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

@LondonLady1980exactly! I can’t believe people think height variations in school age children are at all linked to where in a single year (or year and a half) of birth they were born! My non deferred child is pretty tall. One of his best friends in his year is 13 months older than him and doesn’t reach his shoulder. The height variations are huge and it is impossible to tell based on height (and now they are 13/14 year old I’d include onset of puberty) who is older and who is younger.

The claim is specifically that just turned 4 year olds may not be ready for school. Nothing to do with being the youngest. Or smallest.

As many posters have said, in countries where school starts later, this really isn’t an issue. I wouldn’t have deferred my child to avoid being the youngest but did because my child wasn’t ready for school and would have struggled at just turned 4.

@Bumpitybumperthe “trend” you mention is 100% not emphatically observable. You’re not comparing a child born in January 2019 with a child born in December 2022 here. It is children born within the same 12-14ish month period and height is not at all referable to whether they were born in the March or the October.

Teachers should be able to differentiate the work though. We have mixed classes at my school. So 2 years plus in a classroom. I don’t think it’s such a bad thing.

*2 - the UK is an outlier in global terms. We start kids in "formal" education far to young. Most countries have a more split program of "kindergarten"/Pre-school, from 3-6/7, and then "school", this allows for a much better separation and transition between no school and school. Parents don't care about their child being slightly behind for the 2-3 years of pre-school because there is an extended period of "getting ready" where there are no exams, no tests, no comparisons etc. After 2-3 years of pre-school/kindergarten, many of the disadvantages of being younger are gone (not all) and every child is "ready" to start school.
So given the poor system in the UK that expects children who have just turned 4 to suddenly be as ready for school as children who are 1 day off 5, is it wrong for parents to want to avoid this disadvantage for their children? Of course not. *

This really isn't true though. A british reception class is still eyfs, play based learning, and is very comparable to what children the same age are experiencing in european countries. I remember a scandinavian friend once laughing at a mutual British friend saying kids there don't start school til 7, he explained they are all in preschool and most can already read when they begin "school", so its not terribly different to the UK. In France maternelle is required from age 3 and in the "grand" section (the same age as reception) the children will be doing reading, writing and maths.

Wait so you ARE saying that height has a bearing on behaviour and one’s ability to read and write? Extraordinary?

I’ll put my extremely tall 2 year old into school now then as she’s taller than year 1s.

Not all teachers and schools are equally good at doing this

how could a teacher intervene to make it fair for everyone?

Sounds like you don't have much faith in teachers. What on earth do you think happens in a mixed-age class? Or do you think they should be outlawed as well?

Parents of summer born children are constantly told that teachers are 'highly skilled to differentiate work in order to support the needs of summerborns' so why do imagine this won't be the case for any ages they have in the class?

because you don't want the advantage that is effectively being given to deferred children to be scrutinised.

Please do scrutinise it! That's the whole point - deferring school for a year is absolutely beneficial for that child, the research is very clear on that. But it doesn't mean that there's now a blanket disadvantage for the rest of the class.

What people 'don't want to scrutinise' is the disadvantage summerborns naturally have in a class-with or without deferred children in it. That comes with simply entering the classroom at just turned 4, NOT the ages of other children in the room.

Actively advocating for those children to just continue to struggle and get on with it, even for 'only for a few years' is crazy to me, just to maintain some kind of err-argh-this-is-how-its-always-been-ism.

Many, many, many other countries seem to manage deferral into formal education pretty seamlessly so its definitely a system that works. We don't like it here because typically people don't like change - and we, as a culture, place some weird status on accepting your lot in life and not rocking the boat.

I agree that part of the issue for me is the children starting at 4

i would have deferred ds2 but our school/council would have made him start in year 1 so we didn’t

Fast forward a few years and my summer born daughter is currently sitting her GCSEs age 15. She is autistic, we didn't know that when she was 4 and started school, and is just starting to emotionally mature. She's definitely miles behind September borns of her intake. In September she is going to start a BTec because she struggles with exams but the only college that offers the course is an hour and a half commute, with a mixture of train, bus and walk, I'm not sure she's ready for that. She would really benefit from the additional year and has not 'caught up'.

I kind of wish i had held her back a year when I could.

Parents should just do what's best for their child, it's really no-one else's business.

You didn't read my whole comment where I said I have a child born in July 🤔?
So because there's a life long impact from being in a class with children 11 months older the solution is for all these mostly pretentious parents to defer so other people's kids have to be in a class with kids 18 months older? What about the life long impact of that? Of course we could all just start deferring our kids but that would just change the school start dates there'd still be someone who has to be the youngest

What is the lifelong impact of a child being in a classroom with a child who is 18 months older?

