"babies born in summer 20% less likely to attend university". Higher Ed Funding Council for England

[miljee]

I cannot remember whether it was here on 'education' or on 'primary' that I made the remark that I'd read somewhere months ago that something like 80% of Oxbridge Entrants are Sept-Dec born, thus supporting the idea that place in a school year DOES influence outcome. Someone (who didn't believe me!) asked for the long gone link but this is something I saw in the paper today. I admit it was The Sun but it goes on to say "The council says students who are very young for their school year tend not to catch up". The email is [email protected] if you want to verify this!

I'm not really banging a drum, here, just pointing out that my Oxbridge remark was probably quite accurate!

I am not sure if a Summer birthday gives you less chance of going to uni BUT I do think that it puts you at a disadvantage, particularly in early education.
DS1 is a late June baby and his teachers have commented that he is a little immature compared to his classmates - of course he is, some of them are almost a year older than him!
DS2 (early Jan), got an extra term of pre-school to his brother and will start full-time school in January (giving him an extra term of school too). He is very mature compared to many of his classmates.
I am really hoping that DC3 (due end of Dec) will be born on time so that he/she will fall into the Autumn Term starters and get 2 terms more of schooling than DC1.
How can it not be an advantage for most (although obviously not all) children born at the beginning of the school year?

My point, blackandwhitecat, is just that it's not a simple as the bold stats can make it seem. And stats mean very little for individuals because their circumstances may well be the ones that take them out of the generality.

Maybe it's the extra year at home with mum that mean that Sept babies do better as they spend spend nearly a whole year extra at home (ie. it's mum and dad that make the positive difference, not alleged immaturity that makes the negative difference). I just think it's simpler to remember that the data establish probabilities and don't refer to individual kids directly at all.

I think what was more shocking was the statistic also in the Times that if you take September born girls and compare them to an August born boys, the boys are 50% less likely to go on to university than the girls

Well that's a generalisation itself. What makes you think that children starting school at nearly 5 have been at home before school? Most children go to nursery at least part-time from 3 since the introduction of the voucher scheme. Obviously this can bring its own disadvantages as some autumn kids get increasingly frustrated at nursery and parents have the burden of an extra years child-care.

TBH it's fairly obvious that there's likely to be a huge difference in the development and school readiness of a child whose 5th birthday is on the 3rd of September and one whose 5th birthday is on the 28th August just as there's a huge difference between a 1 and a 2 year old and an 11 AND 10 year old. It is GENERALLY true that children with summer birthdays will be behind their peers with autumn birthdays but there will always be exceptions.

All these statistics do is confirm that this initial difference CAN have a lasting impact. It's not that kids with summer birthdays are any less bright than those with autumn ones and of course this difference evens out year on year. But we might assume that beginning school at a disadvantage CAN have a psychological impact which means some children find it harder to catch up with their peers because of their initiatl expereince of starting behind.

It's worth remembering that statistics are made up of individual expereinces and I think it is helpful for parents to be able to compare their own expereince of bringing up their children with what other parents GENERALLY experience.

If I'd had access to those stats when I was planning my kids I would have planned things differently and these stats are a very good argument for more flexible starting dates for kids (which many parents have been fighting for).

All I said was that "Maybe" it was an extra year with mum. Without a more detailed breakdown of all potentially relevant factors we can never know what the geniune reasons are. And I have been very careful to "assume" nothing. I think making assumptions without full information is very dangerous.

All the more reason, blackandwhitecat, for finding the true reasons for the differences, so that parents who are bothered about it can find ways to help their kids. Perhaps it's not just the school's responsibility and maybe it has a lot to do with the input from home?

The stats seem pretty obvious to me and I don't see any need for hidden explanations.

It's obvious that a child who is barely 4 is likely to struggle to achieve what a child who is nearly 5 can do with ease. At this age a year is nearly a quarter of a child's whole life and the brain develops more quickly in the early years than any other.

My kids have June birthdays and while I know they're doing extremely well for their age there is a big difference in maturity and conceptual understanding between them and the girls with Sept birthdays. I'm pretty sure that my girls will make good academic progress and give the other kids a run for their money over time because of our support. But I can see how kids and particularly boys with summer babies and without parental support are likely to see themselves as failures and as not very bright from an early age and this is likely to lead to disappointment, lack of motivation, frustration etc which will continue to hold them back. I'm an August child myself but, like my kids, had the benefit of supportive parents and a house full of books etc so managed to overcome the disadvantages but I can certainly remember having to try hard to compete with my peers at an early age. And I can believe that being smaller than other kids was what put me off competitive sport from an early age.

Common sense really.

Ds's teacher in yr 2 said that my ds was the second brightest in the class (he is August b'day) but not nearly as clever or mature as X - a boy born on Sep 4th. This proved to me that teachers don't know/don't care/don't make allowances for age differences within the class. They may do in reception, but after that forget it.

I have an August born DS who is about to go into the sixth form. He has always been average to slightly above average but his teachers have always thought he could do better (perhaps because his parents are professionals/graduates). He has improved immensely in the last year - as though a cloud in his brain has dispersed. There are other reasons apart from just his age within the year for this - largely that his teachers have made an enormous effort with the Y11s because of GCSEs - but he still needs to catch up on the basics.

Now I am hyperventilating that ds is destined to go to Craptown University (founded 20 minutes ago) whilst his September friends swan off to Oxbridge.

Read a lot of this thread but not all so sorry if I am repeating what has been said!
When I was teaching primary if a child was slightly immature/apart from peers the first thing we would say was 'when were they born?'

