"The Calendar Conspiracy" on R4: summer-born babies

[Jooni]

Has anyone else been listening to "Whodunnit: The Calendar Conspiracy" on R4? The final one was today. It's a really interesting 5-parter about the disadvantage the education system imposes on summer-born babies.

Here's the link to catch-up if anyone's interested: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b095c2vq

Interested to hear what people's experiences have been of summer-born children and attainment/enjoyment at school? I have a June-born baby boy and, while obviously every child is different, this has left me feeling a bit !

I agree. But I don't know how else they could admit kids.

Here in Ireland it's much more flexible. You decide when you want your kids to start between 4 or 5. Much better system, they start when they're really ready.

Think I would have started my son a year later if we had a more child centred flexible system but actually, although he's August born and the youngest in his high school year, he's in the top set in English, middle in Maths and flying along with the subjects he likes, can't be arsed with the ones he doesn't - much like all his mates. Not sure it's made much difference. I think worrying about it too much can mean looking for limitations - dunno!

My daughter is an august baby. She started full time school at 3 and 3 weeks. She's in year 2 now and is only achieving early year 1 targets. She would have done much better if only she'd been born 2 weeks later.

DD is an August baby, just started yr 4 and doing really well. DS is October born, yr 1and definitely not ready for school! DS 2 is a spring baby, just started nursery, will see how he does....

Obviously each child is different, and a cut off point for intake has to be decided somehow.

My August born dc is doing brilliantly, ahead for their year and top of the class across the board. My October dc is behind in everything, no sen, just not the brightest. Plods along with no worries but could do with knuckling down a bit really.

I'm very sceptical about this sort of thing. I do think a massive part of child progress comes down to good teaching and support.

I'm summer born, but until nine was educated in Germany....so started formal schooling later than I would have if I'd have been in the UK system.

I was a high achiever throughout school despite the later start... Which could, of course, be absolutely meaningless.

I would be curious as to the statistics in countries where all children start formal education later and if there is a cliff edge so to speak.

My dn was born the very end of August and he seemed so much younger than the rest of the class when he started, both physically and emotionally. Not much more than a toddler really.... The week before he started he was a three year old.

They made a good point too that it's not just that younger children might struggle in the first few years but also that important impressions are formed about their ability in various areas right at the start, and mostly these then stick or are self-perpetuating.

E.g. a just-turned 4-year-old will probably (understandably) not be as strong, fast and coordinated as a 5-year-old in the same school year, so won't be as good at sports initially. Then their teachers, peers and they themselves will consider them weaker in this area, and they're unlikely to pursue it further or enjoy it as much as had they been older and perceived as better/stronger at the start.

Again, this is obviously not true for everyone by any stretch but I imagine this extends to all subjects on a general level, with kids being labelled "good" or "bad" at things early on and then treated/taught accordingly, when actually it could have been an entirely different story had they been born a month earlier or later.

Interesting. I was born late August, started at just turned 4 and labelled "immature" in my second term. Later, I was put on the 'bottom' table for maths at primary school and transferred automatically to the bottom set at middle school, then middle set at high school on the basis of my high achievement in other subjects. After a couple of years there, they moved me up to the top set and I ended up with a B grade GCSE. I still think I can't do maths and a kind of panicky mental block sets in every time I need to do some! All because my confidence in my ability in that subject was shot down at such a young age.

I'm a late august born and dd1 a mid august born

I would change the date from September 1 st to June 1st

This way every child entering school in September would have to 4 month over 4 or 5 if legal age was stuck to

4 months is a big % of age for a child of 48 months

I have a dd2 who is November born and it is much easier

An open secret in primary education, where it is often glaringly obvious all the way up to Year 6. I am a primary school teacher and listened to this and agreed. My own DDs are both summer born, older DD massively struggles to keep up with reading and writing despite me knowing precisely how to support her. Younger sister just started Reception having recently turned 4, so we'll see.

cut off where I live is September 30th. for two school years they allowed children born between September and December to start in January.
As the program didn't last the younger ones were eventually placed in such that they were the youngest of the year.
Each child is an individual but my dear friend watched her son struggle year after year as he was immature and experienced friendship issues which were exacerbated by his tiny bone structure and stature.

