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

Yes, luckily for us all.

Thanks for the link though.

It's exactly how it works. People do research, the research makes recommendations, the recommendations are debated and considered and may or may not be implemented.

What is lucky is that we don't just go on what Bumpity off Mumsnet thinks based on actually nothing but supposedly something that some of her teacher friends may or may not have said.

People don't just go around doing research in the way that you imply. That absolutely isn't how it works. Look at the study that I have linked by an expert in the area highlighting flaws in the system. This kind of work requires a huge amount of expertise, time and money to publish and review and absolutely isn't something that an individual would generally commission to prove a point. There are lots of pieces of research published everyday with findings and recommendations that are never even debated by the powers that be, let alone used to inform change.

The reality is that the onus is on the government to put in place a system that is fair and works for everyone. There are clearly problems with the current system that have already been highlighted and there are other aspects of the system that haven't been properly explored. It's all very well suggesting that we can't rely on anecdotal evidence but without proper research then that is all that anybody has including you. Where is the peer reviewed evidence that deferring some summer born children isn't adversely impacting other summer born children? There isn't any! Your claims are as unsubstantiated as mine. Without evidence all we have is a bunch of opinions. That's why research is desperately needed and this should be commissioned by someone with the resources and clout to make a difference.

I’m not suggesting a better system than involves all children being able to start school when they are developmentally ready wouldn’t be a great idea. What I can guarantee is that my child starting school at 4 years 3 days, with still limited speech, unreliable toilet training and being generally not developmentally ready would have far more impact on the class than waiting a year when he was far more ready. Don’t need research for that, it’s obvious!

I think the issue is that a quarter of children aren't reliably toilet trained when they start school. This figure is rising rapidly and has been put down to the impact of the pandemic and modern parenting rather than some major shift in our physiology. We can either accept that all these children need to be deferred or look at intervening earlier so that they are toilet trained at the appropriate time. I am not commenting specifically on your child or other children who may have specific reasons why they aren't toilet trained (SEN etc) but the vast majority of children can be successfully toilet trained by age 4 and the fact that a quarter of children aren't is alarming and mass deferral isn't necessarily the answer.

The same can be said for other aspects of school readiness. Of course there will be lots of cases where early intervention will not be enough and the child simply needs more time, but there are undoubtedly cases where children are falling behind in nursery and preschool years and then finding that they are not 'ready' for school.

My child does have SEND, but there was no support in extra adults for him. And he was also much more ready at 5. we should be meeting children where there are developmentally, and if that means longer in a play based learning environment they should be.

Plus many children with SEND are not diagnosed before school. Also how do you explain the significantly higher number of summer borns identified as SEND. Could it be a developmentally inappropriate curriculum?

My eldest is also summer born, coped fine in correct cohort, I am glad my youngest was able to have the opportunity to thrive. And everyone that knows him agrees it was the best thing for him. Education is not a race or a competition.

👏👏

I think most people would agree that some children benefit from being deferred and that this is the best thing for everyone.

The questions raised on this thread though are about people that are deferring children that are objectively as school ready as their peers. This is done for the perceived academic, social and overall advantage that this provides their child over their peers. Conflating cases of SEN and genuine lack of readiness with cases where parents are using the current rules to game the system is doing everyone a disservice and drags the system into disrepute. We already know that deferrals are skewed towards more privileged families and this can further entrench privilege. Research is desperately needed and reforms should follow so that those that genuinely need deferral irrespective of age can access this and those that don't need to defer are prevented from doing so.

We also do need to look into the whole issue of school readiness and why so many children are falling behind. Deferral is acting as a sticker plaster and we are not addressing the underlying issues. The vast majority of children should be toilet trained by 4 and it is really not in their interests to not get to grips with why this isn't happening. The same goes for speech issues.

How do you decide who is allowed to be deferred and who isn’t?

I think we should be looking at the curriculum, comparing it to others that start formal education much later. My issue with my child in lots of ways was less about the reception year, and more about the expectation in Year. 1 Having taught this year group I see so many children , particularly boys really struggle as they still need to be active and playing and many schools just don’t allow this ( some do and I love those brave schools). My daughter when she was in year 1 often used to talk about the boys being in trouble, but I’m pretty sure it was simply because they were not developmentally ready to be sat at tables for long periods. When I looked around schools for my son, they talked about transitions to year 1 in reception. He would never have been ready, but nor would lots of others without SEND at 5.

Until this is improved of course many parents will want their children to access a full early years curriculum with play-based learning until they are six. Forgot the daily mail headline of toileting, that is not the main issue.

@Bumpitybumper
Societal change is why toilet training is later.

Apparently disposable nappies are one reason.
They’re easier for the caregiver and feel dry (even when wet) for the child leading to a lack of motivation to get out of nappies.

Also, children being at nursery for much of the day has had an impact. They don’t all facilitie potty training, aren’t in a position to spot subtle cues a child needs the toilet etc.

The care of children by their parents is more child-led these days too. A parent is more likely to try to wait for them to be ‘ready’ (even if they mis-judge that).

Yes , I think there is a myriad of reasons why toilet training is becoming later and later. I also think the same about speech development and why there is an explosion in the number of children needing intervention in Reception.

My point is though, do we just accept that these issues will become increasingly prevalent and delay formal education for all children or do we attempt to tackle these delays through earlier intervention? Personally I favour the latter approach and think that deferment can to some extent mask the issue so can remove the onus for intervention.

I do think if there are issues with speech development they should be tackled early.

I also think the age at which formal education starts is too young, and I’m in Ireland where it’s later and more flexible. All mine started having turned 5 and that was still too young for one of them and has had lasting repercussions.

