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

But the policy is inherently flawed because as you state a large part of the motivation is making them older in the cohort which is an advantage in itself. The obvious flaw is that if your summer born isn't the youngest then someone else's summer born is. If all the summer borns defer then the child born at the end of March who can't defer will be the youngest and the disadvantage passes to them.

So deferral doesn't really fix the actual problem at all but simply moves the problem along to another child. It also arguably exacerbates the issue for summer borns that choose not to defer because they don't have a need to defer as they will find themselves stuck in a class with someone that is 16 months older than them. We know that being the youngest is inherently a disadvantage and widening this to 16 months of disadvantage is obviously worsening the problem. You are effectively forcing the summer borns to defer or they will be penalised with a huge differential in their class.

I think you are very cynical in the reasons for parents deferring. I’m not saying some don’t do it to be top of the class, I think many do to because their child is not ready, as evidence by most on this thread. Why should their children be penalised because a few parents try to advantage their children. Those parents will tutor and find other ways to advantage their children. Plus let’s be honest, many of those will have deliberately planned an autumn birthday. I think saying people can’t defer would penalise children, I agree with those who say they there should be more education around it, making it more accessible rather than less accessible. Surely that is actually the right thing for the children.

I am cynical because I know people IRL who have done it to be the oldest and ascertain the advantage this confers. This is far more common in my circle than people deferring because they genuinely don't think their child is ready for school. I accept this isn't necessarily representative of the country as whole but it is representative of my privileged area.

I think any system of this nature needs to be implemented properly. This doesn't mean that I think no children should ever be able to defer but it does mean that we can't allow people to cynically exploit the system. The random March/April cut off is obviously just as arbitrary as the August/September one and we need to be careful about these kinds of cliff edges generally. Swapping one for another isn't necessarily better.

I think the main problem is the age children are supposed to start learning in a formal way. Some just aren’t developmentally ready for it. If they started this part of their education later, maybe at 7 like some other countries, and everything was play based until then, almost all children would be ready, and the age gap between the youngest and oldest wouldn’t matter as much.

As it is, the system sets the younger children up to fail. Parents are right to do everything they can to avoid that, but the system needs restructuring really. Allowing kids to defer is a bandaid, but the real problem hasn’t been addressed. Ripping off the bandaid isn’t the answer though.

Totally agree about the cynicism 🫠 I want my child to not have to start school a couple of months after turning 4 because it's so incredibly young and he's got a long road ahead. I'm not trying to get an advantage over other people. Although I guess ol bumpity probably won't believe that

Except lots of countries start formal learning later and there is still a significant gap on achievement between the youngest and oldest. This is a consistent trend seen in all countries irrespective of age that they start formal learning. Aspects such as peer dynamics, maturity etc come into play. Look at Sweden who start at 7 to see how the trend persists.

It doesn't matter what I believe about your motivations. I know for certain that some parents are doing it to give their kids the advantage that all studies conducted in this area suggest they will get. We know parents pay for tutoring and private schools to boost their child's prospects, of course they will defer for such a proven advantage. I find your disbelief that this is happening at a reasonable scale in some areas to be quite telling. It does suggest a lot of regional variation.

That wasn't the motivation for our choice at all, most parents suggest the reason for delaying is they don't believe their child is ready if you look at the most recent report.

I personally believe 3 weeks after turning four is disgustingly early for a child to start full time formal education - the statistical advantage is a bonus, but we would have deferred regardless of that.

Just like any other choice you make for your child there will be pros and cons to every decision and different families will make different choices - all you can do is give them all the options and information they need to make a decision.

As pointed out other countries have deferral and grade based education that is normal in their culture and there isn't a whole bunch of handwringing over what is "fair"

The sticking point here is that deferral is a relatively new policy in the UK, and not everyone likes change. Deferral is the "best" option if you do have concerns about your child's school start within the current system. How it impacts the rest of the cohort shouldn't come into to the decision making process from a deferring parents perspective.

If I could change it - and money and resources were no object - I would have 4 quarterly intakes to reduce the maximum "youngest" child age gap to 3 months. I would still have deferral for children born in the last month of each intake to allow for flexibility of needs, and formal compulsory school wouldn't start till 7.