Despite good family support he was left very scarred by this situation.

In other countries there is much more flexibility about letting kids go up a year or down a year if they are close to the cut off date. It is not considered such a big deal everywhere as it is here. I was surprised to find out how inflexible things are in the UK, and I am not sure it is good.

Totally depends on the child. Eldest DD was born right at the end of August and had no problems other than with fine and gross motor skills (but only in comparison with her peers - she was bang on where she should have been developmentally). She is now safely in top sets, loves sport (although never makes the A team) and is extremely happy. School is the best thing that ever happened to her but I do think we got lucky with her school who have encouraged her independence but helped her when she needed.

DD2 is a September baby and flying. It does make a difference but the cut off has to be somewhere.

I agree with the pp who said about an end of June cut off, it's end of June in NI and even a couple of months make a huge difference at that age. Re sport, I'm sure someone told me the vast majority of English professional footballers have birthdays between Sept and Nov - that early advantage in size and development carrying right through life.

My DD is July born with severe speech speech issues. We are applying to defer her Reception year start until the summer she turns 5 and hits compulsory school age. The Head of what would be our second choice school is supportive so I am hopeful.

In NZ 15 or so years ago, they started each child on their 5th birthday. That meant a small group started on day 1 and were joined by others as the year went on. The main job of that first year was to teach self reliance and good social skills in a more formal setting than the pre school provision so the first starters were 'trained' and helped to 'train' others as they joined.

Australia here and again you can choose which year is the right year for them to start between 5-6 aged
Much more flexible

Claraschu - it's only inflexible in England (and Wales?); in Scotland it is indeed flexible, with an age range of up to 19 months, but more normally around 15-16 months within a year group.

Cut off in Scotland is beginning of March, but often kids with January & February birthdays are deferred to the following year, and less frequently December and November birthdays (and technically so could kids with October and September and even late August birthdays, but in practice that is extremely rare - although I do know of one October birthday that is in the year "below", although that was because he came from abroad)

My primary school was flexible. They brought in reception children in the term they were 5. At Easter, the older children who started in September moved up in to the class above. This happened all the way up school (depending on ability, class sizes etc) until half way through the juniors when the 'remedial class' came into play and the age groups came together in preparation for the dreaded 11 plus.

As a September born, I loved being able to move up and play and work with children my own age and the older children seemed to enjoy it too - it gave them a chance to be the oldest/cleverest in the class In fact as an eldest child of the family (including cousins) it was the only chance I got to socialise with children my own age.

It is a shame they can't find a way to bring down these artificial age barriers in schools these days.

I have an august ds- he has struggled emotionally with friendships despite being ok academically, I wish even now he was in the year below with his friend who is 2 weeks younger (years 2/3)

It was an interesting series - I heard some but not all.

I think in England independent schools seem more flexible than state. I know several children born late Aug/ early Sep who have been moved up or down according to suitability in the independent sector.

I'm a late August Birthday and was one of the youngest (very old now!) but we didn't go to primary school until we had had our 5th birthday in those days (1960s). I was really keen on school when I was little and actually was the best reader in the class. I think it only became an issue for me after 11/12 when I would get "is immature" on reports which always annoyed me as I was bloody immature! I think I spent several years trying to be cool to make up for it. Maybe that was just my insecurity.

My friend's daughter read natural sciences at Cambridge (no gap year) and her birthday is 31 Aug - she was always the youngest so it can be done. My June born DS really struggled in his reception and Year 1 classes as he needed his day time snooze so he came home every day at lunch time until he was over 5, they're all different! That didn't hold him back later though.

Very interesting and good if schools are more aware.

I think there could be a lot of interesting things to look at.

My 3 dc are all fairly equally bright.
Dd1 went to school about right time (winter baby)
Dd2 would have been better the year before (winter baby)
Ds was about ready summer term in year 1 (summer baby)

But, they're now older and I can look back: DD2 might have been fine in the year above, but I think she would be struggling now. She was diagnosed with anxiety when she was about 10yo and I'm very glad she wasn't being pushed ahead.
Ds would have been better in the year below, or even 2 years below right through infants even until about year 3/4. But I'm not sure how ready he would have been at that age if I'd left him. You see he just takes time to adjust to things, and I think if I'd said he won't go for 2 more years he would still have taken a year or so to adjust. He also would be bored silly by the work, and probably inclined to mess around and get it done.

