Would you delay your May Born child by one year

[Worrier987]

I have a young child born in May and I keep thinking about delaying his school start to when he is 5 years old.
Has anyone got experience of this and was it difficult to do that ?

Surely the decision would be based on your child’s development rather than just the date they were born? I am the latest in the school year by 6 months out of my siblings yet achieved the best educationally.

I think it depends on the individual child really.

Lots of countries don't start school until 5, 6, or even 7, so really, UK reception class kids are quite young to be in school.

But what would you do with him for the extra year?

If he's in nursery he'll be older than most of the other kids and might start to feel a bit frustrated if he's more advanced than his peers.

My husband is a teacher and when we were trying for our children he said that the last thing he wanted was a summer baby because he had seen for himself the disadvantage they can be at.

We tried for 11 months to get pregnant and as Sod’s Law would have it I conceived at the end of November and when I told my husband I was pregnant, once all the happiness and excitement had passed he said, “oh god, that’s means the baby is being born in August doesn’t it?” 😂

We pretty much always knew we’d most likely defer our son and about 9 months before the school application process was due to start we began really looking into all the research behind the long-term affects that some summer-born children can have when they start school just after turning 4 years old and that helped solidify our decision.

We went back and forth for months though because it really isn’t an easy decision to make….so many doubts and worries and ultimately it came down to what I felt was right in my heart, and that was a deferral.

So he started reception 12 days after his fifth birthday and he has just gone into Year 1 shortly after his 6th birthday.

I have absolutely no regrets at all.

There was a girl in my daughter's year (June born) who was held back. She was much bigger and more mature than everyone else and stood out like a sore thumb. Poor kid had no reason to be held back and it really affected her socially.

Yes, this. My two are May and June birthdays and have done well at school in their 'correct' year group.

Ds is in y7 now and would stick out if still in y6 as he had a growth spurt last year and a deeper voice and already looked older than many of his classmates.

I wonder how it would work for sports clubs / teams too, as I would assume the child would need to play with their correct age group rather than the year below.

The child can play for either the age group they “should” have been with if they hadn’t been deferred OR the age group they are being educated with. This approach will last for the duration of their time in school.

Both options are allowed and will be down to parental/child choice.

My deferred son is in Year 1 but he plays in a football team with Year 2 boys. We have been told it’s no problem to move him down to play with the Year 1s if we want but our son is happy where he is.

@GreenMeanMachine can you expand on the difficulties at secondary school? Thanks

@beachdays27 so we are in a Grammar School area and you have to get permission to be tested if you are outside chronological age group. The fact a decision was made to defer you in reception and so you are a year behind us not enough. One child was given permission (he had some social issues and lots of evidence supporting original referral), the other 2 did not get permission.

A couple of local independents also refused to admit outside chronological age group (again it was not a complete ban, but “will consider in all the circumstances”) and again same 2 boys whose parents just felt they were a bit young could not do entrance exam.

@GreenMeanMachine thanks that's really helpful

My daughter is an August 30th birthday and more than holds her own emotionally and academically.

I have a late August born child and he also had a speech delay and was little. He still went to school after just turning four . It was hard at first but he has mainly caught up. When he finds things difficult I just tell him it’s because he is the youngest. Whilst I think it can be a hardship for some of the youngest ones, I think it’s ok to have some hardships growing up and learning to deal with them. Someone has to be the youngest. I think it should be only allowed for premature or SEN pupils. At the moment it seems to be used by middle class parents in order to give their average children an advantage.

The guidance from the Department for Education is very clear on what they expect to happen as delayed summer- born children move through stages of education. They should stay with their adopted cohort unless there is a very strong reason for it to be in their best interests to skip a year of school.

But headstone thats ridiculous as you would have to display diagnose at 3. Even the most severe asd child i know - who went onto a sen school. Started school at 4y1m repeated reception. Then went to sen school at 6.
The other child i know also july born repeated reception. His asd was really not obvious at 4. he only had a slight speech delay.
both dd1 and dd2 were similar at 3. On starting school dd1 had more issues. (At 4 vs 5) but assumimg it was not age, i couldnt have know which child would struggle too much. I did though know she was having issues at preschool.

o would go so far as saying it maybe life vs death. Dd1 is very depressed saying she wont be here to adulthood. such a negative start to school

Personality being most important but age makes a big difference.

Exactly. Seeing as we have to apply for a school place about 5 months after our child turns 3 years old (which sounds insane) how can any parent possibly know if there are any significant SEN issues at such a young age unless the child already shows extreme delays or already has a diagnosis of a condition that affects their emotional/social skills and/or their cognitive function.

When it came to making my decision I just read all the research that had been done on the negative and long-term impacts that being summer-born can lead to and I just asked myself what would I find easier to live with? Deferring him and possibly having to deal with the 101 criticisms/questions I may have to face (maybe even including from DS one day) OR just send him anyway and take the risk that he won’t be affected.

It wasn’t a risk I was prepared to take though so I deferred him.

I have a close friend whose son is also an August birthday and he turned 4 years old a week before my son. We’d had many chats about whether any of us would defer our child and she chose to send her to son to school just after his fourth birthday whereas I deferred mine.

Anyhow, her son was fine in reception as it’s mainly play based but when he got moved up to Year 1 just after turning 5 he really struggled. His behaviour in and out of school deteriorated, he struggled in class to both do the work and keep up with the other children and emotionally he just couldn’t manage. He started to fall behind the others, wetting himself in class, school refusal, crying every morning and saying that he didn’t want to go to school and the teacher would have to prise him out of my friend’s arms each morning. It was incredibly distressing for my friend.

He had a alternating good periods and bad periods but generally that is how he was during Year 1. He’s now just gone into Year 2, the academic and emotional gap has widened further and his problems have now started up again.

