Are your summer born children under achievers or high flyers?

[whoknowswho]

An article in the telegraph suggests August born children struggle at school by the age of seven and are more likely to take vocational quals than go to a top uni . My very late august born DD is thriving at school (Y2) top of the class and loving it but she's still very young so this could all change I guess. What are your summer born children like?www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8860219/Summer-born-children-less-likely-to-attend-top-universities.html#

I would prefer the kids started learning to read and write at 6. Really struggled trying to get July DD interested and is only just getting interested now at 7. Prefer the European system of schooling. If parents want their children to read they could teach them themselves. My nephew told himself to read at 4 but Year 2 SATS exacerbate the problem. I encouraged mine by reading to them every night and still do although Year 7 boy now reads everything and just been put on to Dickens and GCSE level reading material. He could not read properly until 7 so that does show that early reading in my experience makes no difference but help by parents in exploring an in interest in reading and learning does. I still would not plan to have autumn babies now as I love my artistic, dreamy summer-borns.

In lots of countries, children start learning reading and writing later i.e. formal school (6/7). But they have often been attending nursery/kindergarten for years. So, entering a social learning environment when you are 3/4/5 is not a big deal of itself, the problem is if you go and are expected to be able to hold a pencil/have emotional maturity beyond your years.

I agree with that Hardgoing.

our educational system favours the physically advanced. Children whose parents have more education are likely to be better fed and physically stronger and this will offset, to some extent, the disadvantage of a summer birthday. The physically advanced are seen as brighter and get more attention. They are less likely to be bullied and therefore more likely to keep their self-confidence.

Children who manage to survive to 16 with an interest in learning are likely to find the gap diminshes and at 18 they are still developing while the physically advanced may have reached their peak. Unfortunately quite a few will have lost all self-confidence by that stage.

I shall advise my children to try and have their children between September and December!

I am summer born, and have a PhD. I was effortlessly clever throughout my school career and beyond. My DC are both summer babies. One is super-super clever (top of high-achieving prep school class by some way); the other is somewhere comfortably in the middle. I don't think being summer born really plays any role - though I didn't send mine to Reception, as I think that just four is too young for any child to be at full time school.

ds1 is late July and I sent him to school last year (I didn't have to over here)

I just had his parent teacher meeting last week and he's in the top few in the class for reading writing and maths and the teacher says he's often one of the only ones who knows the answers when she asks the class a question.

His behaviour on the other hand isn't great, he's a lazy stubborn (her words) little git (my words). However although last year she blamed his age for that, this year she has finally understood that it's just his personality and a year older hasn't improved things any!

My DH and a good friend are both June and July Babies and they are the 2 smartest folk I know. Straight A's at A Level and uni types, friend onto PHD level. Friend is also a mumsnetter, so hello friend if you are reading this!

I am always amazed that there are so many posters here saying 'I'm August and have a 1.1 from Cambridge, DD is August and is taking 43 GCSEs.' IF you're all so clever, how come you cannot understand that the results of a statistically significant national survey are going to indicate a trend rather more accurately than your sample size of two?

What, point, exactly are you all trying to make? That the survey cannot possibly be correct? Or are you boasting that you bucked the trend?

I don't get it.

Proper usually I'd agree with you, but in this case, the OP did ask "what are your summer born children like"? She was asking for anecdotes rather than statistics.

No-one has said that the survey cannot possibly be correct. They are just giving their own experiences.

I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why so few people have said "actually, my summer born children are doing really badly at school"

But I can read the thread title properly, ProperLush, and the OP specifically asked for anecdotes not statistics. That's "the point" of the replies, here anyway.

I know the latest statistics say that there is a problem but I suspect there may be a lot self fulfilling prophecy responsible for a lot of the cases IYSWIM. My SIL, a teacher, tells me that there is a lot of variation at reception age due to age gaps but on average children are usually capable of catching up and attainment levelling out as they become older as a few months of an age gap becomes less of an issue. However if we expect less from them overall then we will probably get less, if we support them in what ever way they need as an individual then I believe they can reach their full potential no matter their age. I'm not suggesting that any child is unduly pushed btw, more avoiding making an issue of the younger ones being less mature in the early stages.

I am a summer baby but was educated in Scotland. DH is struggling to understand why DD1 is not the youngest in her year (august) and dd2 will be amongst he youngest.

If there was not a difference why do grammar schools all use age-related scores when assessing who should get in? Younger ones do catch up, the trick is not to let their confidence drop in those early years. Learning to read later as they do in many European countries would stop this. For many children not speaking properly before the age of 5 makes phonics difficult and before you say that is dependant upon home circumstances it is a fact that some sounds just do not click until age 5 such as 'c' at the beginning of a word irrespective of how much education is done in the home so why teach phonics before the age of 6?

I think we are saying the same thing losingtrust. I'm not saying there isn't a difference. I'm suggesting that if we make a big deal of it in front of the children ie highlighting their immaturity and making them think they are worse then you will impair their ability to catch up as they get older IYSWIM.

the title may have asked for anecdotes, but plenty of posters have gone on to rubbish the telegraph article for scare mongering.

I do think that overall summer born children have a harder time - when they start school they are 10 or 11 months younger than the older children and that is HUGE at age 4. With the right combination of factors (educated parents being the key one) then there is no reason they shouldn't go on to succeed, but it is a tougher fight for most of them.

anyone read Malcolm Gladwell?

Of course Minus but I have explained to mine in the early years when they were struggling that some children are just older than them and they will catch up. It has increased their confidence levels as they started to move up the class rather than thinking they were destined to be in the bottom because they were stupid which may happen in some families. My friend was a June birthday when we grew up. She just thought she was stupid and therefore spent most of her primary school years in a daydream which made things worse. At 11 her parents sent her to private school because she 'was not very clever'. That stigma has lived with her which does make it self-fulfilling. Maybe if they had have told her she was just young and needed extra help to catch up this may have changed her view of herself. Her DD is also July and she is trying a completely different approach with her.