I knew a collegue who was due to have a c-section on 31st Aug but asked for it to be done on 1st Sept for the very reason we are discussing -better to be oldest in the year rather than the youngest.

I am Oct and have GCSE/A level/Degree but my brothers -March/May only got to GCSE's but what do you term as 'successful?'

I am a teacher educated to the hilt whereas both my brothers worked like billiyo and have a totally different kind of intelligence not measured by sats. Both are highly intelligent businessmen earning far more than I do and are higher up in level of job.

My husband is an August birthday, educated to degree level and also very successful so whilst these things are interesting to know, they don't have to apply to your situation.

We have a ds1 -March -verbally v.bright but not wanting to be tied down to 'activities' at nursery and ds2 -due in Oct/nov.
So I will be interested, with our family history how they turn out!

My sister who has spent 20 years in education and currently specialises in the area of language acquisition and special needs feels stongly that younger summer born children (boys in particular) can suffer badly from starting school too early.

She has written papers etc (I don't pretend to know all the details) and reads a lot of the research so I trust what she says.

It does actually make sense to me and to pooh pooh it just becasue it doen't fit with individual experience seems a bit pointless.

Is it only me that noticed that boys started doing worse at school when they introduced reception classes? Boys do mature later than girls, and sending them to school too early can result in a lifelong dislike of formal learning.

I have 2 dds, dd1 is beg Oct, dd2 is end July. Whilst dd2 is academically brighter, she has suffered hugely at school largely as a result of immaturity when she started.

I must admit I was shocked when I was told that ds (3) was a little 'immature' to 'move up' to the next class with his friends (at nursery) and that he had a 'poor concentration span' he's 3 !!!

I wanted to know what they expected from a 3 year old but they (the nursery teacher/headteacher) couldn't give me a straight answer.

My ds is, as I said earlier, bright but DOES NOT like being pinned down to do 'activities' at nursery -writing his name/letter formation/painting/clay etc but he is already being judged and measured as 'needing special attention' to develop this.

At home I don't do any pencil activities with him, more outside activities which he excells at -but that isn't what the nursery are interested in.

As a consquence we are moving him to a nursery that is more outside based where they have 'real life problems' and they don't start trying to teach writing until he's in reception.....yippeeee!

Sorry this has gone off topic but too much happens too early which put children off education. I have seen 4-5 year olds arrive at nursery with folders of their 'work' who are then 'burnt out' as 'work' was started too early.

I think it was me who asked for a link to the statistics on that other thread, and I did go and look up some of the research myself after that. I found a few reports with not totally consistent findings - some studies did show a (not particularly huge) difference in academic achievement for those old and young in the year, even in teenage years, and other studies seemed to find the difference was evened out by about aged 11-12.

I still want to see a link if anyone has it to that suggestion that 80% of Oxbridge entrants are Sept-Dec born because I do think that particular statistic is likely to be wrong.

my june dd is ahead of older ones in her class - this is in year 1 so it isn't all doom and gloom for summer babies

fennel I think 80% oxbridge entrants being Sept-Dec born is so extreme as to be laughable. Obviously fabricated. But I wouldn't be surprised if there was a small bias.

I am shocked that a teacher would tell a parent that they were the 2nd brightest in the class
sounds really odd

I just found this on the NUS website - no figures given though so no help really!

Thu 17-Feb-2005 Applications

The Campus Question

Independent Education, p.7

Following a recent report which found that people born early in the school year were more likely to go to university than those born late, The Independent asked several individuals in the field, including NUS Vice President Education Hannah Essex, the following question: Should universities make allowances for applicants' birth dates?

Hannah Essex: "Institutions should take into account a variety of criteria when deciding which applicants to accept, and date of birth could be one. However, the issue seems to be more about young people's progression at school. The NUS supports the drive behind the Tomlinson proposals, because they promote a ladder of progression that young people will be able to climb at their own pace. Deciding to go to university should be a 'stage not age' approach so that students who do not feel ready should not feel compelled to start a course simply because they have reached 18."

it was an odd teacher who made that remark, Hana. She was always wandering round with her skirt tucked in her knickers.

From Guardian Education, Jan 2005:

I've just realised that "20% less likely" is far from being an 80%/20% split - I hate "% less" stats anyway, I find them impossible to quantify (not being a statistician - you could tell, couldn't you? ), but on a crude level the split would be 60%/40% which sounds a lot more feasible.

Also, does it mean Sept-Dec? Isn't it more likely to mean Sept-Feb vs Mar-Aug? (Round here Feb/Mar is the divider between those who are allowed to skip a year and those who aren't - so a bright child born on Feb 28 could skip, and an equally bright child born on Mar 1 couldn't. It's utter madness.)

I would like to see the original report and the actual figures.

My MIL has an interesting theory that if you are a brighter than average child then it is much better to be a 'summer' baby, because you will be challenged, whereas if older in the year you would be bored.

I'm an August baby, and a graduate. Ds1 is June baby, is in top group for maths and second group for reading (Yr1 with a LOT of very bright Sep-Dec girls). Dd is August birthday, and I'm totally not concerned about her academically - she is streets ahead of where ds1 was at this stage, and ahead of where he was when he finished reception (she will start reception in Sep). Emotionally and socially is another matter - I am anxious that school is a positive experience in these areas, and this is where she will have the most difficulty I think.

For a child who finds in particular literacy difficult, I do think being a summer baby could be a problem.