But that isn't real life and within the current system it is fair and evidence based to allow summer born parents to choose deferral if they feel like it would benefit their child .

Don't forget plenty of families know its an option and don't choose it as this thread evidences. Not to mention currently only 1.5% of summer born parents are choosing this option of that tiny percentage of children 51% were August born and just 3% were April born, so it's not really as big of an issue as you are making it out to be.

I would be really interested in hearing your solution on fixing the summer born problem in a realistic way though.

@HairsprayBabe My friends who have chosen to defer obviously don't officially state that their reason was to gain an advantage over their peers. For obvious reasons they don't go around publicising this as it is hugely controversial and would not go down well with the school. Enough have done it though in my friendship group that it's an open secret and they have helped each other with the applications. For this reason I think it will be a really tough thing to pick up in the stats. Especially because most parents do partly genuinely feel like their children are too young to start even when they're September born. Same goes with high school etc. It's a natural parental response to a big milestone and change.

Is it evidence based to support deferral? Perhaps for the deferred children but what about the overall cohort. There are several studies that focus on the disadvantages of being the youngest in the cohort including peer interactions and likelihood of being elected into leadership positions and it's clear that these disadvantages would just transfer to the new youngest or exacerbate the disadvantages for the summer borns that aren't deferred. We literally have no evidence that the policy isn't detrimenting some children yet you seem utterly convinced its for the greater good.

In terms of alternatives, I would like to see a later start to formal education, more flexibility in schooling and age adjustments implemented more widely.

Sweden starts at 6, not 7, I think, though the first year is termed preschool or Year 0.

I haven’t read the data from Sweden but have read previously that starting formal learning later means the age gap matters less, as far more children will be ready for it by then.

Haven’t time now, but will see can I post some references relating to this when I can.

I feel (nearly) all children should start at the same time but repeating the first year should be more widespread. The suggestion would have to originate from schools not parents.

There is an argument for privileging academically homogeneous years instead of age groups (social development varies in an age group anyway so it's not a great argument against the idea imo).

Assessments could determine whether a pupil should be considered for passing into the next level. It would help teachers, act as a deterrent for lazy and disruptive pupils, and provide extra time to those who need it.
Nothing is perfect but to me it's the best compromise.

They currently have a compulsory year of preschool at 6 and start school at 7. This is all set to change in 2028 though when they will start school at 6.

The IFS have suggested that it isn't the age that a child starts school but the age that they take the academic test that matters most and that delaying school starting age won't remove the advantages of those that are oldest in their cohort.

The trouble with this argument is that effectively you are requiring all summer borns to shoulder the inequity in the system.

Being young when you begin school is a disadvantage to many children and because some families can't defer or don't know you can, you are asking all children born in the summer to just suck it up and accept the entirely avoidable struggles coming their way. You are asking them to miss a year of their childhood so that others won't be put out. You're asking them, children who have just finished being 3, to shoulder the burden of an unequal socioeconomic landscape to fix what people seem 'unfair'. Bearing in mind that we are not asking any of this of Autumn born children whose identical advantage we excuse because they were lucky enough to fall in the arbitrary dates set.

Lots of things create a disparity between the most privileged and the least privileged in a classroom. And yet we are not asking parents to stop paying for private tuition which is a privileged advantage, also widens the gap and is unattainable for poorer families. We are not asking for parents to stop taking their children on trips and holidays which is also a privileged advantage, also widens the gap and may be unattainable for poorer families.

There can be no perfect system, and you may well be right about the whole thing needing to change. But until that happens you can only work with what you have. And if you as a parent are given an opportunity to help your child attain the best start in education that you can I very much doubt anybody on here would deny them that because it might cause another child, a stranger most likely to you, some upset. Life doesn't work like that. You choose what is in your child's best interests - now and going forward into adulthood - with the best resources you have.

I had a DD born in August who I would never have dreamt of deferring, and a DGC who I definitely think should be deferred.

It's about the child.

Ds2 was the youngest in his nursery and was the biggest child in KS1, so by that logic your stance is irrelevant.

