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

So where do we draw the boundary?

I think OP was more referring to the trend of people deferring April / May born children rather than actual summer babies!

We don’t. Deferral never used to happen. Being August born has never handicapped me despite being the youngest in every school year.

My school I take in Scotland ran 01 March to 29 February the following year (which was a leap year) I was born in May and one of my good Schoolfriends was born the following February and started school at 4. It never had any ill effects on her.

It’s already clear . You can defer a child born from April onwards. From my experience it’s good to have the option. I made a mistake not deferring and I’m so glad the school highlighted this to us !

But then the parents of the May-borns have the same issues and concerns which lead July and August-born to be deferred.

We’ve delayed my late August child, now starting this September in reception. He has had significant struggles since birth & even though he’s with children in preschool nearly a year younger you would think it’s the other way around. It was never a question to us that we would delay him a year to give him the best chance to start school as best he can. We have a younger child who is also summer born which at present he would go in his normal year group but we would consider delaying if we felt he needed it. For some children it’s not about giving them a year “at home” but they just are not ready for school for a range of reasons.

I think you are making a good point, OP. I have noticed it becoming more common (where I live anyway).
I don’t actually know how this pans out when they are older… Do kids always stay at their deferred year or do they have to jump up a year at secondary? Eg do kids who deferred end up turning 18 while they are in year 12 rather than year 13 – what happens then?

I agree not all twins are the same.
From a simple size point of view one of mine was always the tallest ( and still is ) whilst the other the shortest.
From an academic point of view mine also didn’t suffer, in the end. The beginning of their school years was a nightmare though. They are now studying for degrees in neuroscience and film and television, so clearly in the long run they did well.
I was asking what OP would propose for twins though. From her point of view because not all are the same and twins, according to doctors and the science, are behind at birth and take many years to catch up ( if at all ).

No it isn't unfair. You are choosing to send your child to school early before compulsory school age. What is unfair is the advantage given to winter-borns in education, sport, life opportunities. Thankfully there is now common sense that an only just 4 year old doesn't belong in school. More similarly aligned to European countries and elsewhere in the world.

It all depends on the child.

My dd is in reception, she’s August 28th and the youngest in her class by 4 months.

But she’s ahead in everything academically, and is soaring socially and emotionally. Her teacher said she forgets dd is so little sometimes, as you’d think she was one of the oldest.

On the other hand, my eldest was October born and struggled in reception.

Everyone thought we were mad for not deferring, especially as I don’t work so could have kept her at home or sent her to school nursery for a few hours, but she’s thriving, we knew she would because of her personality and who she is.

In USA where been a thing much longer some some demographics much more likely to defer kindergarten (wealthy/white) Not aware of any similar stats for uk yet.

Like the Scottish system then? Children starting in P1 this August (we don't have Reception) will generally have been born between 1st March 2020 and 28th February 2021. Deferring children born January/February is common now and, in our area, sometimes November/December too. I don't know that people see it as "cheating" the system, more that their child may not be so ready for school.

At the other end of school, our exam system means some people have the required entry qualifications after 5th year (Y12). So, only 16 years old - although I don't know many who have taken up places at that age.

I agree with this entirely as long as that includes multiple births as well of course.

I agree completely. My daughters were days off of being September born (and were actually due in October). I don’t think deferring should be allowed. When does it stop? If all July and August babies defer then the May and June babies will be the youngest, so then they defer?

Someone has to be the youngest and in Reception and Year 1 sometimes that age gap really shows but it’s not a forever thing. My daughters are excelling in their “correct” year group far more than my November born baby is in his.

April/May borns were clearly treated like July/August borns because funding ran by terms so April borns waited as long as August borns.

I agree with you. However, I do have to also point out that my late July DS is the second biggest in his class, so the size thing is not always so simple. He really struggled at the beginning with the social side, and I did consider deferring him but had the same feeling as you that it wasn't necessarily the best option for everyone. He'd have been an absolute giant in the year below if I had!

It’s not about being the youngest though. It’s about being ready for school.

Deferred children are supposed to join their actual cohort as far as I understand it - it’ll cause mayhem in secondary if not, where league tables are based on the % passing the exam who are eligible to take it - so deferred children who are kept back a year will count as a fail in their GCSE year for core subjects, and their results won’t even count the next year.

This. There are lots of schools and educational settings where kids do things in mixed age groups, and this is of massive benefit to the children involved if done right. There are many kids who are just naturally bigger than others. There is one child in year two of my child's school who is smaller than the smallest reception child, just how it turned out.
The issue is to deal with the behaviour, not try to make each class homogeneous by age/size of child.

But the standard of being ready for school will shift if you keep changing the boundaries. If the age children begin school keeps being pushed back, the expectations of being “school ready” will be more demanding.

How are parents who choose to delay trying to ‘swizz’ a legitimate system put in place by the government? Please do explain.

How do you feel about most other European countries starting children aged 6-7, NI children born in July/August having to opt in to start at 4 and Scotland having a minimum starting age of 4.5. Are these parents trying to swizz the system?

Funding for sixth form/college ends aged 19 by the way.

I think there has to be a cut off so someone is always going to be the youngest. Children reach compulsory school age after they turn 5 so it is fine to defer them for a year but if that happens then I think they should go into the correct age group i.e. year 1. The issue here isn’t the deferring it is that the school have elected to put those children into reception. It might make more sense to go back to staggering entry so the summer borns only do the last term of reception before moving into year 1 but I also understand why this is more difficult for the school to manage. I wonder where it stops though. Is the plan for deferred children to always be a year behind or at some point with there be a jump up/year missed.

www.gov.uk/government/publications/summer-born-children-school-admission/summer-born-children-starting-school-advice-for-parents

I know what you mean, I’m July born and was not deferred because it wasn’t a thing in the 80s, never struggled in fact hot among the top exam results in my year. I would have been so bored if kept back and children being bored can have negative consequences. I think I would have also been annoyed with my parents for holding me back by the time I got to secondary school age.
My nephew is August born, bot deferred and never struggled.
I think it should be something to consider depending on the individual child rather than an automatic decision based purely on birthday.