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 get where you are coming from, my DGD is 11 months younger than some in her class. She is coming up for seven after summer when some are coming up for eight. She is managing, is in the same reading groups as some of the older ones but some things she struggles with. Im sure parents do it so that their child has a head start, when did this become a thing?

It's the system that's not fit for purpose.

As the late, great Ken Robinson pointed out, it's based on the factory model and dates back to industrial era Britain, "Students are educated in batches, according to age, as if the most important thing they have in common is their date of manufacture."

It should be about readiness, which is more about social and emotional than academic aptitude (the importance of which is hugely overblown in our current system anyway). There should be at least a 2 year spread from which you can choose based on your own assessment of your child, with high quality play based pre-school funding available until the point of formal education.

Most other developed countries offer something along these lines. In Europe and the U.S school proper doesn't begin until 6-7. To start earlier really stunts younger children who should be learning through play. Even if reception offers play led learning by Year 1 there's an emphasis on phonics (of which I'm not a fan, but that's a whole other thread) at which point some of the cohort will barely have turned 5.

Blaming other parents for deferring, which they are legally allowed to do, is really to misplace your ire.

It’s ridiculous and (yet) another example of the snowflake generation enabled by poor parenting. I mean April isn’t even the summer, how on earth is that captured by “summer born”. And it only became a legal right in 2022, how did kids survive for the first 150 years of compulsory schooling???

Mine are both August born. They will still be 15 when receiving GCSE results. Eldest sits them next week. I didn’t defer. At the time they both seemed ready for nursery at 3 (pre school) and reception at 4. My eldest was always the same size as the older born kids and it was never really obvious that she was the youngest in the class. My younger daughter did look younger. Bizzarely the nursery said they were running out of things to give my youngest when she was in pre school as she was working at the same level and often beyond as the older kids. Emotionally still younger though. But she would have been bored to death if she was kept back. And for top scores in SATs and in y8 has a
had a try of some of the past GCSE papers my oldest has brought home to do for revision has done just as well on subject like the maths. My eldest was really cross about this. My eldest was always in the brighter group in primary but more top middle in secondary and is predicted 5s although is aiming higher for the GCSEs. I don’t think another year would help. She’s autistic so is emotionally a bit younger than her peers - not interested in friendships or romantic relations. But that’s more to do with autism than being the youngest. My youngest has better like skills than her.

It’s always been weird that they literally have their birthday and turn 15 for example, return to school to classmates turning 16.

I think where there is obvious learning difficulties then it could be worth staying back a year, but often with learning difficulties and other sen another year wouldn’t really make that much difference to outcomes.

Well, the history of compulsory schooling is probably a bit of a long post to add here. Although this timeline might be an jump off point.

www.parliament.uk/about/living-heritage/transformingsociety/livinglearning/school/keydates/

Children who are intending to enter school don't have to begin until the term after they turn 5. This is consistent with the Education Act of 1880 that brought in compulsory schooling for 5 - 10 year olds. So, that's not changed in terms of starting age. No child has to be in education before the age of 5.

A significant change in the mid 2000s was the loss of the additional January intake for reception. I believe there'd also been an Easter intake before that, the staggered start allowing parents to send their child to reception at nearer to 4.5 dependant on their birthday.

I'd also reference the 1988 Education Act and introduction of the National Curriculum as an important change. Subsequent to this standardised testing at younger and younger ages has made the age of starting school more pronounced. Children of barely age 4 compared to children at 5 are up against it a when compared to each other, if only in terms of motor skills. If continuing to have one intake from September to August there should, at the very least, be no formalised testing throughout primary school to accommodate these differences.

No child should have to struggle giving summer born June, July, Aug or in NI case April, May, June a chance to defer if needed is vital for those children who need it. Some will nd some won't. I really wish I'd had option to defer my two children who were young for their year

Haven’t read the full 29pages just OPs updates.

Are you in England op? From my experience of deferring my August born dd it’s not that easy to just say I want to hold my child back a year. We had to justify why we wanted the deferral and why it would be detrimental for our dd to not be deferred, providing report and relevant documents supporting our request.

