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 have a mid August born, he was my first. He started school 2 weeks after turning 3 and he was smaller than all the other kids but so ready for it socially and academically. By the time his year group started Year1 he'd caught up size wise and since then has been one of the biggest and excelled academically and socially. He's now almost 14 and he's bigger than any of the men in the family, I'm talking almost 6ft, size 11 feet and well built. Kids catch up, send them to school when they're due to start unless there is an actual reason. He got far more out of a year at school at 3years old than he would have another year at home/private nursery. Back then it was only 15hrs a week but 3 days a week i paid for the wrap around so he done full school days and they were big classes of 25-30 children.
Also in regards to mixed year groups my 2nd child is a May baby almost 7 in Year 2. When he started the eligble hours had changed so he got 30 from the term after he was 3 so he went full time at the age of 3 and 3 months just after Covid. The school he goes to is a small village school and year groups mix. Current class is Y1&Y2 so he is one of the older ones, in September when he starts Y3 the class will be Y3 & Y4 so my 7 year and 3 month old will be in a class with kids starting to turn 9 in September. It works and I have no complaints. One year they are the younger ones and the next they an older one. They learn to adapt to be that bit calmer/gentler with younger kids and also learn from older kids and also form different friendships. Every child is different, I was almost 5 when I started school just because I'm October and there wasn't nursery then right into reception and I honestly can't imagine having a child hone until they are 5.

The disadvantage (actual or perceived) is class moves at an older pace if several older kids. So a summer born none deferred is perceived as young or babyish or behind the class when actually all bang on age appropriate.
Sports wise - older kids more likely to make school teams (bigger/more co ordinated) then more likely to get picked up by academies and ultimately more likely to make professional teams or university scholarships.

I was a summer born, academically very able and didn't struggle socially, I was often bored with the academic work until A level and even then I didn't really feel challenged until my first degree, being deferred would've been awful for me. I don't think it should be common practice unless the child in question has developmental delays or there are concerns they wouldn't cope. Otherwise everyone does it and those born feb-march are the new summer borns for their year group.

I think the size thing is a red herring though, DS is in the year group appropriate for his age with no deferment and is significantly taller than lots of his peers, should he not be allowed to do PE? Some of the other children are significantly smaller than average (including his best friend) , you will always get a range of sizes in a year group.
My niece is 10, DS is 6 he is the same height as she is, he is one of the tallest in his class she is the smallest in hers.

Why on earth are so many deferring?

I agree that having an age difference of much more than a year in the same class is not great and will just further disadvantage the summer borns that did not defer. I think the main problem is not that you can defer though but that kids start school at such a ridiculously young age. At age 4 or 5, 12 months makes a massive difference in terms of development. The difference wouldn't be so crass a couple of years later but by that time summer borns might already be lagging behind or have had their confidence dented.

My dd is born end of August. We took a lot of advice from several of her nursery teachers and rhey all advised strongly against deterring. They said she is ready for school, academically very bright and thst if we held her back she would just get bored. Bored of what? Bored of playing? Bored of being a child?

She is doing fine academically but I can see a marked difference in terms of confidence, social maturity and size between her and the class mates that are almost a year older. I think if you've got a summer born there isn't a good option but if kids just started school later it wouldn't matter so much. This would be better for all kids. No child needs formal education at the age of 4 or 5.

Rant over.

UK seems to be one of very few countries that children start school at such a young age. Summer babies should be starting at 5 not 4. An April or May born child starting school at 5 and a bit is far more appropriate than an August born child starting at 4. In Ireland there is more parental choice with this. State just requires that each child needs to start school before their 6th birthday.

OP, so you had the option to defer the year, choose not to and now are giving out about people who choose to defer ? My daughter started at 5 and 4 months and it was the right decision for us.

That’s a much better system.

I really can’t see the issue with some kids being bigger, it’s all mixed classes here as we are rural:

Reception and Y1
Y2-4
Y5-6

They all get along nicely and all range in size, strength and ability. Doesn’t matter at all if they are deferred or not.

I’m all for deferral on the whole though, we start children far too young in the UK. I had an early September born though so not a consideration. She’s almost 6 and some of her class are still 4.

Girlguiding is by age but there’s lots of flexibility not strict cut offs. So eg we usually take Guides at 10 but they can be 11.
The summer borns sometimes at a disadvantage due to limited places - eg our brownies is full so any turning 7 after Easter can’t move up and need to go to another group as we are full from those who turned 7 between September and Easter.

I completely agree with you. A friend did not defer her late August born daughter as she couldn't afford to pay for another year of childcare when she has younger children that are starting nursery. The closest in age in her year is 3 months older and there are those that are 15 months older. My friend is being told her daughter is behind her peers but is that really that surprising when the age gap is so large. I think it should be limited to August born only that can be deferred.

