New report suggests adjusting August born's test results.

[Suzieismyname]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-22469216
This will be ignored by Gove, won't it?

[ReallyTired]

Dd is born in April and can't wait to start proper school. I am relieved that only has to wait until september. I think she would go nuts if she had to wait until she was almost five years old. Thankfully she attend nursery which is part of a foundation stage and is being allowed to have a taste of reception activities.

Rather than adjusting the past mark of GCSEs prehaps we should allow some children to take the tests six months late. With huge secondary schools it would be quite easy to prepare some children for exams in June and some children for exams in November. Many secondary schools have eight classes in a year and it would be quite easily to divide up the year in half. Prehaps the brighter summer borns could do their GCSEs early and the less able winter borns could sit examsl six months later.

GCSEs and A-levels are designed to assess knowledge and compencies. They aren't an IQ test.

[MrsCampbellBlack]

Anecdotal stories are great but surely people realise that research is slightly more valid?

The sporting stuff is well documented, god, I only have to watch the rugby matches to see how just physically larger boys who are almost a year older are than my August born boy.

[MrsCampbellBlack]

And the final thing I'd say, is its not necessarily academic stuff which is harder for august born children (boy in my case) but the social and emotional maturity.

Not sure what can be done to facilitate that in schools though.

[Noggie]

I think it varies so much BUT many of the younger ones find school more challenging initially . In Scotland you have the right to defer your child starting school if they are not 5 by the time term starts in August. Councils will not pay for sept- dec deferred kids but will pay for extra pre school year for jan and feb birthday kids. Not sure why it is different in different parts if the uk? I guess one of the important things for English summer borns is to support and encourage them and not label them.

[amothersplaceisinthewrong]

My brother was a summer baby while I was an October baby. We both did equally well at school.....

When does this difference in birth date stop mattering - I always thoguht it was by aged 7.

[PacificDogwood]

I don't understand this focussing on 'summer borns' - in Scotland the cut-off is 28th Feb, so children a year apart (or as close as) can be in one year group.
The difference in my eyes is absolute age: Children here are at least 4 1/2 or thereabouts when they start school. Also, parents can chose to defer their Jan/Feb born children thereby allowing for individual differences. Nov/Dec born children can apply to be deferred.
There seems to be no will/desire to assess how 'school ready' an individual child is, irrespective of age as is done is some European countries.
There seems to be a focus on childcare costs (understandably, it is a huge burden on families) or some crazy ambition to have a school leaver as young as possible . I had many people expressing their upset for my DS1's 1.3. birthday which ment he did not start school until he was 3.5 (about which I was delighted).

Yy to treating each child as an individual. But I guess an assessment would be too expensive...

[PacificDogwood]

DS1 was 5.5, obviously, when he started school, not 3.5. Gah!

[Musicaltheatremum]

Have they allowed for the Scottish children? Our cut off date for school entry is 28 feb so you go to school between 4 and a half or 5 and a half . Daughter, April born one of oldest in year went to college at 18 and a half, son September born would just be going into year 13 this September in England but is going to university 3 days before his 18th birthday. Some people aren't 18 until the February of their first year at university.

Boys especially often ask to stay behind a year and they will help with jan and feb birthdays. My daughters reasons for suggesting people stay back if young is so they can drink when they get to uni.

[Musicaltheatremum]

Pacific, you type faster than me...

[PacificDogwood]

I might type fast, but not correctly...

[edam]

ds is a mid-July baby. He's doing well at school, always has, but looking at him and friends of his who have birthdays in July and August, I get the impression teachers often forget about the importance of relative age - that many of these summer-borns have started school with a massive handicap. I can see how a couple of his friends were labelled very early on as 'struggling' with reading and how that cascaded and has continued to affect them. And even ones that do well, like ds, are compared against children who are 'doing well' but nearly a whole year old than them.

Bet if you looked at the gifted and talented list, it'd be dominated by autumn birthdays...

[TonysHardWorkDay]

I've come to the conclusion that there really is no greater example of educational failings than when people are asked to comment on debates like this and prove they have no idea of logic or basic statistics.

Claim: Children who are the youngest in their year are less likely to achieve top grades than the oldest in their year. Less it means 'a smaller amount' not 'none because being born under Leo damages the brain.'

Source: Loads of studies they have been trotting out for years, I think they keep doing it in the hope that people will eventually get the point rather then saying my PFB was born at 11.59 on the 31st August and she/he is the cleverest eva so this study is rubbish! This has not yet been successful.

Why this claim is true: You either start school a year earlier, when you are 5 a year is a lot it is 20% of you life after all or you do your GCSEs with a year less schooling. Can you not see how this may affect some children? If you don't recognise that some does not mean all please line up for a knee in the kidneys, it may take me a while to get through the queue though, if any of you park in a parent and child space while waiting I'm going for both kidneys.

But, but, but. This is rubbish, I was born at 11.59 on the 31st August and I have a masters as does my DC who was also born at 11.59 on the 31st. You are a real example of the failings in UK education because you can't stop and think beyond your own limited experience. OR: My PFB is Autumn born and isn't doing well so this study is rubbish every child is different, lets face it starting school a year earlier would not have helped and neither would missing an entire years schooling. Could be helped by the statement 'every child matters' actually meaning something rather than being a triple bonus on the bullshit bingo card for education.

