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

Unfortunately being the biggest and strongest in her class is not the reason this boy has injured her - if anything if he thinks it’s ok to injure other kids it shows poor level of maturity to me so he might be behind his age group.
the big issue is making sure she is protected so if not done already I would insist she is not near him during any activity

There is another thread running on this topic and there are so many people saying they would defer so there child has an advantage.

Whislt it may be an advantage in the early years, what about when the child is in Yr 10 at school? They know they should really be in Y11 now and leaving, but instead they are staying on another year. It's all well and good having an academic advantage, but children notice these differences and it could be a reason for bullying , or your child thinking they were not clever enough to start in their own cohert . Especially those born in May/June who are deferred.

The Education Act 1996 allowed children to start school the term after their 5th birthday. But it’s become more common in the last 10 years or so with awareness growing.

I'm July and also would have benefit a lot from being deferred I think.

I still remember being kept back from going to lunch with the other kids, just because I didn't really understand some kind of maths puzzle we'd been sent. I had turned 4 only a few months earlier ffs.

That’s just life. He can do it when he reaches the age!!

What does happen with bus passes etc when they reach year 11? It's only for 16 year olds and they would have already turned 17 ...

Also, imagine if you were doing 6th form when 19... And having to wear a school uniform....

I agree with you op. Someone has to be the youngest! If a child is genuinely behind developmentally then I can understand....but I think too many who defer are just competitive middle class types who can't bear the idea that their little darlings won't be top of the class.

That's good to hear, thank you.

The law now allows deferred children to start in reception.

Skipping reception to go straight into Y1 was the most stupid policy

My ds is very end of August. Had he been born 3 days later he would be in the year below. He was due in the September but arrived early.

I think you’re BU saying that the large boy shouldn’t have been deferred. My ds is head and shoulders taller than all the kids in his nursery even though some are just under a year older than him.

I did consider deferring ds but glad I didn’t. He’s definitely ready for reception this coming September.

More children survive premature births, more children are on track to be diagnosed as ND. More reasons to defer now than 30 yrs ago.

It’s a tricky one, because 5 is a lot older than just turned four. My three year old is August born and I don’t think she would be ready to start school in September, she can’t write any letters clearly for instance even though we practice she just doesn’t have great fine motor skills for her age. If we were still living in the UK I think I would ask to defer her however luckily we are in France we’re although the compulsory school age is 3 years old she won’t actually start the more formal elements until she is 6.

I agree OP. Everyone should stick with their allocated year group and it should be acknowledged and extra support in place (if needed) for summer borns.

All the evidence is clear, children who are the oldest in their cohort do better until at least 16.

Just turned 4 is so early to start school, the only reason we have such an early school age in this country is to get more women back to work it isn't beneficial for children at all.

The big issue here seems to be jealousy.

And again there is no LA in the country that insists on deferred children joining a year one class. The level of misinformation on this thread is outstanding.

Twins are not necessarily always behind. DS was the tallest in the class from Kindy to sixth form, when a couple of others in the year matched his height.
Both DD and DS were advanced academically, could read well at 4 and gained outstanding results at all stages.

True but people tend to focus on reception when deferring not thinking about other end.
It can impact work experience opportunities eg some medical opportunities need to be 18 and tests for competitive uni applications too. Lnat isn’t weighted for age for example (law aptitude) so some kids sit at 18, some barely 17. It’s not surprising that some switched on parents are seeing deferring as giving potential advantages.

My DD was 3 weeks early (due 2nd Sept!) and there were lots of conversations about should we defer or not. She went with her correct cohort in the end as she seemed ready and the only option we were offered was to skip straight into yr1 if we did defer. As it turned out she largely skipped Reception anyway due to COVID and we are still seeing the impact to her of those foundations not being properly laid, so I would never advise people to skip reception entirely.
I think they should bring back the mid year entry option, so August babies are at least 4.5 before they go to school

It's hardly jealousy when lots of parents could defer their children and choose not to. What exactly do you think they are jealous of?

I could have deferred both my children and that would have been the absolute worst thing for them. They are thriving in their current school year however it is tiresome that the same deferred boy wins most races on sports day and the top 10 academic performers in the younger years was dominated by those who were deferred and had an extra year at preschool to embed skills and knowledge. The system is terrible and is currently effectively forcing those with summer borns to defer. A 16 month gap between kids is insane!

Lol it's nothing like it.

These are just kids, born when they're born and varying in size just like all humans.

They're being educated, they're not in a competition with each other.

If everyone defers, it becomes a bit meaningless, and simply encourages even more people to defer

I'd think best to stick to the cut off dates unless there's a medical (or similar) reason

I honestly only thought schools could defer late August children. Why on earth are children in April or May being deferred?!!! That’s bizarre. Are you sure they’re not being deferred due to SEN?

I'm in Scotland and the youngest age children can start school is 4.5. Children born between 1st March and 31st August start school (Autumn term starts in Mid-August up here) when they are 5.

It's the children born 1 September – last day in February who can start in the August before they turn 5. And any child who is still only 4 when the autumn term starts, can have their school entry deferred. Children who have deferred entry to primary school are entitled to an additional year of funded early learning and childcare

I do think 4.5 is absolutely the youngest which should be required to have to be in school, although some 4 year olds probably are ready and that's fine. But there is a big difference in maturity between the ages of 4 and 5. I would be deferring too if I didn't think my child was ready.

I agree with you OP, although I recall an incident when my dc was in reception, where a bunch of reception boys were going around beating up the year 1s!

As a bright September born, I scream inside when I see posts like one of the pp's above where they say they are deferring their perfectly capable April/ May born child just to give them a perceived advantage. You are running the risk of your dc getting bored and disillusioned for many of their primary school years, instead of being excited and stretched by new concepts and mixing with more mature peers. I honestly think it is a crime to keep bright kids back a year. In the same way, of course kids struggling to meet developmental milestones should be allowed to be kept back a year, no matter when their birthday is.

No she wasn’t she was always going to one of the youngest but not the smallest.

DD was March and all her close primary friends are younger and taller than her

your issue just seems to be with one child

Slightly off topic, but we moved house when my eldest son, born end of July, was just short of being 5. In our previous education authority the policy was children started school the term after their 5th birthday, three start dates a year, ie September in his case. In the area we moved to, all children started school in the September after their 4th birthday, so he had almost missed Reception when he started three weeks before the end of term.

The Headteacher was keen to get him in for the last three weeks so that he had some experience of school routines, ie dinners, where the toilets were, playtimes etc. I was worried as he was still having an afternoon nap until the day before he went to school but he seemed to cope quite well without it.

It did take him a couple of years though to catch up, made worse because he was left handed and struggled with writing! We found though that the school nursery he had attended part time at our old house had taught to basic literacy skills, he knew some phonics for instance. The new school were able to provide some SEN support working with the Deputy Head which certainly helped. By the time he moved to the Juniors, he was pretty much average with his peers who had had the extra year at school but his handwriting remained poor even as an adult!

So I guess he showed that summer born children will catch up eventually but obviously all children develop at different rates and maybe he would have achieved more if he’d had that extra year at school?