It’s not only school work though. School is so much more than that. You’ve got kids at different stages developmentally and cognitively.

I was responding to a poster claiming there was a lifelong impact being in a classroom with a child 11 months old so they needed to defer their child. I'm just saying if there's a lifelong impact from being 11 months younger imagine the impact of being 18 months younger. But that's ok because it's someone else's kid right?

Cant tell me this isn't mainly a concern of the parents who can't stand the idea their precious darlings won't be top of the class.

I think the issue is “too young” or “not ready” rather than “younger than”.

How many times do people have to say it?

IT ISN’T ABOUT BEING THE YOUNGEST IN THE CLASS!! IT’S THE FACT THAT CHILDREN ARE BEING MADE TO START SCHOOL JUST A FEW DAYS AFTER TURNING 4 THAT IS THE PROBLEM. THAT’S WHAT PARENTS DON’T WANT FOR THEIR CHILD. THATS WHY THEY DEFER.

If you plotted a graph ignoring age and showed height on one axis and ability to read and write and regulate behaviour on the other axis then there would obviously be a correlation. This is because older children tend to be taller and older children tend to be better at reading and writing and regulating their behaviour. This isn't universally true and of course there will be outliers and anomalies but the trends are clear. Compare a Reception class with a year 1 class and there will be some overlap but as a whole the year 1 class will be statistically significantly taller.

So parents see a deferred child that is probably physically taller than their child that is 16 months taller. The physical difference will be obvious but it stands to reason that they have also had 16 months longer to mature and improve their social and academic skills too. Children don't just stand still developmentally just because you have chosen to defer a year.

The argument about biological age impacting development is exactly the same as TRAs use against female only sports. Yes there is some overlap between men and women in turns of height, strength etc but the overall trend is clear. Same for biological age and height, strength, academic ability etc.

Don't you shout at me with those capital letters young lady 😉
Like I said to someone on this thread yesterday though fair enough there's an argument that 4 is too young but I guarantee many of these pretentious types would still be deferring if school started at 5,6 or even 7.

And look I get it in certain circumstances like a premature child born in August but some on this thread have mentioned half of people in their town with a child born post April doing it. Definitely hyper competitive my child has to be top of the class types.

JUST A FEW DAYS AFTER TURNING 4

This is only true for August birthdays.

As I said upthread, deferral used to be only for July and August birthdays. That made some sort of sense for the reason you give - they were only just 4.

But now April-June can also defer and we’re up to half the year being able to defer.

If it is about “just barely 4” then we should go back to July/August only.

If it is about developmental readiness then it ought to be available for ANY child whose parent thinks they are not developmentally ready. Whatever their birthday.

If you could choose to have your child

A - thrive

B - be probably OK and struggle here and there

Which would you choose?

It is an issue in all countries. The county i come from starts school at 6. A lot of people defer to start age 7 because “my child isn’t ready”. My cousin turned 8 in her first year of school…..bored out of her mind in a class full of 6 year olds

Lots of parents can’t afford to defer, as pre school childcare is very expensive and they need school for childcare reasons.

So those summer borns who are not deferred may have a double disadvantage of being (by far) the youngest in the class- if those who can afford to have deferred- and being from a less well off family.

It is observable scientifically. It is ridiculous to suggest that children aren't statistically taller at 5 than 4. WHO suggest that an average child is 102cm on their 4th birthday (50th percentile) whereas a child that is 102cm on their 5th birthday would be on the 9th percentile I.e. 9 out of 10 children will be taller.

It’s really none of your business who defers and who doesn’t. That’s up to the parents and the school.
Lots of small schools have mixed year groups that work perfectly well. It sounds as though your child is doing fine at school, so just get on with it. No need for any drama.

Yes. I've written about this before, but there are 3 deferred children in my DC"s class. They are in the more able groups for most things but they are not 'top of the class'. It doesn't make any difference to my DC that they are in there

And there is a Feb-born child who is head and shoulders above the rest of the class - and most of the year above as well. He's also got a huge shoulder width, he's just a big kid like his dad who towers over all the adults. What shall we do with him? Should he not be allowed to play with children in his 'rightful' year? That would certainly be the fairest?

Another child is exceptionally good at football. Probably one of the better players in the whole school, and he's in year 1. And yet he still does PE with, and plays at lunchtime with the rest of the year 1 class. How can this be allowed, my goodness!

Arbitrary groupings will always be unfair at some point to some people in it. Allowing leeway to try and correct that unfairness just makes sense.