For reference my DDs still the smallest in her class even after being deferred a year.

@flutterby1 how do you infantisie a a child who has just turned 4, they are infants?? Comments like this make me shudder.

Children are entitled to the 30 hours free childcare from 3 until they start compulsory schooling. I know there are usually additional costs with private providers but this is just to be clear that the entitlement doesn't stop if the child is deferred.

My son was born in August at 30wks so was supposed to arrive in October. He was really small, had processing issues and just always seemed (and felt) younger than his peers, and he really struggled at school for a long time. It was heartbreaking to watch. He got into a brilliant university to study architecture and I couldn’t be more proud because I could see how much harder he had to work because of being august-born and some.

The May-August summer born group is defined as such because the research showed there was strong lasting disadvantages to these children. You can have anecdotal evidence from 100 posters here but the data doesn't lie. This is not something the government brought in just for fun.

If you know about the research, what can you conclude other than choosing not to defer is putting your child at a known disadvantage? Why would you do that?

Just talk to the school about the specific child that's being rough with your child.

I Have deferred 2 of my summer born children ones birthday is 24/8 (born 8 weeks prem- no SEN issues) one birthday 12/7 (mild learning difficulty) my reasoning was that at just turned 4 both of them were not ready for school. My son has thrived and is now well equipped to start secondary school in Sept. My daughter (learning difficulty) has really made the most of the extra support and time to mature. If your Aug born is doing well I think you should just concentrate on that and not other children. You never know the May born child could have a learning difficulty leading to their parents defferring him.

Of course, it is the only logical decision for many parents. But they shouldn't hide the fact that in acting in the best advantage of their child, they are in tern passing a (smaller) disadvantage along to another group of Children.

If every May-August born defers, then the subsequent research will show that Feb-April children suffer lasting disadvantages.

The whole thing is just an argument for starting school later, and having a slower transition. It is impossible to ever get rid of the disparity between children based on age. No matter where the cut-off is, older Children will always perform better on average, and younger children will always be slightly disadvantaged.

But we could reduce the disadvantage associated to "being ready/mature enough" for school, just by having a slower transition, starting formal school a year later etc. Making it so that the vast majority of kids are ready and mature enough. This obviously isn't the case at the moment, with many just-turned-4 year old's not being fully ready, so experiencing both layers of disadvantage (not ready, and younger than peers).

The whole deferral system is putting a plaster over a much bigger wound

I really think it’s best to be a joint decision between parents/school/nursery preschool setting.

My own daughter is an August born and we deferred. Academically I don’t think would have struggled, was fine socially but I did feel emotionally probably wasn’t ready. You need to understand that the children born the previous Sept were a year older than her ( a quarter of her life at that point which developmentally is huge at that age). She struggled to be as quick at changing at PE, eating lunch as quickly which given the competitive child she is and has always been would have really knocked her confidence. I really think you parent the child you have and do the best with the options available to you.

I understand your concerns with children being bigger/more boisterous but that really can happen any way. I would say is it’s for the school to be ready for the intake they have in-front of them and manage that than for parents to worry about as they will have much more experience of this. I look at my 3rd child’s school year (born in winter term so in older 3rd of year) and there are children that are younger and bigger than him! In fact the most disruptive child in the class is the youngest! I think advice was given that he would have benefited from staying at preschool for a year. There are a lot of children that just aren’t quite ready and because of this are disruptive to the class and end up on SEND register when in some cases they just needed that little bit more time.

I think you also look at the school, if my daughter were to have gone into her cohort by age she would have gone with children she naturally didn’t gravitate to as at preschool they were put in groups by age and she didn’t gravitate to any of her cohort by age, she naturally was more interested in playing with the children she was grouped with and was a bit of a leader of the younger ones (being the eldest of them) and this suited her personality well. If she had gone in her correct cohort she would have been the youngest by almost 5 months (small village school with intake of 15 into YR) a huge development and emotional difference at that age. That said, would be different in a bigger intake school as there would be more children of all birth months and the school would be prepared for this. If she had gone with correct age cohort, she would be one of 3 girls left (started as 7 in R) I could see this would happen due to the being siblings that all had already or had intentions of going private by y3/4, this would also have not been an ideal situation.

