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 have deferred my son who was born right at the end of August. To be fair he was due in Sept - he was at preschool and struggling so much, still napping on the days he didn’t go there, socially and emotionally not ready at all for school. Starting a year later has been absolutely amazing for him and he’s exactly where he should be. In the county I live you have to fight for it and prove why it’s a good idea. His teacher and the head now completely agrees it was the right thing to do even though they were against it to begin with. I’m really surprised you have 4 in your class as it’s still pretty rare where I live.

i do think doing it from April isn’t right though. Should be literally July / August. My son isn’t at an advantage - he’s where he should be

Most kids don't start playing football til later, a disproportionate amount of professional footballers are autumn born so it does still matter at an older age.

I'm in Australia & school year starts in January. There's a June 30 cut off of birthdays for starting the following year. If born after that date, you wait another year.

A lot of parents don't like it because. It means another year of child care costs. But, it is best. DS was born after the cut off & it's benefitted him. He's in high school now & that's where you see the difference. I remember being told that by a teacher, and it's correct.

DD started prep (reception I think) the year she turned 5, so was four. It was too early. I wish I'd held her back a year. She's not as mature as her classmates & struggles.

I was an early starter and it sucked. I was much younger than my classmates. So holding back near the cut off really only disadvantages parents, not the child.

I am against deferrals. It’s used by the middle classes to give their children a leg up. Working classes can’t afford extortionate child care costs so are less likely to defer. It widens the attainment gap. If 4 is too young to start school, move the school start age for all. Don’t let the better off game the system.

There are no extra childcare costs though? The 30 hours funding remains available and you can use that funding at a school nursery, getting exactly what you get at reception in terms of hours.

I think the main barrier to many families taking up the option to defer is knowing about the option.

It’s your lea, nothing to do with the school. I’m in West Sussex and it was a ball ache to get my mid aug baby accepted out of year in to reception. I had to do a freedom of information request etc. some Lea’s just agree.

Not correct.

I have said this before on here, but I find this a very English issue. I am not from the UK and elsewhere I have lived (US, Australia, Scotland) there is some leeway over children born in a mid range where they can choose which year to start school. Their education seems to be possible, despite a range of more than exactly 12 months in classes, so I really can't see this as a huge concern

Okay yes there are stats on this for sport alright but just in terms of school, which is the main focus of this thread I think? The issue of being “summer born” and any disadvantage comes about by starting school at just turned 4 which is too young for some children.

I don’t disagree, I have seen the evidence. But many people can’t get past the idea of competition, so I’m just pointing out that one key part of the decision is making sure a child is ready for the situation we are putting them in.

No I get that, but to say that being the youngest doesn't matter just isn't correct, it does matter even in teenage years.

My Sept born nephew started school unable to speak in full sentences. He was 2 days off 5 . He probably could've done with deferring but not allowed.

My daughter is August 28th, she starts school in September - no additional needs or SEN but I just think she seems so bloody young. She won’t be 4 until a week before she starts school. I also have 2 other summer born children (June & July) they started as normal to, but they didn’t seem as young as she does. Maybe it’s because she’s my youngest. I am a little concerned, but also realise someone has to be the youngest and she may well catch up. I fear I would be fighting a battle if I tried to defer her and I’m not sure she’d thank me in the future either.

Ireland has this lee way too and my local authority in England approves deferrals automatically for summer born children. I really had no idea other parents would be upset about me taking this option as I just saw it as a choice we could all make.

I agree with you OP. We're in Scotland, where you can automatically defer your child if they are in the second half of the age cohort.it means that rather than a 12 month spread of ages, classes are likely to have more like and 18-month spread, which is a huge range - to be comparing a 4.5yo with a child who is turning 6.

It also has a knock -on effect on nurseries where a pre-school room is potentially accommodating children from 3yo to nearly 6. And where children needing a nursery place for longer increases pressure for already limited places.

I don’t think you’re being entirely unreasonable, and I say that as someone who deferred all three of my children. We’re American so no reception etc, but they all went to kindergarten age six when they could have gone at 5. (I have one July born and two May.)

Here in the states we see a lot of inequality along income lines; many parents with lower incomes cannot afford another year or preschool or childcare and send their children as soon as they can. Statistically they’re more often behind academically already, and now they have to compete with children up to a year and half older than they are.

I don’t know what the solution is, but I know it’s all only likely to get worse here since our department of education and social programs aimed at helping children from lower income families are being gutted by President Voldemort.

Out of interest per my last post I just looked it up and around 50% of children born in Jan and Feb (which I guess would be the July and August born kids in England as nearest equivalent) in Scotland are deferred entry to p1 (so go at 5.5 instead of 4.5), higher in affluent areas but still pretty prevalent in deprived areas too. That tallies with anecdotal evidence - we are in a fairly affluent area, certainly not a deprived one, and I would say well above 50% for deferral rate. I’m not sure I would say pretentious, I don’t think affluent and pretentious are synonyms in any way, but there is clearly something about better-off areas and families that promotes deferral, whether it be better access to research on the topic, more flexibility financially, more value placed on making the most of education when parents are themselves well educated or academic, etc.
I’m sure studies have been done on the topic. But even in the most deprived areas, more than a quarter of our ‘summer born’ (Jan/Feb) kids are deferred.

‘Figure 5 shows that the estimated rate of deferred entry to primary school increases as the area deprivation of a pupil's home postcode decreases for those born in January and February. 35% of pupils born in January and February living in SIMDquintile 1 (the 20% most deprived areas of Scotland) deferred entry to primary school, compared with 55% of those living in SIMD qunitile 5 (the 20% least deprived areas).

For pupils born in January and February, by far the highest deferral rates were found in Shetland Islands (89%), and Orkney Islands (86%). Perth and Kinross (70%), Angus (64%), and Highland (64%) also have relatively high rates of deferral for this age group in 2018. The lowest rates of deferral for pupils born in January and February were found in Clackmannanshire (23%), North Ayrshire (25%), and East Ayrshire (27%).’

I’m interested in how they have to compete with those children - do you mean by the time they come to graduate high school? Within kindergarten it would seem likely that the older children might need less support, benefitting the younger ones?

The cost issue isn’t a factor in the UK as I’ve said above as families continue to be able to use their 30 hours funding for the year they defer their child.

Um yes it is - depends on the secondary schools' admission policies - one of our local ones lets them into Year 7, another one says they have to go into their correct cohort so Year 8 if they have been deferred.

That’s really interesting. I’m in a high deferral area and it tallies with my anecdata. I did think also that a lot the high deferral areas have a low population density and I wonder if school transport plays a part. Having a lengthy commute by bus seems a bit more manageable when older.

You can defer because of SEN / developmental delay as well.

How new are these policies?

Um yes it is - depends on the secondary schools' admission policies - one of our local ones lets them into Year 7, another one says they have to go into their correct cohort so Year 8 if they have been deferred.

They can no longer do this since the law change.

Some schools will try, but the law is on the side of the pupil staying with the same cohort all the way through now.

But he wouldn't have been able to stay at nursery as too old

@LovelysummerdaysYes good point, and I wonder if in those areas they are more likely to have composite classes too so the age ranges are more fluid anyway. We have a couple of rural schools near us where there are only two or so classes encompassing the whole seven primary years, so you might have 4-8 year olds in one ‘class’ anyway.