To think a child born on the 5th august isn’t that young for their school year

[Penny779]

As there are still three weeks left of the academic year so still could be many children much younher

5th August will absolutely be considered young for the school year.

in younger years that’s a big difference. Imagine being in a class where there is mere weeks before the oldest & youngest. You’re trying to get a 4 yo to read at the same level as 5 yo. My son is a June baby and in early years the difference was very apparent. if anyone has got an August baby I know my sons school would allow them to be held back a year. It’s what I would do especially for a boy

I worked out about 20% of DDs year were July or August born. There wasn't much difference after a short while.

My son is early August and not only was he the youngest in his class through various schools, he was also quite immature socially and very small for his age. Were it not for his ability in all the sports that the schools played, and the fact that academically he found school easy, then he would have struggled. Reading, writing, spelling etc he was far in excess of his actual age by several years. Shame he was a lazy bugger and put as little effort into school as he possibly could ... but can't blame that on being an August born!

It might somewhat depend where you are but in most of the UK August babies will definitely be the youngest in their year by quite some way.

I was a late August baby and was always the youngest in my school year.

Scotland and (I think) Northern Ireland may vary a bit because their school summer holidays start and end at different times to England and Wales but that's it.

Mine is mid-august and has always been the youngest in his year..

At that age you’re are talking about September born children having nearly a years more life experience, a years more exposure to language, a years more time to develop gross and fine physical skills, social skills, emotional intelligence. A five year old has a fifth more experience than a four year old. Obviously these are wide margins, some five year olds are immature, some four year olds are mature.

But having taught reception I can tell you that the ones who fall asleep on the carpet and are exhausted at the end of the day are often the younger children who really find those first two terms tough.

My daughters were born on August 31st and weren’t actually due until October. They’re in KS2 and thriving.

They will be one of the youngest.

Loads of people who went to Oxford or Cambridge will be along to tell you that they were born on the 20-something of August and it didn’t make any difference for them etc etc (their exhausted parents will tell you how hard they had to work to make that so) but don’t listen to outliers.
It is already too late to defer for summer born entry so you might as well get on with it but understand that (state) education from Reception upwards is a system and that they will always be “behind” even if they are doing great for them/their stage. This will hold them “back” for ages (until teens - again don’t listen to outliers - look at the fact that all 11+ exams weight for age so they know Augusts will do worse than Septembers (on average - again wait for someone to tell you “their” story that contradicts this) - so in short you have to put the home support effort in for a long time to come.

I know people will say how cruel and how rude etc but there’s little point in sugaring this pill - get on it long term - big support over time - then they’ll flourish.

And - if people who have a 2 or 3 year born past May of their year then please, please, please take advantage of the statutory opportunity of back yearing your child. They wouldn’t put something like this into law without good reason.

That doesn’t change that as a general rule summer born youngest children struggle much more academically, socially and behaviourally at school.

It all depends on the child though, surely? My end of August born was walking unaided at 8 months, so no issues with gross motor skills, was reading and writing early.

I know this makes her school sound really shit - but I had to tell her year one teacher she was end of August born at her first year one parents eve last October and she was stunned, she thought she was one of the oldest.

Exactly. And despite what people still claim, no they don’t have to miss reception and go straight into Y1, and no they don’t have to miss the last year of primary and go straight to secondary.

any birthday is 5th August and I can confirm I was always young for my year, not a single one of my friends were younger than me.

My DDs birthday is 11th August and she was the youngest in her year (2 form entry).

If there’s 52 weeks in the school year then being born in the 49th week is clearly - by a matter of statistics - going to make you one of the youngest.

Summer borns in NI are the oldest rather than the youngest. It’s nothing to do with the summer holidays, the year cut off is different so the youngest are never as young starting.

depends on where you live.

in England they will be amongst the very youngest in Scotland they will be right in the middle because we do the dates of birth from March not September

I don’t think my dc, who is 17 and will wait till the second half of August to be 18 can see any benefits of having a birthday so late in the school year. So many of his friends are driving independently, they can go to the pub and there was a cinema trip to see an 18 film recently and he couldn’t go as he would be mortified to be asked for ID and turned away.
yes, a birthday on the 5th August means a child is ‘young’ in their year group.

I'm guessing you didn't really pay attention in your maths classes did you?

There won't be loads who are younger. Maybe one or two, or maybe yours will be youngest.

Depends on the year.

Assuming UK there are approx 30 kids in a class and 365 days they could be born on bar leap years so round it to one every 12 days. That means you'd expect 2 kids younger. Of course birthdays aren't spread evenly and you'd have deferrals, disproportionately affecting August, which means that it's not unlikely for them to be the youngest. Then there are different class sizes depending on school which would affect that too.

Why does it matter?

My son is a June baby and was in the oldest half of his reception class, but only because about 20 out of 30 of the kids were born in July and August. My daughter’s reception class was much more mixed birthday wise. It was one class per year btw they didn’t split the year into 2 classes. 4 years and 3 months seemed so little to start school.

I’d be surprised if there were “many” born after that.
What’s your reason for asking?

My 8 year old was born on the 24/8/2017 he’s the 2nd youngest in his year 4 class, but he’s in a mixed year 3/4 class so he’s with younger kids.

It's not hard to work out that, with 49 weeks of the academic year before that date, the vast majority of the year will be older.

But it's pointless to speculate. Wait till they start school and discover whether they are in fact the youngest or nearly the youngest.

Thanks for articulating this better than I could process it in my own brain. I was so confused reading the question. The OP either lives in Scotland or has a completely different concept of time to me.

ETA I don’t think OP living in Scotland can explain it actually because re-reading it they do specify three weeks so clearly they’re somewhere where the cut off is September.

if you (incorrectly) assume an even distribution of births over 365 93% of children will be older

taking into account an non even distribution I would say 95% of children will be

so with a class of 30 on average 1-2 children max will be younger