As I’ve said, we do the best with the options in front of us. It’s worked well for my daughter, she has a lovely year group that she is well suited to, doing well academically, really enjoys school and that gap really does close as they get older. Her best friend in school is almost a year younger. In YR and 1 it was noticeable but by y2/3 you would never know.

In Scotland the cut off is end of February and it is much more common for children born Dec-Feb to be deferred. When considering schools many of the teachers supported deferring as they said it’s not about size it’s about emotionally maturity and not just when entering school but when leaving and going to Uni. My son would have been 17 going to Uni and we felt that would have also been a disadvantage so we deferred. Don’t regret that for one minute.

I’m in Scotland. Our year runs 1st March- 28th Feb.
we can defer Sept-Feb til the following year.
my son should be one of the oldest (march) instead he has some 6months older and yet he has ones 11months younger in his class too.
I absolutely agree with deferral!! I just don’t think it needs to be of 6months, 3 yes maybe 4months but any more seems madness.

no one should ultimately be at a disadvantage because those deferred wouldn’t have been “ready” for school and that is why they’ve been held/kept back for the year.

your schooling is different to ours so I can’t comment on the curriculum but I do know if mine were to have followed your school years (he’d have been 4yrs 5months) he wouldn’t have enjoyed school/learning like he has from the minute he started at 5yrs 5months.

You’ve decided not to defer, your decision but the parents of children who have deferred have done so for a reason ☺️

I live in Ireland and we generally wait until 5 before starting school. It is not for the academic side but to be mature enough for the playground! As I see it at 4yrs old if some one takes your ball you will cry. At 5 you will ask for it back ... I personally feel, if it works for the family that kids should be kept at home until at least 5!

My DGS primary school doesn't. And it's the only primary in the village

My daughter’s school has 3 years in one class and other schools often have 2 years in a class. That’s seen as acceptable. When my son was in that school year 1s who were struggling stayed in reception an extra year but then went to year 2 the following year. When I was in what would now be year 4 I was in a mixed class of years 4, 5 and 6. For the next 2 years in mixed classes of years 5 and 6. Me and my two kids got on fine. In other situations your child will have to mix with older and younger children. They just have to get used to.

Yes! In Scotland the cut off is March, so kids are always at least 4.5 by the time they start which feels a little more appropriate than just having turned 4!

I agree. It could also later create problems with the 11 plus or other entrance exams which rely strictly on age.

Yes we have nursery, 2yrs free for every child. My point is kids need to be ready for the emotional side of the playground as kids can be tough on each other.

There’s nothing wrong with mixed age groups per se. These are very little children and they will eventually be sorted into the “right”” year. Your problem is with one boy who just happens to be older and bigger than your daughter. This could just as easily have happened in a single year class and is something the school should be dealing with. It has long been recognised that summer born children can be at a disadvantage when starting school so this new flexibility allows parents and teachers to make decisions based on the best interests of individual children which has got to be a good thing.

My August born DD started school 3 weeks after her 4th birthday . When she was in year 3 we moved to a nearby town where children didn’t start school until they were 5 .
After a few months her teacher asked me when she had started school and when I told her that she had been 4 , she said DD was way ahead of all the children in her class . Not surprising as she had a year more in school than the others . By the time they got to year 7 most children had caught up with her .
my point is , I don’t think there is any point in deferring the school start as it will won’t make any difference over their schooldays and they will get to where they were meant to be .

What I did feel have the older kids a further advantage was extra time at pre school. Our pre school took as soon as they were 3. So my August born got hr full year in pre school but the older autumn birth kids started January so got 5 terms and some got 4 terms. I think this possibly had some advantage over the older ones. Maybe pre school should have taken them the September following turning 3 like school is the September following turning 4. I don’t know if all pre schools did it. The free hours were afternoons for the older kids for the 2 terms and then mornings from September for the just turned 3. Afternoons were also used as ‘childcare’ for parents working whose kids needed to be there all day but who opted for pre school instead of say nursery - to feed into the primary.