They way you do it losing is the exactly the way it should be. Sadly is not that way for many of the young ones teachers should take your attitude too. I sincerely suspect that your children will be amongst those who catch up most effectively as they grow up.

Actually played the right way summer borns may have the advantage that they have to work hard from the beginning. This means they never rest on their laurels which some older children may do and I hold my hand up to that one. When the little kids suddenly start overtaking you when you start secondary through their hard work, you realise. The brightest kids from memory when I started secondary were not necessarily those that got the best O'Levels and A'Levels. Many September-born friends of mine redid their A'Levels while the younger ones were at uni and I am convinced that it was their parents instilling the need to work in them from a young age. You are generally more interested in helping a child that is struggling then one who seems to be blasting their way through. As you say this will depend on the parents not righting them off at a young age.

Our eldest GD was an August baby she was 4 years and 3 weeks old when she started school. She was small height wise but solid smallest in class. There was another litle boy in the class whose birthday was the day after hers. Being so young certainly didn't hold them back at the end of the school year they were both top of the class with reading and writing and ended up on the gifted children's register. She is still doing very well at school and is in year 6 now.

Well, I am one who planned to have a child in the autumn/winter. DD was due in october. Unfortunately she had other ideas and was born at the end of July, so that'll teach me to plan the unplanneable.

I read with interest about all the comments about European schooling.. I live in Italy, where children start formal school at 6. But guess what? Everyone will be expected to read fluently in a few months, and by the age of 7 they will start writing poetry commentaries (real recent case discussed on the little Italy thread, but it tallies with my own experience many years ago). Similar for maths - the learning curve is stupidly steep apparently. And the youngest in the class do struggle in Italy too, so I do not think delaying school start necessarily helps.

I have sent my DD to full-time kindergarten from the age of two, and I have to say that although she started well behind older children (particularly on language issues), it seems that she is slowly catching up and her behaviour and attention span are at least as good if not better than your average 3 year old. Certainly kindergarden has helped us tremendously, and DD has come along in a way that was unthinkable when she started.

I would campaign for prem babies (born before 35 weeks) to choose to start school later, but beyond that I do not think there is a simple solution to this, except doing what you can do as their parent to encourage development on all fronts and making sure early years teachers take into account different ages.

I run literacy catch up classes in a high school. I'm currently working with Year 9. 20 out of 29 are June/July/August born.

Rattus that is a lot. Remembering secondary school when I started most people in Set One were September/October/November/December. There was one in July and one in June (out of the ones I knew). In my DD's class there is an August-born who got all one 3 and 2as in the Year 2 SATs but she is the only one out of that cohort and has very interested parents. She is probably just an extremely bright child. In both my DCs classes, it is generally the summer children that struggled until Year 3. Interestingly those with teacher parents did do well until about Year 5, when things began to even out. It must be hard on DCs who are September and stuggling as they have the age advantage. Having said that again most of those who were older and struggled to read have maintained and increased their abilities as they got older. My DH (feb) was remedial at primary for reading but got 4 A'Levels and a physics degree so perhaps everybody has their own clicking points.

Oh, it's scaremongering alright, since when do the media especially the Telegraph bother to check their facts carefully?

Telegraph article in OP.
Original report from Inst. of Fiscal Studies (full text).

Telegraph says that August born...

"considerably less likely to attend top universities"

"Despite being given additional help by parents, those born in August are 20 per cent more likely to take vocational qualifications at college and a fifth less likely to attend an elite Russell Group university than those with September birthdays."

So since when are Russell group the only definition of a "top University"? Remember, Oxbridge is not in the Russell group. Lots of Unis listed in the Sunday Times (& others) good uni guide are not Russell Group.

I've searched the entire IFS document. Somebody else please find where it mentions university entry, Russell group or attainment or acceptance rates; coz I can't see it. The article doesn't even mention college or A-levels, it does talk about Key Stage 5 Level 3 attainment rates, but only briefly. Most of the analysis stops at KS3.

I also can't find anything in the paper about "extra parental support" from parents having in adequate effect (I searched for each of those words separately). The study did try to control "for all observed characteristics that might affect cognitive outcomes", including "ethnicity, free school meals status (a proxy for low family income), whether English is the child?s first language and a variety of local neighbourhood characteristics".

So... not like they recorded individual home support levels that each child received, and factored that in. But Telegraph makes it sound like they did.

I could go on and on...

Having sat with my DS's teacher this afternoon and discussed the fact he is in the bottom group with those who need special help, knowing he is August born is really upsetting. On asking her what percentage of the group are late summer born... over half. :(

Ah darnit, that was the wrong report I linked to, it was the August 2007 report with identical title to the one just out.

Okay, okay, I'll get me coat...

I still think the media put the WORST possible slant on these things that hey can think of, though. Just to get their readers excited.

mine was one of those who desperately needed not to be summer-born, as he also had language-delay and was socially immature. Luckily Bradford LEA let me start him in reception at 5.0 which has transformed his life chances (and incidentally saved the state huge amounts of money as he now needs no extra support). The teachers found it really exciting to track his progress during his "extra" nursery year and then see him enter reception confident and happy and able to participate fully in all activities.

But it's kids like mine (I mean those not given the choice I got) who create these statistics - the ones with the double or triple whammy of being August born plus immature for their own birth month plus perhaps with some SEN. Most people with August-born kids either have no problem or just a short-term problem that should be compensated for by careful adjustments to the curriculum and the friendship group pot made by good teachers.