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’m in Scotland where deferral to primary one is commonplace in a way it doesn’t seem to be in England. The earliest a child starts is 4.5 anyway without deferral, but Jan, Feb born kids (and now I believe any kids not 5 by school start date) can go the next year at 5.5 instead and get an extra year of nursery funding and it’s very usual. I deferred DD1 who is Feb born, most of her peers in same bracket were also deferred. But MN has a huge English majority population and it doesn’t seem to be common or well understood in England, or well
implemented dare I say.

I do kind of think that with all the data showing the numerous disadvantages of being summer born, they should really change intake dates anyway as personally I wouldn’t want my newly turned 4 child going to school in the first place, regardless of how ‘academic’ they were.

That’s crazy! I wonder if it’s more common in some areas than others - it doesn’t really happen at all where I am - my son is a late July birthday and is very definitely not the only summer-born in his class or year. I’m not aware of any deferrals.

Also I hate the sentiment that only people that are unhappy with their own choices/lives or whatever are worried about other people's choices. This is blatantly quite manipulative and complete BS. If the system is broken then people should be able to point this out without being told that they can only have an opinion on their own choices.

My daughter was born on the 22nd of August, and due to health problems that slowed her development even further we deferred her. She was still sleeping 2 hours per day at the time she was supposed to be starting reception, and did until she had an operation.

She's absolutely fine now and recovered but has stayed out-of-year. She is 12 days older than the second-oldest child in her class. 12 days! If you think 12 days is giving her an almighty edge over the youngest in her class, I don't know what to say.

Oh and ask Scottish primary one teachers about deferrals, I’ve yet to meet one who doesn’t think it’s a good idea. I have three primary teachers in the family and they are all big proponents of deferring till kids are 5.

People will do what works best for their child and rightly so, I'm not in England so no way would I send a just turned four year old to school. Mine was only in her first year of preschool at that stage. The issue you have OP is the fact that your child has been injured by another child several times . If it's being done deliberately then that's not normal behavior. Accidents happen and at that age children are naturally a bit hyper and bang into each other and bumps and falls are totally normal

I agree with you. It is an advantage for some children and a disadvantage for others. Of course, the parents who get an advantage out of it will always argue that it’s fair, but when it includes children from April onwards, it really isn’t fair.

Making case by case assessments for August born children whose nurseries have highlighted a need would be fair. Allowing it for children born earlier as long as their parents know how to make a fuss is not a good way to run an admissions system.

What is the problem with your child being the youngest?

It's not an issue having a year gap between oldest and youngest, the issue is age and readiness at school entry.

I didn't defer late August born DS, he was more than ready to start school. He was a bit behind academically throughout primary school which was a worry, but caught up in secondary and is predicted 7-9 in all his GCSE's. He didn't struggle with sport despite being a bit small, he made all the A teams (just played wing in rugby rather than being in the scrum!) and has a sports scholarship offer for 6th form. It's a very individual decision, based on the child, but I do agree, he probably wouldn't have made the A teams if half the class was made up up deferred kids 18 months older than him - there were none in his year.

I didn't defer my August born boy but do wonder whether I should have done. He is a few years into primary and does well at some things but still struggles with writing and focus compared to his peers and this definitely has an impact on his self esteem and willingness to try at school. But there were no specific additional needs that pointed us towards deferral when he was at preschool. He is also tall for his age though so would definitely have been much bigger than a small child born a year later. Size and maturity level are not the same and even within a class of children born a year apart there will be a big difference in size/strength/physical confidence (not sure confidence is the right word, 'boisterousness' maybe?) If he is in a setting where there are smaller children (regardless of their age) I always remind him to be careful. That is a bit of a ramble but mainly to say that just because a child is physically bigger doesn't necessarily mean they are more mature in other school readiness ways. It's not acceptable for your daughter to be getting hurt though (whether by a deferred child or a year 6 child or a child who is smaller than her).

I agree with you op. My daughter is a late July baby and she's now 14 in year 10, she would be furious with me if I'd deferred her and effectively made her stay in school a year longer. She was a bit behind her year group until year 3 and then she caught up and is now predicted really good GCSE grades, however the gap between her and her classmates in those early years would have been even more obvious if there had been kids over a year older than her.

The system isn't broken.

The OP is complaining about something that doesn't impact her or her child at all.

I would absolutely have deferred my child if he was born in the time frame to do so. When he started school (at almost 5, he's an autumn term birthday) he was socially and emotionally at a similar developmental stage to that of a 20 month old. There is definitely a place for deferring, but maybe it should be down to more than just parental choice?

