August born baby

[navalpenguin]

Hi

I think this topic has been done to death, however I hope you will indulge me.

My baby is due on the 31st of August.

Firstly, would this mean he would be the oldest, or the youngest on his entry into reception (on Wikipedia it says "Age of the 31st August").

Secondly, as a parent can I choose when and into which year he starts school. So if I wanted him to go into reception and be potentially one year and one day older than another child in the same year, could I choose to do this? Or would he have to start a year later and go into Year 1, still almost a year younger than a potential classmate?

If the answer is no, has this ever been challenged through the courts and if necessary to the European Court of Human Rights.

Where I live it would make them the very youngest in the year (if born on 31st August or before). You wouldn't have to send them to school until the term after they were five but that would mean missing Reception and going straight into year one.

Okay, your baby maybe born in August or September. If born very close to midnight on 31st I would probably get them to put the time as 1st September if possible.

However my DS had in his infant class children born on 1st September and 31st July and I would say that now (in their teens) there is no obvious difference. In fact one of his most mature friends is an August baby.

The educational difference is a statistical one. All school systems have a cut off date (it just varies, could be January, February or March). Some systems allow for parents to hold their child back a year, some don't.

I know someone ho lived somewhere where summer babies could be held back a year. The result was that her Summer born daughter who was ready for school at the normal time, was held back because otherwise when would be in class with children more than a year older than her. It just made the cut off date fuzzier.

I really wouldn't be stressing this now. By the time your child is born you may have moved somewhere like Scotland where the cut off date is a different time of year.

In England he would always be the youngest with a 31st August birthday. You have some choice over when he would start school but not normally which year he would start. It would be usual if you deferred a year for him to start in Y1 rather than reception.

It could be with a due date of the 31st he will decide to wait until the 1st Sept and solve the problem himself
good luck

Agree it's far too early to worry. If this is your first baby, he or she is more likely than not to be born after the supposed due date (which is basically a guess - only a minority of babies actually turn up on the designated day).

FWIW my ds is a late July baby and is doing absolutely fine at school and has done ever since reception. In reception his teachers were very aware of the developmental differences between 30 children born up to a year apart.

If you are in England he would be the youngest in his year, starting just after his 4th birthday.

You can choose when he starts school but not which year he goes into. He won't have to start school until September 2015 but if you leave it till then he will go straight into year 1. This also means you will have a limited choice of schools - most schools will already be full up with children who started in Reception during the previous year. You can, however, get a place for him to start school in September 2014 and delay entry until the Spring or Summer terms without any penalty.

I don't know if this has been challenged through the courts but I am 99.9% certain that any such challenge would fail. The current situation is clearly set out in the relevant law and the Admissions Code (which has the force of law).

Under the European Convention on Human Rights your child is entitled to an education and you are entitled to have your child educated in accordance with your religious views. However, there is no guarantee of any particular level of education or of the quality of that education. Saying that your child has to start in year 1 if you delay to September 2015 can hardly be classed as denying his right to an education. Given existing judgements by the ECHR I would be very surprised if they considered that it was a breach of the Convention to insist that your child goes into Y1 if you delay entry a year.

My August baby (who is 5 today!) has just finished her reception year. She has loved school and was so ready ready for it last September. She was at nursery from a young age and this may have contributed to her evel of independence and maturity, but I couldn't say for sure.
I agree with the other posters who say it is far too early to worry about. Enjoy your last couple of weeks of pregnancy without worrying about school, after all you'll have 12 years of that once your child starts whether a September baby or an August baby!

My birthday is Aug 31 and i was always the youngest in the class. I was absolutely fine and was usually top of the class, so don't worry.

Anyway, as others have said the baby will probably be born in September so will be the oldest in the year - as was my DD, due late Aug, was born early Sept.

Just a thought - although you do not have to send your child to school until he or she is five years old, do bear in mind that if your choice is an oversubscribed school with a stringent admissions policy, the place that might have been available in reception will not be held open for you until year one. You will then risk there not being a vacancy in year one.

IMHO age 4 is too young for a little one to have to go to school.

It is not only August born children who take time to catch up, but those born in June and July also.

Lucinda - 4 is not always too young to start school, my DD was desperate to start for about a year before she was able to start at nursery class having just turned 4 (early Sep birthday). She was really bored for a year in her preschool. Depends on the child.

Lucinda - it really does depend on the child. Like I said, my DD was totally ready for school, having turned 4 a week before term started. She is a bright, independent little girl and would have been bored witless having another year at home, she really needed the stimulation that school and the social group that comes with that gave her. My DS is a Novemeber baby so he will be one of the oldest in the year when he starts, but as yet I couldn't say if he'll be as ready for school as DD was. The age is quite an arbitrary cut-off point really. It's got to come somewhere - unless the system is totally reformed and it's all done on ability rather than age and I really can't see that happening.

DS's birthday is 7th Sept.
Loads of people - friends and professionals -including an infant teachers, child psychiatrist, professional sportsman and my HV have told me, IN GENERAL - that boys do better being the eldest in their year, but Summer born girls are better off going to school a year "early".

NavalP you know you've got a boy? My DS1 is May and DS2 is August born. I think it makes a difference for boys. Girls do mature earlier and may cope better with school. Our school is v. small and friendly and don't mind half-days to start with. I think it made a difference to how they both coped. Don't think about it now. But see how he goes through nursery and your instincts will say what's best for him.

Born 31st aug = jan starter. Born 1 day later = 9 more months of nursery fees till they start school (£ 9000). I think I know which one I prefer!

Interesting. I have a late august boy who was very prem and should have been november. He's only one but there is no leeway and I worry. Maybe things will change in the next few years.

My son's birthday is tomorrow (actually today) so he was always the oldest at schoolin our area. I do think it stopped his mild dyslexia being spotted early as he was near the bottom of the class in spelling/reading but was the oldest and good at maths.

However, I also think he was v lucky to have been born on 2nd Sept as he was due on 31st August as he was able to cope with long school day, being five when he started and a little more confident. A friend with twins, who were only just four when they started full-time school, asked for them to repeat reception year as they were so behind and was refused.

Have a son just starting senior boarding school with a very late Aug birthday. During his junior years we were concerned about how he would keep up, but he has, also I was told at his previous prep shcool not to start 'medling with the years' if he was the youngest so be it! The head said he understood, he had a son born at the end of July. Guess what - that Head got his son to do two Reception years!!

So clearly people are medling with the system...

Having said that I would had preferred his birthday to be in Sept, of course it has to make a difference, especially in the early years, however I see a number of parents now trying to give every advantage to their children. Some are slow at writing, some have mild/dyslexia etc. I think, however we have gone a little too far. Once the world of work is entered how will they cope? I would love to be given extra time to finish reports, presentations etc but it just doesnt happen. Not sure what the answer is..

So was it an august baby after all?

I'm guessing she might be otherwise engaged!