I agree - I also have a summer-born. Whilst there are certainly issues with being the youngest in a class, there's actually also significant difficulties with being the oldest in the class, I don't think it's always in a child's best interests to defer. However, I don't think there should be gatekeeping as there's no system that will accurately filter which child it's appropriate for and which it isn't. The people who know the child best are the parents - and if they defer they have to find an extra year of childcare so I don't expect it is done lightly.

What I think should happen is that schools that have more than one class per year group should be encouraged/expected to split the classes by age in KS1 - so that those born from April (of the "previous" yeargroup) to November/December-ish are in a class of slightly older children all together, and those born from January to August are in a class of younger children. That way, although the whole yeargroup may cover a 17-month span of ages, each actual classroom only spans 8-9 months.

By the end of KS1 the differences have generally evened out and it will be fine for schools to mix the age groups up for KS2.

In schools with single-form entry a similar effect could be done with table-clusters for many activities - small schools with half a classroom per yeargroup have been mixing ages in a similar way forever, so it can clearly be done.

You wouldn’t have seen many as the legislation only started from 2014/2015 onwards.

Why does it play havoc with GSCEs? Interested to find out your perspective and experience.

Schools refusal is based on proving it would be in the child’s best interest to miss a year (which obviously would rarely be the case).

My DS and several boys in his class play for the local rugby club. I imagine it would be embarrassing for a classmate to be playing with the class below. But also guess that there are age grade RFU rules about 'playing down', so that they aren't getting smashed by kids who are 15 months older. 12 months is noticeable enough.

It all works out in the end.

I started school days after my 4th birthday because I'm end of August but it never held me up.

Sports teams are based on age so “under 9s football team” They move up to the next age bracket sooner but their school friends quickly follow. August 31st to say September 6th is a week’s difference.

As soon as I found out I was due to have an August baby me and my DH started looking into the processes of deferring a school year 🤣

We always knew we wouldn’t send him to school at just turned 4. It’s not that we didn’t want him being the youngest (which is a bizarre claim that a lot of people come out with), but purely because starting school at just turned 4 years old is too young.

If you are concerned about the fairness of the system, you should lobby for all children to start school the term after their 5th birthday, not their 4th, because that way even the youngest in the class will still be socially and emotionally ready for school.

Summer born children shouldn’t be punished because of their birthday by being made to go to school when they’re too young for it.

I think the issue is more that children are compared too much in year. Of course summer borns will be 'behind' those born in the September. They are much younger! Why compare them just because the school years were set in the certain way? Each child should be treated individually. Deferring them just so they can be compared with children younger than them instead, and considered 'better' makes no sense.

This! 100%.

Someone does have to be the youngest but a child born in late August is primed not to be that child. I would definitely have kept her back for the year and in your shoes, I'd want her to repeat her first year. It will put her in much better stead educationally and in terms of team sports.
I think the difference lies between people seeing school as childcare and people wanting their child to be more than ready for formal education.
You can't try to stop parents who want to give their child the best start.
As a teacher, I can tell you that the older children manage much better. My daughter is November born so will have to start school at 4 turning 5 but if she was April, I'd definitely be starting her at 5.

Deferral of younger for the year children in Scotland has been a "thing" since I was at school and I started P1 in 1977. It is so not a big deal having potentially a 15 month age range in a class that Scottish parents on the whole are most amused by the angst that English/Welsh parents are experiencing.

So there are children in your child's class who are more than a year older - so what? You could have chosen to defer and didn't. Deferral gives flexibility in a system where there was previously no flexibility and lets parents make the right decision for their individual child.

Being summer born and staying with her own cohort worked in DD1's favour as she was always academically advanced for her age. We found that there were several older and academic kids in her class at about her level. I think you have to try to meet individual needs and not assume they will be behind.

I think it would be great though if they were still in kindergarten until six or seven with no formal education or testing expected and learning through play.

I didn't defer my summer born kiddo. He's one of the biggest/ tallest in his year group and well on with most academic things. I did think about it but realised he would be absolutely fine.
Ironically some of the oldest children in the year group were the tiniest, and also struggled with picking up reading etc as fast.
You need to think about what is best for your child not what others are doing. Control the controllables

I think this is right - it is already a risk that some children are ahead of others that teachers have to deal with. Ridiculous deferring makes this even harder. How can you teach a class where some students are nearly 18 months older than the youngest? This will clearly mean either the oldest or youngest are more likely to get an education not right for them. There has to be a reasonable cut off which works for all kids as much as possible.

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.

Curious as to why? Many secondary school students in Ireland turn 18 before their final year of school, it hasn't done them any harm and we've a very good education system with well educated young people.