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

My dd is end of August as well and we chose not to defer as she seemed academically gifted, and I’m really glad we didn’t! She has friends that are almost a year older than her but as she is top of her class and succeeding in everything she does. Honestly, it sounds like the school needs to be tackling the behaviour of the older children in the school to safeguard your child.

We deferred entry to reception for our 22nd August born premature twins - no evidence required beyond the head teachers of the 3 schools saying that they would place the twins in reception do they were successful in getting a place at their school.

There is another child also deferred in their class, birthday is the day before the twins and the parents reason for deferral was the same - premature birth pushing them into the academic year ahead of when they would have started school if born on the date they were due!!

Its allowed because research shows premature summer born children are disadvantaged if they start school days after their 4th birthday and it’s an option for all summer born children thanks to the guidance produced by the government!

Parents know their children best and there is nobody more qualified to do the best thing for their child to achieve their full potential in the longterm.

Well it won't because many of those who have deferred have done so because their child wasn't ready. If anything, insisting children whose parents consider them not ready come to school at the same time as everyone else will widen the gap.

You seem to be looking at school as a competition with classes as age categories, but it isn't.

No-one is deferring their summer born child to give them a better chance of "winning" Reception or to get one over on your daughter, they are doing it to give them a better chance of getting through school emotionally and psychologically unscathed.

These threads always polarise opinion, and quite frankly I don’t understand why anyone cares so much about what other parents do.

Such threads always have lots of “my DD was born at 11.59pm on August 31st and she was so ready for school, she’s the cleverest in her class” and also “my DS was just one day past his 4th birthday when he started school, and he’s the tallest in his class and the best at football”. As if these are reasons for no one being allowed to defer.

The fact is that parents know their kids best, and what will make them struggle or thrive. It’s not a sneaky plan to make their kids the biggest oldest strongest cleverest in their class. It’s an attempt to ensure that school is as good an experience for their child as it can be.

And at the end of the day, research has shown time and again that summer born kids, especially boys, do less well at school if they start very young.

I’m in Scotland and deferred my DS, so he’ll be 5.5 not 4.5 when he starts school. There’s a cohort of 9 kids going into his P1 who have deferred with birthdays ranging from October - March (intake is different up here). I think it’s a lot more common in Scotland so more “acceptable”. DS is bright but wasn’t socially ready for school at all last year, he would have really struggled. Deferring him has given us the chance to build his confidence and now he’s genuinely excited to start school, if we’d sent him last year I don’t think we have got him through the door. He’s a kind, sweet, sensitive boy and I have no regrets giving him an extra year to get ready.

It's difficult. I have a July born who we considered deferring as I knew academically he wasn't ready. However physically and socially he was ready and was chomping at the bit to go and wanted to stay with his friends. Deferring just didn't sit right with me either for some reason.

He's in year 2 and still behind and hates the sitting down lessons. I constantly question my decision and almost wish the option wasn't available

If a child wishes to ‘give up’ it is better that they are not in a classroom distracting the other kids surely? Far better if they are out getting an apprenticeship.

But imo parents who defer until their kids are older are far more likely to be middle class parents whose kids grow up in an environment where third level education is the norm.
Before people come rushing to say otherwise, I am saying this imo from seeing the youngest kids in my own kid’s primary school having non UK born parents and parents in employment that is on the clock.

Sounds like slight sour grapes that you DIDN’T defer her?

There are endless studies supporting it, hence the rule. It’s not only when young but when teens and the year younger can be a massive issue.

Think it’s best to start all children as late as possible. They are babies at 4! We’re not in the workhouse for goodness sakes

So… because you feel you might have made the wrong decision is on, you wish the option away for everyone else? OK

I have an August born 1yr old. I am already considering deferring him. No, it's not "fair" on some of the other members of the class but research shows that the youngest members of a school year are at a disadvantage for the rest of their lives and that's not "fair" either.

It's not fair that summer born children do worse at academically all the way through school - to GCSE, A Level and beyond. It's not fair that summer borns are more likely to be bullied. It's not fair that a summer born child is VASTLY more likely to be identified as having learning disabilities (do they have learning disabilities or are they just behind their peers due to their age?). It's not fair that a summer born child is entitled to fewer terms at nursery when they are arguably more in need.

Until major changes are made to the education system to make it truly child-focussed rather than a one-size-fits-all, exam factory then I will do what is best for my son. Education isn't a competition but that doesn't mean I can give my son all the advantages available to him.

parents don’t know their children best at that age as they can’t see into the future.

my son was so tiny in reception. I honestly cried when I dropped him off. He was so small and compared to the September born children turning 5 he was a baby . If I had deferred him, I honestly would have told you up to about age 7 or 8 that I had done the right thing.

