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

Having to undertake assessments with a year’s less experience does of course disadvantage you; so you appear to be making the case for summer born children to delay their start?

Is your point that they shouldn’t be allowed to delay their start unless ALL summer borns starting age is later, so as not to widen the gap for those whose parents didn’t apply on their behalf? I don’t necessarily disagree with that if that’s your point. All the evidence supports that starting school at just turned 4 is less favourable than starting formal education later. We only need to look to the success of other countries with age 6/7 starting ages. The U.K.’s model is in the minority and was never created with the interests of the child in mind.

But you went further and were asserting that older children in a class have a negative impact on younger children; and that is not an argument you have been able to support ?

RAE isn't an argument to defer summer borns. It simply shifts the problem along and exacerbates it for those that choose not to defer.

No, I don't think all summer borns should be forced to defer. What would that actually achieve? We know from studies undertaken in countries that have much later school starting ages that the RAE persists even with a later school starting age. A later school start age for *all" children would make sense from a wider perspective but that is very different than simply effectively changing the school start age by three months.

The research I posted cites the impact of being the youngest in cohort. These issues are exacerbates further by having even older children in a class to compare the youngest with.

I must admit that all this is quite fascinating. When I grew up, the mark of a pushy parent was trying to get their child to skip a year at school.
There was kudos to being the youngest in the year, and the children who were put ahead for good reasons often were top of their year groups academically.

I long resented my mum for refusing to push me ahead because I was young for my year already, whereas my swing who jumped a year had a far more positive experience of school.

I would never hold dc back unless they had learning difficulties or delays.

It’s not ‘holding a child back’; it’s giving them the same exact time in education as those born up to 12 months earlier than them. You’re just not taking a year of education away from them if you start them at 5.

it’s so weird people have such strong opinions on a subject they haven’t looked into or read around (if you had, you’d know the terminology isn’t deferred or held back, it’s a delayed start).

As an academic child who was pushed forward a year, twice, I still outperformed the class above me too. My academic ability far exceeded my cohort (as a September born), however those two years were miserable for me socially. They were the only years I was bullied and felt a huge distance from my peers who were much more developed sexually and emotionally and felt totally out of my depth and miserable. The only people I knew who were accelerated ahead of their year groups due to exceptional academic ability were miserable socially like me. It was a huge relief to return to my original cohort, where I was now back to being the oldest in my year.

It's very personal - in countries where there's more age variety per year, I don't think it's a bad experience for most.
There were always two or three children who were a year (or two) ahead in my class and if anything the held back ones were the ones who struggled socially as they came with a reputation for being slow.
Again, not always - i remember two sisters who were 3 years apart in our class. They'd grown up abroad in a country where siblings were just sent to school together for practical convenience. Both very popular girls who have lived great lives.

I personally would have hated being the older one in the year and would have thought my peers to be babyish had it been the case. It was boring enough as it was!

An extra thought - everyone is keen on the disadvantages of being young in the year, but what about the considerable advantages of getting to earn money for an extra year and retire a year earlier?

Surely every age comes with it's own sizeable pros and cons.

Retirement is based on age, ie your date of birth. Not your school year.

If you leave school a year earlier, you can potentially start earning a year earlier and building a pension. Theoretically you could retire a year earlier with the same pension as someone who left school a year later and had a years delay starting a pension.

Unlikely. And public sector pension start dates are linked to age. If you claim early there’s a penalty.

I think they are referring to private pensions and other investments that can provide an income in early retirement such as property and shares.

We all only have so many productive, healthy years in us whether we choose to retire early or not. The same logic is true if people take gap years etc. You don't suspend biological age just because you defer a year. You might view it as time well spent, your child might not. Who is to say?

It’s not unlikely at all. Not everybody works in the public sector.

This is a very depressing outlook. You can miss a year of your childhood to get on the work work work money money money wheel a year earlier and then retire a whole year earlier after 50 years.

Wow. Life is so full of joy isn't it?

Alternatively you could feel sorry for the someone in their 60s stuck working a year longer than their peers all because their parents chose to delay them a year at school. Working into old age isn't much fun for lots of people as health starts to decline.

Than their peers??? Their 'peers' will be the people born literally days or weeks after them. Because retirement doesn't run September - September - that sort of becomes irrelevant after you've left education. And not everyone retires on the dot of their eligible birthday.

This argument is absurd. If summer borns' reward for starting school too early in their infancy is that they get an extra year of work in their dotage then count me out.

This argument is absurd

I have to agree.

Despite being one of those who was a year ahead of everybody else and, yes, I did retire early.

What are you talking about? The argument was the converse. That summer borns starting work earlier will be in a better position to build up the assets and wealth to retire a year earlier versus someone starting work a year later. So the year in your dotage is spent retired and enjoying yourself instead of working.

Under the current system deferring a child delays them a year. Not a few weeks or months. You may think this is a good time investment, the child may disagree when they get older. Who knows?

Just to add, I am summer born so could have been deferred as a child. I absolutely did not need to do be deferred and would be pretty angry now to be set back a year financially which is exactly what would have happend. Less years paying into my pension and less years building up my career and business. I hope to retire early and really enjoy this time.

No you wouldn't

You’d be angry at your parents now as a full grown adult for deferring your primary school start age? That is ridiculous! I really don’t think one year out of your entire life would make a massive difference to your savings or when you want to retire!

Set back a year? A whole year? In your decades-long working life?

You'd be angry about that?

OK.

Surely this relies on someone starting work the day they leave formal education and working every available day from then until exactly a full year before they might have otherwise retired? What a life. Enjoy that year, you deserve it.

Your arguments are getting steadily more unhinged.

A child that starts school before they are ready doesn't end up earning more money.

They end up being constantly told off whilst trying to conform to expectations they are not developmentally capable of and falling behind socially and academically early on, leading to a loss of self-esteem, often ending up finishing school with few qualifications and a negative attitude to education and life.

An extra year of putting 5% into a pension pot isn't compensating for that.

How would that help? Surely then the March babies would be the youngest and the whole "they shoudl be allowed to defer" debate would start again. It doesn't matter where the cut off is- if there's a cut off someone will be the youngest.

The argument for deferral isn't that they will be the youngest, it's that they aren't ready for full time school at just turned 4. Speech delays, toilet training, basic maturity and independence will all be that much more advanced when they will all be at least 4.5 years old.

It's not really about being the youngest or older though. It's about readiness. If march babies were the youngest, they'd still be hugely more likely be developmentally ready as a cohort compared to summer born children.

It's about being developmentally ready for a school day/the social relationships/the curriculum. If they're ready, send them. If not, the option to defer is there. In fact, all children can be deferred to compulsory school age (i.e. the term after they turn 5). It's only that for summer borns, this falls into the next school year.

I think the classroom as a whole benefits if more children are developmentally ready for school. Summer borns are disproportionately more likely to be diagnosed with ADHD, not necessarily because they have it but because they are very young and not able to behave/sit down in the way they would be expected to in reception. I would rather my child be in a class where these children are given more time to mature before school entry so the teacher/TAs don't have to spend time with personal care for children/coping with behaviours that are normal for young children but not so acceptable in the reception environment.

The class as a whole benefits when everyone is developmentally ready.