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

maybe you just don't have very nice friends

Do you think they're not very nice because they want the best for their child? I'm not sure I agree. As lots of people have asserted on this thread, it's natural to want this and people who stick within the rules to achieve this aren't necessarily doing anything wrong.

I think the system needs to be reformed to stop parents deferring unnecessarily but I don't think you're a terrible person for taking advantage of the system until this happens.

The arguments aren't unhinged but different aspects of the same challenge to deferment which is that deferment doesn't really solve any of the problems associated with RAE and simply exacerbates or imports new problems.

If there are lots of summer born children not ready for school then it stands to reason that this problem extends beyond children born between April - August, especially when you take into account different levels of readiness associated with deprivation levels and sex. Deferment isn't the answer and actually increasing the school start age for everyone would be much more appropriate.

If the problem is RAE then we know the deferment doesn't solve this as there will always be someone that is the youngest. A flexible approach to education in the early years especially and age adjustments being built into testing would help more than deferment which compounds RAE for non deferred children.

Deferment also comes at a cost for children who have been deferred unnecessarily. The RAE doesn't apply equally to everyone and some summer born kids are developmentally ready for school and thrive there. There are lots of posters on this thread that have had this experience. Currently though a parent is gifted with the right to defer a child even when there are no signs or indicators that this is actually needed. Not everyone is paying 5% into pension pots each year and some of us are planning for early retirement whilst we are still young and healthy enough to maximise this time. Not everyone thinks an unnecessary additional year spent in preschool is a great use of life. You of course can disagree but ultimately you have to accept that your child could grow up to disagree with the decision you have made on their behalf. Deferment doesn't come without a cost to the individual child.

@Bumpitybumper You seem absolutely fixated on this and your arguments are getting more and more insane and unhinged. You retirement one literally made me laugh out loud.

You are the one who has a problem with your friends deferring their children because of some sneaky advantage you think they are reaching for not me. I think your friends are probably being honest and they think their children are simply to young to start school at under 4.5. The advantage is a bonus but not the reason. Or do you always see the worst in your friends?

Children born after April are at a disadvantage - less so than an August born but they are still disadvantaged compared to a September born, so they aren't being deferred unnecessarily.

Parents don't need to consider the rest of the cohort in whether it is "fair" or not to defer, it's simply none of their business.

You are also focused on an issue that is 1.5% of all summer intakes - and of that over half of the children are August born - with 3% being April born. Additionally the numbers peaked in 2021 and we haven't seen an increase in deferrals since then, so it's not like the idea is gathering steam and is on an exponential growth curve.
Frankly I am baffled you are so obsessed when the numbers are so low across the board it won't be having this huge impact you are suggesting it will.

"Not everyone thinks an unnecessary additional year spent in preschool is a great use of life."
😅😅😅

What do you want then? Others not be allowed deferral even if they need it? My first born DS wouldn't even hold a pencil due to dyspraxia so deferred. Best decision we ever made..

@HairsprayBabe
It wasn't my retirement argument. Someone else posted it and I simply agreed it was a valid view.

I don't see the worst in my friends and have no idea where you get that from. They are my friends and honest with me that they are doing it to get an advantage. They know their child can cope with school but they don't want to miss out on giving them a head start. They obviously haven't included this rationale in official forms and don't admit this to other random parents because it is controversial. I'm not making up some motivation, this is literally what they've told me. They also are open about using tutors etc and view it all in a similar way.

Children born after April are at a disadvantage - less so than an August born but they are still disadvantaged compared to a September born, so they aren't being deferred unnecessarily
Children born in March are at a disadvantage and those born in Feb. In fact anyone born after September will be at a disadvantage as that's how RAE works. Should they all be allowed to defer? What then happens to the September bairns who will now be the youngest and the victims of RAE?

I never said parents need to consider whether it's fair to the rest of the cohort. Again, you're projecting arguments I simply haven't made. That isn't the job of the individual parent but it's the job of the state. That's why the system needs to change.

If a policy is sensible and fair then it should work irrespective of the numbers taking advantage of it. If a policy can only be justified because low numbers are currently taking advantage of it then that suggests it's a problem. Let's be honest, if all summer borns deferred then it would be a matter of time until parents of March born children would begin to campaign for deferment. Also the fact that the small percent of parents currently deferring are more privileged and well educated than those that aren't is a huge red flag in itself as it's embedding inequality but of course that won't matter to you and will be another unhinged arguement.

I have an August DC but deferral wasn't an option at the time. School was far too much for them at the time - life would have been so much better if they didn't go until they were pretty well 5 rather than barely 4. What we actually need is a proper system of 3 term entry (with 3 exam periods at the end of it). Summer borns do suffer if they are not deferred - there was some research that showed that a very high proportion of Oxford undergrads are born from September - Christmas so the summer borns never really catch up. I remember pointing out to DC's headmaster that every single one of the academic scholars in their year was born in the autumn term.

I have an August DC but deferral wasn't an option at the time. School was far too much for them at the time - life would have been so much better if they didn't go until they were pretty well 5 rather than barely 4

I wasn’t ready for school at just turned 4 so missed out reception and started in year 1. Is that possible?

@Bumpitybumper Please let me know which of my arguments is unhinged, because I am not the one who claimed I would be "angry" at my parents for giving me an additional year of early years education.

Summer born parents shouldn't have their child cope or manage with school, we all want our children to thrive not just survive.

