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 know why people keep saying ‘lots of schools have mixed year groups’. That’s different, the class curriculum is set to teach both academic years and they’re split into year groups to do phonics/ teaching directed to their year group.

Deferred 4yos have the same entitlement to childcare as they did the year before - I’ve lost track whether it’s changed now but for my 4yo this would have been free 30 hours/week which is exactly equivalent to school hours.

was there a reason for "he was socially and emotionally at a similar developmental stage to that of a 20 month old"

I guess though in terms of physical size (which OP was complaining about), it’s common for kids to share classrooms with bigger kids.

What about the three children that would have been in the top group if these three children hadn't deferred? Presumably they are now in the group below they otherwise would have been. Your child may well not be impacted but some other child will be.

I referenced upthread the WHO charts regarding height. Of course there will be outliers and anomalies but the statistical trend for height increase with age is clear. The tall child operating within their own year will receive a natural advantage due to their biology. The average height kid operating in the year below will receive an advantage as a result of the system and their parents' decision to defer.

Age isn't arbitrary. It is biological fact. Children born within 12 months of each other all being in the same academic year is intrinsically different to expanding this age range.

So we are in agreeance, its about our children "thriving" screw everyone elses kind of thing. Which is fine btw nothing wrong with that mindset as a parent. I just don't like it when they're dishonest about it all "it would be unfair for little Timmy to be in a class with kids 11 months older" but then dismiss the point that now some other kid has to be in a class with kids 18 months older.
But that's fine because it's not your kid right.

Again if that's your mindset fair enough but be honest about it

This is wild.

It’s literally nothing to do with how much older or younger another child is, it’s just about each individual child being ready to start school.

I agree with you. If a child is physially weaker or less advanced academically than their peers, I don't see that placing them in a class with younger kids is any kind of a solution. They will still be behind their actual peers. Probably further behind academically.

DS is late August born. First couple of years at Junior school he was a bit behind the average but that encouraged him to work hard and practice hard at his sports. By now in Y6 its more than evened out. A few months difference in birth date 10 years ago hasn't made any difference. In fact, for him, being a competitive sod, I think he has made much more impressive progress than if he was currently coasting in Y5.

I agree that it’s different having an age range of 12 months vs a bigger age range, but that doesn’t mean that a bigger range is bad or worse.

In NI, the age cut off is 30 June/1 July, so the very youngest child is 4 years+2 months - so still a 12 month range but the youngest kids are that little bit older and more ready. I have no idea why that couldn’t be introduced in England as would be an easy change.

In Scotland, the youngest child is 4.5 and parents can defer so they are 5.5, and in Ireland, kids can start between 4 and 6, so there can be an almost 2 year age range. More parental choice generally means more people are happy with the arrangement.

There is only hand wringing about unfairness in England brcause it’s still seen as an exception rather than being widely chosen, and people who make that choice in the best interests of their child are seen as somehow trying to play the system.

Nope, not mentioned at all. Simply wrote to school admissions team at council, told them we were planning to defer our twins, DoB 22/08/xx, that we were seeking their confirmation as admission authority for 2 of the schools we planned to put on our application form that they would place them in reception on admission and not Y1. For the academy schools, we emailed the head teachers and asked the same question - that is the only question that needed to be answered as per summer born guidance.Prematurity didnt come into it at all.

Then why the excitement on this thread that they never go back to their chronological age class? So will still be in a class with kids over a year younger at GCSE stage? And 11+ stage? (can't tell me there isn't an overlap between the type to defer and the type to move to Kent and tutor hard to get into grammar school)

I am an August 31st baby, and made it by 8 hours! I never suffered at all, and in fact I loved it, although my friends could drive, etc, before me, I'd done my O Levels before I was 16, A Levels before I was 18 and graduated from university just before I was 21. I would have hated to be a year behind my peers.

I think people just don’t want their child to miss a year of school, hence not moving back to their chronological year group.

A whole thread of mostly English parents tying themselves in knots over something which is normal in Scottish schools and has been for 50 years or more.

Grammar school exams / 11+ takes into account age at time of sitting the exams.

Good

It doesn't mean it's intrinsically worse but I believe it is worse. It means that the playing field is less equal than it otherwise could be.

I know people on this thread insist that school isn't a competition but it fact in many ways it is. There are only so many spaces in the top sets, in the schools sports squads, in the school play, in the grammar school, in the top colleges. Even examinations are ultimately moderated against the cohort.

Just because other countries do things differently, it doesn't mean they do things better. Scotland consistently does worse than England when it comes to academic outcomes.

Except that it ISN'T about how much older another child is! That fallacy is what's driving this discussion.

It's nothing to do with how much younger than 'other' children they are, it's about that individual child starting school at just turned 4, full stop.

Imagine each child was educated in a class of just them, just 1 child on their own. And you could choose to start them at 4yo or 5yo. Which would you choose for your child? That's your answer.

Yanbu. I have a child born end of July and it was scary enough taking her to the reception taster day as a still-3yo with a gigantic September-born boy in the same class. There will always be someone who’s the youngest, wherever you put the cutoff.

Yep I've definitely had my popcorn out! 🍿 😂

There's a "gigantic September born" boy in my daughter's class. He's the least aggressive boy I've ever met and enjoys playing hairdressers and joining in with the dance routines a group of the girls like organising.

It's the July born boys who like hurtling around like cannon balls and occasionally take someone out.

Some of these comments read like the parents think Reception is throwing their child into an arena to fight to the death and only the tallest and strongest will survive. My DD couldn't care less what the height differences are in her class.

What about the three children that would have been in the top group if these three children hadn't deferred?

Why can't they be in it too?

Age isn't arbitrary. It is biological fact. Children born within 12 months of each other all being in the same academic year is intrinsically different to expanding this age range.

Arbitrary is the fact that September 1st has been chosen as the cut off date. It could just as well have been January, or March or any date really, but it is arbitrary.

Children 'born within in 12 months of each other' naturally includes children either in the year 'above' or 'below' each other unless you're born smack dab in the middle. The year groups exist because we have arbitrarily put them there.

It does make for a different experience though. In our school there is fluctuation currently the oldest half dozen children or so are put in a mixed class with next year up and do some teaching with year group.

It means that they don’t go through school being oldest all the time. My deferred was oldest for a few years and then bottom of a mixed class. Then oldest again for last year.

My non deferred twins are both the oldest girls in their year group and currently the youngest in their class. I think it’s quite positive to experience both ends of the spectrum rather than being oldest whole way through and then high school feels like a bit of a shock.

Because most classes have a maximum group size. Even secondary schools only admit so many kids into the top sets. In my child's class there are currently 8 children in the 'top' group. It wouldn't be practical to expand this to 11 and have almost half of the class in the top group. If you're in a grammar school area or an area with selective schools or colleges then this issue is amplified further. Provision doesn't just expand at the top level because a load of kids have deferred.

The month chosen as the cut off point is arbitrary but the 12 month range absolutely isn't. People aren't arguing that the cut off must be September but it's hard to argue that any other month is any less arbitrary.