Size is irrelevant, if he’s hurting your child then that needs to be addressed and is a separate issue.

For whatever reasons the parents have, it’s right for their child and choice they are legally entitled to do, no one else kids come into the deciding factor and nor should they, if they choose their legal right to defer their own child by a year.

I think children start school really young in England. In Scotland the dec-mar babies are the youngest. Most children are 5 when they start. My eldest wouldn’t have been 5 for 4 months so I kept him back as I felt it was too young to go to school.

Scotland had changed its system or was just about to and we were in a roll out area. So didn’t need to provide evidence, now any August and onwards baby can be deferred.

My child is ridiculously tall…but he would be in the classes above too. I don’t think he holds any children back and physically he’s rubbish at gym etc!

I’d leave kids in nursery longer, most other countries do. My other two were may and July so going at 5, no options to defer.

i certainly didn’t keep my child back so they would be the best in the class which seems to be what you suggest.

id be delighted if they get a good education and could t care less if they are better at PE, maths or reading than the next kid.

I think the idea that EY professionals will be able to judge who can and can’t defer is debatable. My daughter’s nursery consisted of quite young nursery assistants with little to no knowledge of what the expectations of school would be in reality and what children experience upon entering the school system. Her nursery ‘advised’ there was no reason to defer and that I was wrong to do so. Skip to her reception year, I was told by her teacher it was absolutely the right thing to do.

Our children start school earlier than most other western countries. This is not necessarily a good thing. We do not give our children enough time to develop school readiness because we do not have a robust nationwide play-centred system of preschool provision in this country. We also muddle up childcare with preschool education to the extent that I don’t think most politicians actually know there is a difference. We put the needs of adults and the supposed benefit to the economy above the needs of our children.
I wonder what would happen if we started putting children first.

I don’t think it’s being the youngest that disadvantages them. It’s being only just turned 4 and barely out of toddler-hood. It’d be great if everyone deferred! Then you’d get a class of kids who were all at least 4 and a half. Much, much better than being 4 years and a few days. Maybe everyone should start doing that, might finally give the government a kick up the arse and make them realise that 4 is way too young to start school!

Some studies suggest that having older peers in the classroom BENEFIT younger students:

• Role modeling: Older students may act as informal leaders or mentors.
• Classroom environment: A slightly more mature cohort may enhance focus and cooperation.
• For example, a study from Norway (Black, Devereux & Salvanes, 2011) found that younger students performed better when surrounded by relatively older peers.

It would have taken you less than 15 seconds to find the above, so yes I do find you ridiculous.

I expect you refused to even look because you weren’t interested in doing anything other than reinforcing your own existing bias which appears to be based on insecurity and gut instinct and anecdotes; A solid foundation for any decision making process!

Interestingly the same study found that conversely younger students in the class can have a negative impact on the older ones.

So actually this study suggests summer borns aren’t just disadvantaged themselves they also disadvantage their peers too.

I was looking for specific links to papers that I notice you still haven't provided. If you are referring to the paper 'Too young to leave the nest? The effects of school starting age' then you are misrepresenting the findings.

Yet there are countless papers on the Relative Age Effect and how being the youngest adversely impacts the child. The wider the age band the worse the impact.

@Stepintomyshoes
Thompson, A. H., Barnsley, R. H., and Battle, J. (2004). The relative age effect and the development of self-esteem.

Just to add that studies have most consistently found that recognising and incorporating age at time of test is the most accurate way of instilling fairness into the system. This is because the youngest tend to perform as well as the oldest when they reach the same biological age. This of course suggests that deferred children are absolutely increasing their advantage by being 16 months older than some of their peers at the time of sitting crucial exams and compounding the disadvantage for the youngest in the class.

Eh? You want me to find you the specific link to the referenced study now?

You seem really confused.Its hard to follow the point you are trying to make.

I'm not confused. I have read the study that you were referencing and believe you are misrepresenting it unless you are in fact referring to a different study? I am guessing you haven't actually read the study and just used the Google summary of points about potential advantages of having older kids in a class. This is notoriously inaccurate, uses spurious sources and includes unproven ideas and suggestions.