I could absolutely not have foreseen that he would suddenly get more academic around that age and overtake the others. I could not have foreseen he would suddenly shoot up to be one of the tallest. His year 4 teacher had to check with me that he was an August birthday as she was sure he had to be a September child and there wasn’t an error in the paperwork.

i understand with premature babies there is a difficult decision if they were August born as actually they should have been born in the next school year. For everyone else I do believe they should all start in the correct year and if struggling they could be held back. Anticipating they won’t do well in their correct year group is terribly unfair on the ones who turn out to be fine like my child.

I have the sort of child you're complaining about. An April born that I deferred, who is 16 months older than some others in her class.

She's also one of the smallest. She wore an age 2-3 school dress today that still swamps her.
She's doing ok academically but struggles in some areas.
She's 6 but still only goes part time because that's what she can manage.

If forced to start at 4 1/2 she'd have been homeschooled. We might yet go down that route.

A few years ago I would have agreed with the OP. Now I'm on team 'let the parents decide'. It's funny how sudden life threatening illness and disability can shift your perspective.

Doing it for no good reason for April/May borns, I'm not supportive of in the same way.

I think unless there are special/exceptional circumstances, children should start in the year they are supposed to.
Someone has to be the youngest in the year!

It doesn't seem to be a thing at my son's primary - though he is Y6 now so I am not familiar with the younger years.

We have friends whose daughter is a mid August birthday and they did defer a year (and she started then in reception, not Y1).

However, she was born at just 23 weeks gestation, weighing less than a pound and spent many months in hospital after birth. She really wouldn't have been ready at just turned 4. She has thrived in school though.

An august 31 born child who delays a year is delayed in their mental growth compared to the sept 1st born child in the same year group as them? the data clearly shows that on average summerborns in the 'correct' year group perform less well then their autumn born peers so delaying actually gives them time to meet learning expectations well

What they need to do is change it to like they do in Scotland. No child is less than 4.5. Or at least have a two point entry, so say feb onwards can start at Christmas instead.

I think you are completely missing the point of educating children, OP.

We educate children for THEIR benefit. That is the justification for school being compulsory. Children are not sent to school to be thrust into some insane 14 year long competition with their peers. That is not the point of compulsory education.

There is zero point in sending a young child who is not school-ready to school. Zero point. It is in no one's best interest - not the child who cannot cope, nor their peers who will lose out on teacher time and attention while the teacher deals with the children who cannot cope.

Your view that it is somewhat "unfair" to your child not to be surrounded by other kids who couldn't have coped as well as she can in school is completely crazy. You made the call that she'd be ok, other parents made different calls for their kids.

Kids start school too young here, school readiness is through the floor, the primary school curriculum is insufficiently play-based and teachers are already overwhelmed by the amount and range of needs they have to manage, often with very little support.

And you think it's a good idea to shoe-horn in the youngest 4yos with parents who aren't sure they'll cope? Give them a miserable start to their school career and set them off along a path to emotional dysregulation and underachievement? To ensure "fairness" to your child?

My daughter would have been fine in her 'correct' year group, but I didn't want her to go at 4 as I thought she would be readier at 5. She's thriving in her delayed one. Loves school, both for the learning and socially. Why is this 'terribly unfair' to her?

If schools in your local area are comparable to workhouses then your child's date of birth is the least of your worries.

So this was nursery not reception, I do t think msmy would class this as school

Of course they know their children best. Don’t be silly. We can only work with the current variables which is exactly why it should be up to each parent to decide. For me deferring had nothing to do with being small or tall, academic or not etc. I did not want my child to be one of the youngest in the classroom and I didn’t have any need ie work commitments/childcare costs etc to need send off to school so young. Some kids had barely turned four and in both my kid’s classes, the youngest kids were very obviously the youngest kids in their behaviours.

I have a summer born (late July) who is likely autistic. Academically she is doing fine. Socially she is not. I didn't defer her and regret it. I believe she is socially behind her peers anyway due to her autism and there are children 15 months older than her in her class on top of that. I feel I made a massive mistake and it's one I can't rectify which is frustrating as at just turned four we didn't know if would pan out like this.

But what happens if it turns out 5 years later you were wrong? If it would be best for the child to be in the correct year group - how would you rectify it?

I don’t deny that at 4 you think you are making the right decision based on what you knew then. I’m just saying you might turn out to be wrong. You have to answer to your child when they realise they would have been better in the year above and are frustrated that they could have been doing their GCSE’s the year before and are bored and frustrated having been held back a year.

Because in the 90s you probably went to school on a staggered entry (each term) based to start on the term following your 5TH birthday. School compulsory age. When Reception was brought in as a learning year, despite supposedly having the same curriculum as a nursery/pre-school, suddenly it changed by de-facto to children starting in school at age just 4 for summer-borns. And the local authorities decided to help their admin and finances (not the childrens education or welfare) by insisting that students start in the state sector all in the Sept. I have been involved with the summer born campaigns for nearly 16 years. I was a single issue voter on this for many years, until common sense finally kicked in. Other countries manage this so much better. But please note this is not red-shirting as in the US.

Yes this is red-shirting - very different to children in England being asked to attend school full time a year before they are obligated to do so by the state. And also 2 years earlier than the US and European norm.