Toileting may not be the main issue but it is one of a wider set of issue that encompasses other school readiness skills like speech and the ability to focus. There has been a notable decline in these skills in recent years. This has been picked up time and again in studies and surveys of teachers. This will obviously impact children not only in EYFS but as they move into the more formal learning associated with KS1. Deferral isn't the solution for this widespread deskilling of our young children and we need to tackle the underlying reasons.

As things stand, it would obviously be preferential and fairer if there was more scrutiny about who is and isn't deferring. This includes much more input from early year settings that are more likely to give an honest and knowledgeable opinion about a child's needs to defer than the parents who often have a vested interest in getting a specific outcome. A child that is ready for school shouldn't be allowed to defer just because their parents want them to.

We can support families more in the early years and wait until formal education is developmentally appropriate. They are two separate issues but people sensationalise them with the toilet issue.

We start our children in formal education much earlier than most other countries but our outcomes are no better for it. What is wrong with just turned 5 years olds having a play based early years curriculum for an extra year? Why should they get less experience and time in the early years curriculum upon just because of when their birthday is?

It absolutely was the solution for my son as he had extra play based learning until he was nearly 6 which was exactly what speech therapist recommended for him. The early years curriculum makes it easier for individual children’s needs to be met.

More scrutiny will be provided by professionals, who let’s be honest will be accessed by the middle class parents you are so against. You only get professionals involved in the early years if you are very proactive!

You only get professionals involved in the early years if you are very proactive!

Or if you realise something is wrong!
SEN is often not diagnosed until later, mid primary or the teen years.

Parents aren’t child development experts and, particularly with an only child or an eldest child, may miss that their child isn’t developing typically, especially if the differences are subtle. And it’s complicated because children develop at different paces anyway.

Nursery can sometimes pick things up, but that doesn’t always happen. A quiet child who doesn’t cause trouble can get overlooked. Often the differences become more obvious as they grow older, long after the age of starting school.

I don't disagree with you about starting formal education too early but that is a wider argument and requires the whole educational system to change.

The problem with deferment is that someone has to be the youngest and the disadvantage of being the youngest persists even with a later starting age for education. This has been proven through lots of issues international research. Sweden for example has a starting age of 7 and yet the trend for the youngest to be disadvantaged persists.

So yes, formal education does probably need to start later but deferment still isn't the solution.

I am from Scotland and our intakes are March to February. My middle due in March like I planned as I wanted him to be the oldest in his year as I was during my schooling but he decided to make an appearance in February and it was obvious from a young age that he was going to school when he was 4 1/2 as he has a strong personality but everyone else said I should holf him back but I'm glad I stood my ground and about 3 weeks into the school year he told everyone they had to be pals with him as his Grampa is Santa, my dad does look like Santa and nearly every child knew who Ciaran's Grampa was as my dad talks to everybody, he is very chatty and great with kids. So the school realised that Ciaran was going to be fine in school

But I and other parents are not prepared to put our children in a situation that is developmentally inappropriate and allow them to fail. Why should they be denied access to their full entitlement of the early years curriculum? Until it does change people will always try and make sure their child is not in a situation that is detrimental to their wellbeing developed if they can.

Can I ask what you experience of deferment is and the EYFS/KS1 curriculum? Apologies if you have already said, I couldn’t see anything?

Of course parents will always do what they perceive to be best for their child. You may think your child will fail if not deferred, others may see that they can gain an advantage from being eldest if deferred. It is human nature and why the issue transcends the individual. The system needs to be carefully reviewed and reformed with particular emphasis placed on the disadvantages the current system causes non deferred summer born children from poorer backgrounds.

@Bumpitybumper you still get the 3/4 year funding for a deferred child - I paid nothing for my deferred child to go to a childminders for his deferred year as she was fully flexible with the funded hours and charged no extras, it shouldn't disadvantage a poorer family to defer a child any more than it would if the child had been born in September.

I'm aware of this but the stats are clear that deferred children disproportionately come from more privileged households. Realistically it will be the non deferred summer borns that stand to lose out from deferred children in the class as studies consistently show that being the youngest in a cohort is a disadvantage and the bigger the gap between the gap gets comparatively bigger when you compare the youngest to older children.

I also got an extra year of funding for my deferred child, where I am they introduced funding for two year olds in preschool for children from families who are more likely to struggle.

I don’t think the answer is make it harder for people to defer but make it easier so the children that would benefit do defer. I’m in Scotlsnd so long established but if your child is in the deferral zone then encouraged to apply for deferral place at school nursery and at school. The hours are the same and you can make a decision later rather than at application time. We even defer our decision making.

A child can be in a different place in June compared to January. Once you know you’ve got options then you can make a decision.

We certainly aren't well off by any stretch of the imagination, and we live in a very disadvantaged area. I would suggest it is a lack of awareness and education that means children from poorer backgrounds are less likely to be deferred rather than a cost decision. As most people I have mentioned we were deferring to didn't even know it was an option, even nursery workers and health visitors.

Deferring is better for the child (speaking in generic terms) as it places them older in the cohort which we know is an advantage. If other parents choose not to defer or are unaware that deferring is an option that shouldn't prevent other summer borns from taking advantage of the policy that was put in place for them. Frankly I don't care what other summer born parents choose to do, it's none of my business.
You wouldn't say it's unfair to breastfeed because it gives children an advantage that would be insane.

Better communication of the options to parents is the correct thing to do so they can make an informed decision about their child's education - rather than saying the policy of being able to defer is inherently flawed.

You’ve picked out one sentence from my post and ignored everything else I said 🤣🤣 how strange of you!

I was explaining how it’s not just being part of the same building. A child going to the school nursery is part of the school community.