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?

Apologies losingtrust I was rather drunk and get a bit over sensitive about the topic. I don't agree with adjusting grades either, its addressing a symptom and does not thing to solve the problem about young people being labelled and made to think that they are stupid.

MTS , a 4-6 month gap is not what is being discussed. We are discussing a 11-12 month gap.

For what it's worth, by secondary school, the only thing most schools are concerned about is whether students have been offered appropriate help early enough for it to make a difference. Gcse exams are,rightly or wrongly, impartial to age. I do know that the average rating age for GCSE students is 10.7, & the exam papers are you to a reading age of 16. It is possible for schools to request a modified language exam paper for students with with no formal assessments needed. Working in a school, with data, I can honestly say i've never noticed birthday being a factor. I Will have a closer look now though :)

I once looked at the science top set of a large secondary school and found that about 2/3s of the group were autum born whereas the silliest boy of a Y9 bottom set was born in August! And I only did 2 checks just out of curiosity.

mtso - the point is, that some of the youngest and most immature are finding it very hard to cope and that has an impact on their self esteem, progress and future - that's a fact and its irrelevant of what your personal experience, of what you think you saw. And this discussion is about how to improve things for those DC.

Really enjoyed reading this debate with interest. Whilst the overall trend shows younger students tend to perform % points below their earlier born peers, I think simply making sweeping changes to give special weighting or lower passmarks to summer children is not the right way to go. To be honest, I feel its the easy way out and insulting to children.

I can't imagine employers sitting there comparing grades and passmarks with age-related weightings.

Labelling, as many have said, is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I can recall being in secondary school (a long time ago), when in first year, everyone was put into a set. 7A was the top set and everyone knew it, even though the teachers never actually declared it as such. It then progressed through 7B, 7C and so on to 7F, which everyone knew was the least academically able group, even the kids in 7F said they were in the "thickies" group.

In reality, everyone learns, achieves and progresses at different rates with everything in life. That's why we have 14 year olds studying for Masters degrees, 55 year olds passing a Maths GCSE.

If you're going to adjust for summer borns, then why not give boys a boost in their results too in subjects where boys dont do as well as girls? Dont forget inner city children, and children who go to schools that dont perform very well. Why dont we just equalise all the scores so that everyone gets the same grade.... or not.

It's not easy to know where to draw the line, there are loads of things that can indicate exam performance. For example black boys tend to under-perform (although this gap might be closing - www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/nov/28/schools.gcses it still seems to be there in core subjects). Should we also be giving score boosts to students (and therefore penaliseing others) based on their ethnicity? This sounds quite racist.

I totally agree calliypgian.

If by the time a summer-born DC gets to GCSE age he/she is still doing less well than her older peers then there has to be something seriously wrong with the way the child has been educated for the last 12 years of his life.

Maybe the experts should be looking into that rather than suggesting ways of masking the problem.

So, do you HAVE to send them to school at 4+ or can you wait and send them a year later? My boy was born on August 27th so we'll have to face this soon enough. I thought that compulsory education starts at 5, so in theory you don't have to send them to school till then?

My DS was born in late August. He is very bright and a high academic achiever but has Autumn-born children in his year group, that he's been with since Reception class, and they're way below him in terms of academic achievement. My DS on the other hand is no good whatsoever at practical stuff like DT and Art. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses and if you're naturally bright, I guess that will tend to start to shine through from very young. Just as if you're not particularly bright, for some children, no amount of help will compensate.

I'm not in favour of making allowances - even though my own child might benefit under such a system.

There are many, varied and complex reasons why all sorts of children might be disadvantaged academically. If we're going to compensate for age should we not then be taking each child's individual case for claiming disadvantage on its merits and making allowances accordingly?

Just to add my tuppence - DS born late August too - I was worried sick when he had to start Reception at 4years and a week :(

Totally agree that adjusting the grades for age is NOT a solution. The way I see it, the only way to improve things is to start school later (imo 6-7 is the perfect age)

Brain - at our LEA the summer-born-ish kids start in January when they are at least 4.5 years old. I always thought that this was standard but apparently not.