Agree with every word. It really is a disadvantage when they are older and could cause a lot of resentment from the child involved. I have witnessed this with a friends child who was actually deferred for genuine health reasons .
Edited to add that youngest son had 2 boys in his class who were 30th August babies.Academically they have done exceptionally well.

Some children will benefit from being deferred. It's the parents call.

It definitely was an issue. We do things differently in Scotland, February is the cut off so children born in February start school aged 4 and a half in the August. Children who are born in March are 5 and a half when they start. My sister and I are 13 months apart in age but because she’s a February birthday and mine is March, she started school two years before I did. Mum wanted to defer her because she wasn’t really ready but they said no. She struggled all through school, left when she was 16 and gained very few qualifications. She has done brilliantly in life but that’s because she had opportunities that many don’t have, but without those she probably wouldn’t be where she is today. This was nearly 50 years ago and those who left school at 16 had far more options than they do nowadays.

Having a one size fits all system doesn’t work. Yes, someone has to be the youngest, but that’s not what it is about. If I had started school a year earlier I’d probably have been ok, but I was a totally different child to my sister. Parents know their children best so allowing them to choose when their child starts school is absolutely the right thing to do.

My autistic son wasn't toilet trained at 4y1m and had not really settled in to preschool, he had a speech delay, hearing issues and significant anxiety. We delayed him and he had a brilliant year R starting a year late. If we had had to start him at 4 I think I would either have been forced into home educating or he would have needed a specialist placement.

I think part of the issue is the amount of development that happens between 4 and 5. If all children started at 5 or 6 then it would make more sense to have a blanket rule. Also a lot of SEN isn't diagnosed at 3y3m which is when people are making the decision.

I think it's good to have a couple of months where you consider the individual child (so July/August for the English system). Not all children are ready at the same time, so it makes sense to take those near the boundary on a case by case basis, but it keeps the age range in the class reasonable. I don't think it's great for the age range to start stretching out to 16, 18 months.

Did you not consider that the reason the child was deferred is likely the same reason your DD has had issues with him? Meaning it would have been worse in a more mature class with higher developmental expectations.
Him being bigger is irrelevant, you can't even tell who was born in September and who was born in june by their size. 3 momths definitely doesn't make a difference, that's just genetics.

I think deferrals should only be granted if the child has a clear additional need and / or developmental delays. Parents do my head in with this issue, yes of course an August born child is nearly a year younger than a September born child, but if they’re both without any significant additional need or neurodevelopmental differences then it’s likely the gap will eventually close. I think it’s often just parents who don’t want to feel like their child is behind or whatever. Try having an actual SEN child who you agonise over having to be placed in a mainstream school because they don’t yet know the difference between ‘yes’ and ‘no’ and can’t express their basic needs…

As a teacher and mum to two summer born children, I completely agree with you! Someone has to be the youngest and allowing children to defer just widens the gap. I actually think that the vast majority of parents are doing a disservice to their children by holding them back a year! You really can't tell who is summer born or not by year 2.

Just as an additional bit of information: i went to school in a different country where deferring was possible.My cousin was deferred because her parents wanted to give her that extra boost. it ended up as a disaster - she was bored to tears, always by far the tallest, earliest in puberty…. hated school and while she did academically well, socially /mental health wise it was a massive diseaster

It has to be applied for and approved with supporting evidence sent. It's not just chosen when the parent applies.

Absolutely. I volunteer with 4-7yos so see and work with dozens of different kids in that age bracket a year, and the difference between the newly joined, just turned 4yos and the 5-6yos is huge: socially, ability to follow instructions, emotional resilience, even toileting. There’s a massive leap in development between 4-5 IME. Around 5.5 is when I would say that they feel like ‘school ready’ to me, and it’s not to do with academic ability but in their social behaviour, their understanding, their emotional intelligence, all that other stuff. And then of course when you have children with ASN then the differences can be even more exaggerated.

Personally I think school should only be for 5+.

I remember those days. My dd has always been and will always be at the lowest end of the growth chart. then she is towards the younger side. she is advanced academically so holding her back would have been a disaster.

there were boys in her class who seemed like giants. She got injured repeatedly.

It prevented her from joining in on the playground and was completely unfair. I found myself wishing the school would at least create zones to keep the larger children and smaller children in indifferent sides. It wasn’t the larger children’s fault. They weren’t being excessively rough. They just were huge and even running past was enough to knock over a child that was so much smaller.