I have already described how I would fix the issue, multiple intakes with a later compulsory school starting age. But we can only operate within the current system and allowing summer born to defer is what we have available to manage the disadvantages of being summer born.
Letting more parents know it's an option would benefit more children, as other posters have said an overall older cohort is better for all children.

Removing the option benefits no one and just forces summer borns to "deal with it" and frankly that's not fair either, considering you are so bothered about things being fair.

Preventing deferral does benefit someone. It benefits the non deferred summer borns and those born later in the year. This has been proven time and again by research into RAE. An overall older cohort has not been proven to benefit the youngest in class because of RAE. We know that the oldest are much more likely to ascertain leadership roles, gain recognition for their academic and sporting abilities and succeed socially. Having more even older kids in a cohort gives the summer borns even less opportunity to shine.

Multiple intakes are harder to implement logistically than age adjustments.

I think you are happy that the problem is fixed for your summer born child by effectively transferring the relative age advantages to them. It hasn't removed any inequality but simply redistributed it. I won't accept that we simply have to accept deferment because it makes summer born parents feel better and actually does very little to address the underlying problems. No research shows that deferment addresses the problem of RAE for all children, it simply shows that summer born kids do better because they magically become the oldest.

The issue with the 3 term intake is it would only really work for big schools. It would be completely impossible for one teacher to run 3 different curriculums in one class simultaneously so it would realistically need to be a 3 form entry school- unless the DFE is going to triple the funding for more staff. Whilst I like the idea, I don't like the idea of ending up with children having to travel miles to attend the nearest "super school", with small village schools closing.

My son was not even 16 when he sat his GCSEs and won't be able to legally go into many of the places his college friends spend their evenings until a month after finishing his A levels. He has missed out on a lot of socialising as a result and I think key milestones for young people turning 18.

He is academically bright but wasn't ready to sit GCSEs at the age he did, they didn't reflect his abilities and that knocked his self belief. A year more in maturity and he is absolutely flying. But I wish he had that extra year younger rather than waiting to catch up with himself during A levels, which is already an intense time.
It might not matter at 4 but it can matter at the other end of the school years.

Who said I'm happy? I am not saying we have to accept the current system but within the current system deferring is the only option for individual summer born children to overcome their disadvantage. It being "unfair" for some children doesn't stop it from being the right decision for another child.

You are wrong, having older children in the cohort benefits the whole class, you are just choosing to ignore that evidence. There are plenty of systems e.g Montessori that have a 3 year age gap across a cohort, that doesn't prevent the younger children from "shining". Making an accommodation for one child doesn't automatically disadvantage another.

Do you have a March born child that you feel is being disadvantaged by this policy? If not I really fail to understand why you are so bothered by what 1.5% of people are choosing to do.
Are you equally as angry about tutoring, private schooling or grammar schools? If not I think you need to give your head a wobble.

YABU. Almost all children benefit from deferring school start, and being summer born doesn't guarantee that a child will have the social, emotional or intellectual maturity for school. Parents are the people who know their child best and can make that decision. It should be an option open to all parents, regardless of when their child is born.

When did we start using the word "thrive" in relation to going to school? So OTT and almost gloaty. I hate it. Pretty sure most DC just "go to school".

That’s bonkers - I wouldn’t have thought you were able to defer a child born as early as May!

There needs to be a window in which the kids starting school are born - even if we make it May - April rather than Sept - Oct. I think Scotland use March as the cut off?

Op what sort of test would you envisage?
Would you repeat that test every year to check they're still coping?
How would that intersect with a child with sen?

What if they 'fail' that test and get to defer? What sort of message does the child/nursery environment take from that?

It’s really tricky as some reasons for deferral/not deferring don’t become apparent till the child is much older. Clearly if there are obvious reasons at 3-4 years old it makes sense that the family talk to the school about this option.

I have two summer kids who I did not defer. Now at secondary school, they would have hated being a year older than their cohort. They’d have found it embarrassing and (incorrectly) assumed it was because teachers/parents thought they weren’t clever enough. I say this as these are the themes that have come out of our discussions about the very small number of kids who were deferred and joined the younger cohort.

I think deferring and going straight into year 1 or starting on time but just doing a reduced timetable is probably kinder (unless major reasons are indicated, I’m talking about parents who think it’s an advantage.)

Do we not want our children to thrive now?

thrive
verb
(of a child, animal, or plant) grow or develop well

I would like my children to grow and develop well in school, not just cope or manage.

Insane to suggest it is gloaty to want your children to do well.

Genuine question. At what age are children born in the summer being diagnosed with ADHD? The waiting list for assessments in this area is years long.

I started using it when I had a kid. I don't have a summer born but I still very much want my kid to thrive.

As a parent, why wouldn't you?

Thanks for the definition. It's the use of the word by every woman and her dog atm that annoys me. Same as sticking absolutely at the start of a sentence e.g. I absolutely want Johhny to thrive in reception.

Public sector/school/therapy speak nonsense that needs to stay there.

Totally agree

It’s a tough one though. My Feb born son with ADHD could probably have benefitted from being deferred just from the social development side.

But my Oct born dd could easily have started school a year earlier (so at 3 and ten/ eleven months) alongside the Aug borns she’d been playing with since babyhood - although better for her now that’s she’s at GCSEs that she didn’t, and had another year to learn.