Round about 3 years old I started to do literacy and numeracy with my DC. Nothing Einstein-ish. I would simply get him to count the number of peas on his plate for example or the number of coins in my purse. As for reading, basic flash cards with pictures and like 'car' and 'cat'. In addition to this he went to play groups where there were older kids.

Basically, by the time he started Year R he was used to being around older kids and academically he was equal to his older peers.

No, this is not me being smug. I am merely making the point that the problems mentioned upthread are not inevitable.

As for starting school later I don't think that this solves anything. Various reports have talked about how some kids enter Reception with poor numeracy and literacy. With some kids its because the parents believe that young kids should be free of academic stuff until they start school. With others it's because the parents are unable or unwilling to support their children.

So, if the starting age were to move to 6-7 my DC will have spent those extra years doing numeracy and literacy with me. Consequently he will start school 1-2 years ahead academically speaking, compared to a child with a less pushy involved parent. Being behind by 6-11 months is quite insignificant compared to the gap now being opened up by pushy parents.

IMO non-PhD opinion any effects from being summer-born should have dissipated by the time that the child leaves primary school. If it hasn't then the parent needs to seriously look at what they themselves are doing or not doing with their DC. The teacher and TA can only do so much when they have 30 kids to teach. There are already provisions for SEN or kids starting school with no English. Most schools don't have the resources for another set of provisions.

I think this is the problem in England. You may watch your little just 4 years old and they may be chronologically older but still too immature and not ready, but all you can do is postphone the problem by sending them straight into Y1.

The problem with this discussion is also the focus on summer borns, I would rather suggest to focus on those DC not developmentally ready to start, they don't necessarily have to be summer born (I have an April born who was similarly not ready).

I feel trying to teach these too young ones to read and write is like trying to teach a 6 months old to walk - its not going to happen how ever much you try and support, it will just put them off and they will feel inadequate. Whereas trying to teach and support them 6 months later will be easy and lead to success. But trying to do things too early is a waste of time that could be used in a more productive way, e.g. chatting to the baby, reading and playing.

Adjusting expectations for all summer borns (the majority of whom will be absolutely fine) is inappropriate and insulting.

So many things can affect a child's development. My ds is 7 and has some sensory processing problems. He is October born, but has always been labelled as 'young' and in lower groups plus his confidence has taken a massive knocking. He is beginning to catch up (Y2), although still a long way off. I think this scheme is ridiculous as there are so many factors involved in child development. If children all developed at the same rate, then it would safe to assume that a child born 11 months later would need some compensation, but children do not develop at the same rates. An October born child can easily be at the same developmental level as an August born child. 6% is nothing in the grand scheme of variables.

Mt - someone else suggested that these problems could be avoided by proactive parenting and teaching them before the start school. This is completely beside the point, as 3 year old DC who are interested in counting, adding and subtracting peas and showing remote interest in letters and numbers, having the ability to listen etc. will be ready anyway, readiness for school does not constitute specific reading and numeracy skills.

This thread is concerned with those who do not have the basic school readiness. I am sure most of the parents on here do everything to promote these basic skills and still feel their DC is too young. I feel it is a bit arrogant from you to assume if they held flashcards in front of their small DC all would be well.

gab - As some poster said, some kids are not ready no matter how many peas they count prior to starting school. That is obvious but I was directing my comments at the parents whose kids are ready to learn but may subscribe to the view that maths and numeracy can be put off until they start at school. How does that make me 'arrogant'?

As for this thread being about basic readiness for school, I thought that it was about a report that said that GCSE results should be adjusted to take into consideration the so-called summer-born effect?

I would prefer to send my baby (late June) to school a year later and wtf someone decided for it not to be available.

Most parents on here anyway, will encourage their DC with whatever they are interested in and will count all sorts of things, point out letters while reading, make letters out of spaghetti or play dough etc, which is age appropriate 'teaching' and will benefit DC's development and learning. But teaching them to read and write before school with flashcards etc is not and will do nothing to close the gap of those young and/or immature ones.

Its your idea of teach them early and they will learn more that's so wrong.