's not going to school though.

That's going to nursery in a school building.

Totally different thing.

Mine went to a nursery in a hospital building. Didn't make them patients, or doctors.

I think the previous poster means starting school nursery at 3.
My friend’s son is in his 20s but was youngest and smallest. He actually started ft reception class at school at 3 (term started August as they still had wakes weeks then) 100% would have had an easier time in yr below socially and done better academically. His youngness stayed apparent all through school/uni.

I think you're naive if you think society is a shared endeavour. Capitalism is about competition and survival of the fittest, with the absolute bare minimum given to those who 'lose'. Probably just so they don't revolt and cause trouble for those who win.

@headstone I had no desire for my child to be the oldest. But he was born a month premature, at the very end of August, and he wasn’t ready to start school when he had only just turned 4. If I could have deferred I would. Nothing to do with my socioeconomic status. Just awareness of what was best for my child. What is the basis of your sweeping generalisation?

I think universities will do this in the future.

I don’t think anyone thinks july/august borns will suffer later.
However April/may borns that were deferred to give them an advantage (not SENDs, premature birth etc) do have a chance of suffering for it late, mainly socially, but also being bored silly.
As usual, there is no one size fits it all. But deferring is not always the best choice.

Education is competitive though?
For secondary school admissions tests they weight by age - I know 11+ in our area is weighted (one mum said to mum of Aug born (my friend) only reason your child got in was because she got extra marks for being young!)
But the uni tests lots need to sit aren’t age weighted as far as I know - ucat, tmua etc - I know lnat law aptitude isn’t. Not aware uni interviews take into account age. For competitive courses with low acceptance rates it’s tiny margins between A* predicted applicants. Do older in year have advantage? Not aware of any stats but I’d say yes.

Deferring summer borns would make them the same age as the rest of the year group when sitting exams surely? I’m not sure what weighting you could give to someone who is a month or two older than a September born.