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

I'd also assumed this would be the case. I.e. you don't have to put your summer-born into reception if you don't feel they are developmentally ready but when they do start school, they join their actual age cohort. That's how it worked at my DC's primary school i.e. there was an august-born child who joined half way through reception.

We tried to defer our child but LA refused. In our case this has been hugely detrimental and being able to defer would have given them the year they needed , instead the started at wrong time and struggled throughout.

It would be detrimental to miss reception year so would cause issues for deferred children going straight to year 1. There’s such a huge difference and it would cause some children to struggle more. I hadn’t realised just how different year 1 was till the school told me in no uncertain terms my ds wouldn’t manage year 1 and the gap between him and his peers would grow so quickly

I don’t believe 4yos should be in school at all, except maybe for the last few weeks of being 4 if they are young for the year level. So I’d have deferred my summer born (june) if I could as they are too young for school. Instead I moved them back to Australia and started them at school at 5.5 which felt just right. I could start my youngest at 4 turning 5 two weeks after school starts, but I’m leaning to 5 turning 6.

I was deferred in the 80s so it's always been an option.

I don't think it is at all unfair. Like the other summer borns, you had the option to defer but you exercised your right not to do so. Everyone is different. FWIW, many countries, for example Germany, they start primary school at around the age of 6. It works for them. Also in Germany, they have "sitzenbleiben" which means repeating the year if you don't do well enough. So you can have 17-year-olds in a class of mainly 15-year-olds, for example.

Unless there are good reasons, there is literally no point in deferring. My DS is end August birthday, they always catch up. He's doing GCSEs now and thriving.

Incorrect. Children do not have to join their ‘actual’ cohort and can stay in their adopted cohort for the whole of their school career.

Why is having older children in the class putting your child at a disadvantage? Why are you talking about it like it’s a competition? I’m a reception teacher and I’ve had children deferred before and it 100% was the right decision for those children - however it didn’t have a negative impact on the year they joined at all.

As a secondary teacher of 35 years, I’ve seen maybe a handful out of year - usually children who have moved to the U.K. so their language use is behind. As I said, it plays havoc with GCSE results and I imagine if it’s becoming common secondaries will resist. I don’t think it’s actually good for students to turn 18 when they aren’t even in their final year of school either.

Parents should do the right thing by their own children, in accordance with the opportunities available to them. There is no need to factor in what may or may not be 'fair' to others when they make that decision.

If some children are not ready to start school at compulsory school age, then perhaps compulsory school age is too young?

I think parents having the ability to defer is right. And it's a parenting choice. If your child is just a few days over 4 when reception starts, some will find it challenging. Not all. Some are really ready for School at that age.
And yes if most people defer their kids it will skew the age profile but there is no solution to that.

This is what I was told when I considered deferring my son - he would join the year group he would have been in reception with and would have missed out on forming friendships - if he had even been able to get a place at that stage.

Parents don’t want their dc’s to have to catch up. If the mechanism is now there to apply for April - August borns to defer then whilst it was envisaged as being a mechanism for say late August premies it’s understandable some parents will seek to do it for perceived advantage.
Previously it was very rigid. I recall a newspaper case of boy twins born on different sides of midnight 31/8 and the LEA not budging, they’d be in their 20s now.

Do deferred kids have to do outside school sports teams, cubs etc. with the year below? How embarrassing for them.

I appreciate where you are coming from but lots of studies support the findings that young children, the ages we are talking about, suffering mentally and academically by starting too early.
Perhaps the answer is that we start all children older.
Steiner, for example, promotes not learning to read till age 7. It doesn’t hurt to think outside our existing system.
Here’s some research

Does that not just create a new artificial cut off though. If everyone June to August defer then the April May dc become the youngest.
the problem is the way we teach and the way schools are structured

I’m with you OP. My DC is an August born child but was also premature so wasn’t suppose to be born until October. I didn’t defer him, but there are kids in his class who have been deferred. So naturally he does seem a lot younger and immature compared to his peers

I have an august DC and strongly considered deferring. As she had no additional needs, I decided the downsides outweighed the benefits. She has thrived and her class happens to be about 50-50 split between summer born and older children so she's not an anomaly. The biggest difference is just general maturity, not academic, but challenges and differences are part of life! Her younger sibling is November born and I can already see that the extra year of nursery childcare will drag for all parties towards the end!

We had a deferred kid in one of our sons years. He played sports with the rest of the year.
he was able to start d of e with the year above, if he wanted.

Weird. At my DC’s school and every primary I can think of, children who defer simply start school in Year 1 and skip Reception. That way there’s no issue with them being the oldest by far in a Reception class; they don’t feel different because they’re with their peers; and they leave primary school at the right age.

The issue isn’t deferring. It’s having deferred children start in Reception.

Why would it affect out of school clubs? It doesn’t matter for home educated children, they go on age.

My dc is late August so would have been youngest in the year in England but in Scotland the cut off is end of Feb meaning Feb birthdays start when they are 4.5 or March birthdays are almost 5.5. Lots of children aren't ready for school when they have just turned 4 this seems a better cut off time

it's nonsense and entitled.

I didn’t realise this deferring was such a thing………. I must be older than I thought. 🤣