So for some children it could be initially good, but ultimately cause problems down the line.

I had a friend in US where they could choose to send them any time from age about 4 to 7yo. So the parents of the girls wanted them to be seen as academic. So they rushed them in asap saying they were desperate to start. The parents of the boys wanted them to be in the sports' teams. So they wanted them to have the advantage of age so they were as old as possible. Children who didn't have parents that followed these tended to end up being the oddments. So they had class of reception with 4yo girls and 7yo boys-and parents were pushing for younger (girls) and further delayed (boys).

I've had a number of parents who have said to me that their dc is desperate to get to school, really ready to go, where I have known the child enough to think "no they're not". So I don't trust parents to necessarily make the right choice.

I think the ultimately doing better is interesting. There was a discussion of birth date and Oxbridge on here once. Winter babies were heavily represented. And thinking through my friends at Oxford that's right, a large number of people whose birthday I knew were September or October birthday.
But. He's the catch. About half of those birthdays were at least one year-some two years, ahead. So not only were they not the oldest, but they were actually younger than the summer borns.
And when I took those out of the question, the summer/spring/winter term babies had the fewest in the spring. The summer and winter were almost equal.
Which leads me to wonder if there's actually a time of the year when the brain develops better in pregnancy. Or maybe there's a tendency of better educated parents to aim for September/October birthdays?
Someone who worked at a shoe shop commented to me once that children's feet grow quickest in spring (was true of mine too) so maybe there's a reason why if you're born in those months your brain development is better.

Another thing I find interesting, is that people will say "oh we push children into education too early." But when I was little children didn't start all in September, you started the term in which you were 5yo.

When dd1 started it had changed so they all started part time in September and went full time the term they were 5yo. When ds started all went full time in September.

But I'm not sure it's helpful. I remember the teachers at primary saying to dm that often the later starters did better because they saw the older ones there and wanted to catch up so worked harder. I certainly think for ds, easing him in by going part time for 2 terms would have been better. It was arranged when they did that so that the part-timers still did all the academic work, but didn't stay all day.

I wonder if it's sometimes expectations. When dd1 was in infants whenever the class did anything public the teacher would say in the how brilliantly they've done speech "and remember some of these children are only 4yo" (or 5yo in year 1/6yo in year 2). Taking to dd1 and saying how well she'd done she replied "no, I did what was expected. It was who did well because they are only "
And with ds, I often had "oh you know he's only 4yo/5yo, he's a summer born boy, he'll learn when he's ready."

So do people expect less of the summer borns-and make the winter ones feel they should be achieving. And are people less inclined to intervene early, which can be important, on the younger ones because they will grow out of it.
I suspect if ds had been a winter baby behaving as he did in the winter term of year 1, when he was a new starter in year R (so older than the winter babies) then they'd have been talking at looking at getting him assessed. however I was being told "he's a young one, he'll grow out of it."
Luckily for him, he pretty much has, but others haven't, and it can make a difference.

I think there's a lot more too it than simply just birthdate.

DD was the youngest in her year at a large primary school, she was desperate to learn. She enjoyed the company but found the playground hard as everyone was running around, it was noisy.

So moving on, the top achievers from her primary class were born in June, April, July, July and herself in August, so long term this goes against any argument they might struggle academically. In fact, the top girl with GCSE grades in the school was born in July. Out of this group two are at grammar, one has a scholarship.

My DD left secondary with 3 A*s, 6 As and 2 Bs, I know others do much better, but she's achieved this on her own as her parents are pretty much average. She also was part of two friendship groups as well as having the other odd friend to do stuff with, so socially it came good. She says she doesn't get stressed about anything as there's nothing she can do about things other than to just deal with them if there's a problem. Longterm I don't think being a summer baby did her any harm.

Ifonly: I like your point about friends very much.

We were not pushy parents and frankly with 5 children under 9, I didn't have time to be.

Did our kids all achieve their absolute potential at school? - no! They were far too social but all have good degrees (some several) and good careers and are rounded good people which, is actually far more important in the world and indeed in getting on in the world!