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 know that this will ruffle a few feathers but I think that how ell a child does at school has more to do with the nurturing they recieved before school and whether they attended pre-school etc as apposed to when they were born. Also may have to do with first born, second born etc. I feel that kids who attend pre-school are at a definate advantage compared to those who have never been to pre school. It just prepares them and gives them that confidence.

well

If you do have a summer born child take them to as many pre school activities, sports and groups as possible and/or pre school. they'll soon catch up.

toptramp going to lots of toddler groups doesn't really help when you have to move up to secondary school and you aren't quite mature enough because you are only just 11 or you aren't really ready for the independence of sixth form

Some flexibility of when children start school would make a huge difference. DD1 is finally getting her year back by doing a 4 year course at university with a year abroad and she will still only be 21 when she graduates. She was little and immature all the way through school from 4 to 18, if she's been able to do stuff when she was ready I'm sure all our lives would have been easier.

I just looked on it as a challenge to overcome. Our DTDs have a July birthday and are definitely not lagging behind academically.
But I would add that they are now 13 and do seem immature compared with the 14-year-olds in their class who are quite worldly wise and precocious in some cases. I guess their academic age is ahead of their emotional maturity which could be a good thing when it comes to GCSEs. Later on they will struggle no doubt when it comes to leaving home and uni.

Really confused why so many posters are saying that there needs to be more flexibility in the system - surely there is already?

In the UK, the compulsory school age isn't until the term after a child's 5th birthday. So, if you have an July or August born, it would be perfectly OK and legal to start them in school in the September after their 5th birthday.

It is up the parents - if your child isn't ready at 4, why wouldn't you wait until he or she is 5?

Because that child would go straight into year 1 scroobious having then missed recpetion and already formed friendships hence why a lot of poeple don't like to do that

....and Year 1 is a shock anyway after the play of Reception, let alone if you haven't been at school at all.

Hi scroob - it is England which is inflexible. You can delay your child's start NOW to January only (due to the campaigning which has already taken place)- you are put under massive pressure by schools who dont want that. They want all the kids starting together in Sept.

You apply for reception place ONLY so you may not get the school of choice if you try to start your child in Yr1. It doesn't help they are still the youngest. ETC, ETC, ETC

Private schools are more flexible. But some of us live in local communities where we want to support the state system, but why should it be at the cost to my child

But why into Year 1 Maxy. Don't schools have to start them in reception?

Ah, thanks for that veryconfused (should be my name!). I'd understood that the policies were just that - policies - and that parents still had the choice to wait if they wanted to. If that's how LEAs are working it, it doesn't really seem to be consistent with the law but I guess if choice is an issue they can get away with pretty much anything?

No, Scroobs. They start according to birthdate, eg - 01 Sep 2002 - 31 Aug 2003 year goes into Y1, 01 Sep 2003 - 31 Aug 2004 goes into Reception etc.

Delaying them starting a year just means they miss a year, not that they are allowed to go into a younger class.

DH and I both August babies and I wasnt even aware that this was an issue until I became a parent - both of top of the class from the moment we started. Utter rubbish in my opinion.

They are sooo young, just turning 4 and starting formal education, sort of. I think it does matter quite a lot at infant level. I have an immature 6 year old Y2 boy who academically hovers around the average mark, but is hard work for the teacher as he just wants to play and roll around the carpet, and there seem to be quite a few others just like him in his school.

The sad thing is that these children are moved into education without being ready for it. I feel that a good number of them would benefit from being assessed and allowed to start a year later, but the system doesn't allow that unless there are major problems. I think most of these young and immature ones would do better.

It hasn't got easier in Y7 with an August baby, let me tell you.

if your child isn't ready at 4, why wouldn't you wait until he or she is 5?

Because the process of initiating them into school culture (institutionalising them if you prefer to be very negative) is very slow & gentle and done en masse in those early months. Whereas a child who comes in January or later just sort of gets dropped into the deep end, relatively. Even worse for a child who goes straight into yr1 having skipped Reception yr. Expectations will be that the child has already had a few months or more of school, so a child having trouble settling and understanding the ways of school life will encounter a lot less patience & understanding if it's after autumn term.

Plus friendship circles can become quite firm and the child may miss out on early social opportunities.

Then there is academic material that the late starter will have missed, possibly to their disadvantage. One reason for the inflexible start is actually to try to make sure the youngest get as much of the same quality teaching as the oldest. Personally I think the same strategy should be employed for preschool education, perhaps with only the final year before school being fully funded, rather than some children getting up to 19 months funded and others only getting 12.