We can add to the but, but, but statements by Let me list a few people who where August born and successful, here is a few, I'm insinuating this study is rubbish! Look two rarely and exceptionally successful people were summer borns, this study is rubbish, if those thick summer borns were capable of anything they could have become billionaire entrepeneurs, if they didn't it is their own fault.

Any person who comes onto this thread and quotes 'lies, damn lies and statistics' is going to be brutally hunted, the crimes against science and mathematics are already too great to ignore.

[gabsid]

I havn't read the thread yet but I believe that what is suggested in the article is not going to solve the problem. It is suggested that a small number of summer born DC suffer low self-confidence, lower achievement ... lowering expectations for all summer borns would be just creating another 'box' to put those DC in. It would be more sensible to look at the individual child when they are due to start school.

I think it would be more sinsible to relax the rules about school starting age and give the parents and professionals the option to defer a child who is developmentally and emotionally not ready to cope with what is expected at YR.

The fact is that most summer borns will settle and achieve well, if not at the start then within a year or so. I also know a few, especially boys, who struggled and still do years later. On the other hand my DS is not summer born (April) but is immature in every way so that he could be.

So it would make more sense to look at individual DC and keep those who aren't ready (probably mostly summer borns but not all) in pre school and/or provide a bit more specialised support for them in that less structured environment.

I am not including DC with special needs in my thinking here because more specialised people need to decide what would be the best, e.g. letting the younger DC start or not.

[EagleRiderDirk]

Tony I haven't seen people on here dismissing any research as rubbish. A lot of us summerborns who say we've done well aren't saying research is rubbish at all, but we are saying that there is more need to focus on why rather than just adjusting scores and grades which is what this topic is about. Also a lot of people are reinforcing that there is no need to despair if you have summerborns, there are plenty who do just fine despite the challenges that present them from entering the schooling system earlier.

[Chandon]

In private schools they often compare results against age.

So my sons now get grades, but also assessments to show how they are doing " for their age".

Both test and grading results ( class ones and " compared to others their age") are used.

This was a nasty shock for me as Ds1 has SEN but I always thought " at least he is a September born!".

Anyway, it seems to priavte schools take into consideration the month they were born, often gender as well as SEN to get a full picture. This does not mean they adjust the grades though, but they interpret and use them as part of a wider assessment.

I think the focus on grades and grades alone is very limited and shows a "box ticking approach".

Also, in the end it does not matterthat much what grades you had in y6 or even GCSE ( A, B or even C).

I have interviewed lots of people for research jobs ( had to create my own team) and grades at school we really never a deciding factor, ever. Cannot even remember asking for GCSE grades , neither has anyone ever asked for mine.

[Suzieismyname]

Tony you almost made me cry with relief...

[Chandon]

Like Tony's post as well.

Could you please visit some other threads as well...

[gabsid]

Chandon - that is also a solution to give a better picture about where DC are. For many it does matter at GCSE though and the whole thing would need to be brought together because many applying for jobs, apprenticeships, A-levels or college and that's where GCSE grades matter.

[MrsCampbellBlack]

Tony - excellent post.

[Chandon]

By the time they are doing GCSE, surely the age gap does not matter so much ? Does it? The difference between maturity of a 4 year old versus a 5 year old is huge compared to the difference between a 15 year old and a 16 year old.

I think a lot of problems with ( state) education are to do with people's obsession with grades. I would not want my childfen to get A's if it does not mean anything, I care much more whether they have actually learned something.

Artificially adjusting grades upwards does not mean these children actually KNOW as much as their autum born peers. This actual knowledge gap should be adjusted ( maybe through extra help) rather than inflating grades.

[gabsid]

Adjusting grades would mean nothing to the 4 and 5 year olds because they aren't really aware of all that. What matters to them is that they are with a group of DC where everyone else can do things better, everyone else is can explain things better, can read better ... how does that make them feel? How do teachers judge them? They are not stupid - they are not expected to do as well - they won't do as well.

Of course its not all summer borns but maybe 1 or 2 per class I assume and maybe 1 who is a bit older. Wouldn't it make more sene if those 3 stayed out of school and had more unstructured play based education for a bit longer - it dosn't meant they won't learn, they may learn more than being in YR and not having a clue what's going on.

[EagleRiderDirk]

A major issue by GCSE age isn't whether they're mature enough, its more the damage done by branding them stupid, slow or awkward at a young age so much that they disengage from schooling early on. Do something to stop disengagement then look at the result differential. I know I wouldn't have tried so hard to get my good marks if I knew my results would have been upward adjusted because I'm august born, why bother - just leads to more disengagement.

[wheresthebeach]

The point is that the study shows things don't even out when they are older. The damage to their confidence is too great. Sure some kids thrive regardless but not all

[wheresthebeach]

And more wild cheering for Tony's post!

[PacificDogwood]

Tony

"The plural of anecdote is not data" - may I quote this and keep my kidneys intact?

I don't have an issue with what the evidence shows and how said evidence was arrived at, but I don't believe that 'adjustin exam scores' for summer-born children is right either.
This is not something were one rule will ever fit all. Of course, looking at each child individually is just not practical (nor is there the political will IMO).

I struggle to understand why Britain continues with such a young school-starting age when the evidence (maybe particularly for boys) suggests that kids do better if allowed a later start to formal learning. Threads about 'teaching my 2 year old to read with flashcards' just make me despair tbh.
Start school at 4, leave school aged 16, go to college, have a degree aged 19 and then work until you reach pensionable age... round about 85 the way things are going. What is the rush??