DS is born in June and dyslexic, and his first few school years were a nightmare. Got a bit better towards year 3-4. He's now in y7 and has pretty much caught up - top group for maths, etc. He's always been very sporty but found it hard to compete against the Autumn born children especially in the early years of primary. They just looked that much more mature, coordinated and focused. Can't see the difference anymore now, so it does even out.

I've always been the youngest in my class. Academically it was fine, but socially I always felt a bit awkward, especially when most of the other kids hit puberty and I found myself in a paralel universe. Funnily enough, I only realised that when I had to deal with DS and his school issues. It never occured to me before that the way I felt when I was at school had a lot to do with being younger.

DS is August born and definitely wasn't ready for school less than a month after his fourth birthday - he's very bright, but was in no way interested in sitting still and drawing, let alone trying to learn to write.

Luckily, at the time we were living in Japan, so didn't have to follow the UK system (though we could have sent him to the British School at 4, as many of my friends did with their DCs). Instead, he stayed at Japanese kindergarten for another year - lots of playing outside, singing songs, making models out of cardboard boxes, no formal learning at all.

By his fifth birthday he was showing signs of being bored with that, even though in the Japanese system he would have had another year and a half of kindergarten to go (they start school in the April after their sixth birthday there), so he started at an international school which was roughly based on the US system - school (kindergarten year, which is equivalent to reception) starts after you turn five. By then he was absolutely ready to start learning to read, and forged ahead with enthusiasm.

We moved back to the UK when he was 8, and he went straight into year 4, where he was one of the youngest and had had one year less at school than all his classmates, but that did not cause any problems at all. He is now year 9, doing extremely well and enjoying school.

I do wonder sometimes if he would be as keen on school now if he had been forced to go at 4 when he couldn't even hold a pencil properly, and would probably have struggled with the stuff he was asked to do.

Habanera - what are you saying? I can expext my DS to still want to roll around the floor at at 12? So, it won't get easier...

In retrospect, I think it would have been best for DS to have kept him out and 'home educated' him during R, Y1 and Y2. Starting him on reading and writing aged 6, so he could have gone into Y3 a bit behind but ready and keen to learn.

But that seemed a bit step and he would have missed out on the socialising, but I know now he would have been happier.

exexpat that's exactly what I worry about with DS :(
If only I could move to Japan... or even France (just because it's a bit closer)

In my experience Reception class seems ideal for most 5 year old girl (autum born), but not for 4 year old (summer born) boys.

I think it's more to do with the child and their individual background to be honest. It's not like every August born child is a year behind their peers. What about children born in June?? Surely a child born in April is not going to be so far ahead of a child born in May or June, July etc. there is always a big variant on ability if u compare any child. My ds is an August baby and is currently in reception, he's ahead in terms of letter recognition and reading etc which to me is more about the child's mental ability and input from parents and school etc. A September child will never flourish if they don't have the same level of support as a well stimulated August child if that makes sense. I have noticed a difference in emotional maturity between DS and other children in the class but I am convinced it's less to do with the month he was born in and more because he is a sensitive child and I have perhaps babied him with him being an only child (although I am now 33 weeks pregnant so he's in for a big adjustment!) Think it's wrong ti write off Summer babies and accept they're doomed!

Its not just about academics though. My DS is April, but was still too immature to start school. He was not interested in learning to read and refused to do 1 to 1 maths with a teaching assistant. They made him do it, he did it but it will hardly make him love learning to be forced at that age. There is enough research to show that the ideal age to start formal education is 7! Not 4!!!

There are many variables which influence a child's ability, the most obvious one being their socio economic background and their own ability. I do not agree birth dates have much to do with it.
However, I do agree that maturity levels for a September child will differ from a child who falls in to the Summer birthday. This wil become less noticable as they progress through the school.
My Dd was not due until September and was born in August, I have often thought about how it will affect her but so far she is doing very well from an academic point of view. She had level 3 for three areas in her Year 2 report. She is full of life and fun and is not as mature as some of the others in her class....but that could be more to do with personality than birth month.
If a child is weak academically, then I do think the summer birthday does not help either as they are being compared sometimes to others who are almost a full year older than them. Unfortunately, we can't choose when our children are born and the most important thing is that they are healthy, happy and able to get on with others!