She’s had many conversations with the schools SEN team who have no worries about him at all from an SEN angle, the verdict is simply that he struggles to keep up with the other children academically, emotionally and socially and his upset and frustration in relation to that is manifesting in these behaviours.

My friend is in a current battle to try and get her son moved down an Academic Year so he’d be back with the Year 1 children as if he had been deferred, but the school won’t allow it as he's “already in the system”.

When I was talking through the deferral process with regards to my son, the LEA and school both said that it’s far easier to defer a child and then move them back up to their ‘correct’ cohort at any point if they excel, than it is to start a child at just turned 4 and then try and move them back a year if they struggle.

I regularly have little conversations with my son about his school deferral so he will at least know from the start that it’s a choice we made for him and why we did it. I don’t want him to just “suddenly work it out one day” as I want to make him understand that a deferral isn’t a negative and it’s a valid and normal choice that some parents make.

I know there are 1000s of summer borns, past and present, who did absolutely fine at school and there is no blanket rule that says all summer-borns will be fine, or all summer-borns will struggle.

The choice to send them at just turned 4 is fine, and the choice to defer them a year is fine too.

Some parents will 100% know their summer-born will manage just fine, and some parents will 100% know their summer-born child will struggle.

Most of the parents won’t know either way though as we don’t have crystal balls and it’s in those cases where we just have to weigh up the possible pros and cons and make a final decision and then hope it’s the right one.

The thing is that each child's development along academic advancement, social and emotional communication skills and physical maturity are all going to be very different, but it's very unusual for a child to be significantly behind or advanced from others in their age cohort on all three of these measures. More usually a child may br advanced or behind on one or two of them, and might be perfectly average, or even different in the opposite direction, for the remainder. So for most children, any movement between age cohorts which compensates for one difference in development stage is quite likely to cause or worsen problems elsewhere. Which isn't to say it should never be done but it needs to be rare and with great caution and awareness of the potential other problems.

I think there are two main considerations - is there any delay for the child which the extra year may help with? And is 4 the right age for any child to start regardless of delay?

When there's no delay, some think 4 is too young for children to start school regardless and it's younger than they typically start elsewhere in Europe. The problem in England is that you have to choose between sending your summer born age 4 or having them educated with slightly younger children out of cohort, because it remains unusual to choose to send them age 5, so if you do that you're likely to be the only one.

This thread has really highlighted that there is a big cultural difference between delaying in Scotland and in England.

You just have to choose what you think is right for your individual child, but that's hard when there's still so much unknown when they're only 3.

I also have a May born, and I think I will send him age 5 rather than age 4. I wish we had a system where I could do that without him being with slightly younger children, but we don't. On balance though I hope the benefits of him being that bit older to face the demands of year 1 (I'm not worried about reception) and having an extra year of play in preschool will help him.

It's a privileged position though even being able to make this decision, we don't have preschool attached to the school, and an extra year of private nursery will be expensive (although those with children born in September are in the same boat).

@HohiyiKozbevi interested in your perspective. What problems do you think being out of cohort with slightly younger children can cause? Anecdotally people tend to talk about the benefits if a child out of cohort is eg slightly more mature and that they just tend to gravitate towards the autumn borns. There is such variety between children though that even if a parent feels it's better for their individual child to start age 5 rather than 4, that I wouldn't expect the 5 year old to necessarily be obviously more mature, academic etc.

Unless your child has developmental delays or there are concerns about possible SEN or other issues (like the poster whose child had a serious illness, or extreme prematurity) I would not defer a May born. Even starting at 4, they will be older than at least 25% of the class. And if you defer them, they won’t be with “slightly younger children” as a couple of posters have said. The next oldest child, even if born at the beginning of September, will be over three months younger; the rest of the class will be spread over the year and some of them will be 15 months younger than yours (all this assuming the child’s birthday is at the end of May; if it’s at the beginning add a month to both figures).

For an August born I think it is a different equation as the difference between them and the oldest children in the “year below” is a couple of weeks not a few months; similarly the gap to the oldest children in their “correct year” is almost 12 months not 8.

We considered deferring my July born DC2 and, having taken advice from nursery and school, chose to send him at 4. He met all the learning goals at the end of Reception and is managing the transition to Y1 just fine. I think it helps that with an older sibling he spends much of his life with older children; also he is tall and good at sports so can hold his own in that respect (and is in fact playing in a Y2 football team - he would be bored to tears still playing with tiny Reception children!). It is a really hard decision as they change so much from when you apply at 3.5 (mine was still napping!) to when they actually start at 4. But for a May born where the only concern is “being the youngest” I just don’t think it’s necessary - they won’t be, by a long stretch!

P.S. I am a summer born with an Oxbridge first so may be a little biased!

Yes, my DC has only been in reception for a few weeks do obviously extremely early days but her friends so far are split between autumn and summer borns. In her preschool that was also the case, so about half her friends were autumn borns and close in age to her and the other half were summer borns and so a full year or so younger than her. It was pretty evenly split and still is so far.

AnySoln, I have no issues with parents who genuinely believe their child has some kind of delay or disadvantage seeking that extra year at home, however statistically it seems the richer parents are choosing to make their children the oldest in the class, usually at the sake of the least advantaged. So now the youngest in the class has to learn with children who could be 16 months older.

It really isn’t about the parents wanting their child to be the “oldest in the class” it’s about the fact that a lot of research shows there can be long-term educational and social impacts on children who start school when they’ve just turned four.

My son is the oldest boy in the class by a whole 9 days!! Wow! What an advantage he has…. 😂

The option to defer is available to anyone regardless of their income or social status, so it’s got nothing to do with being rich either. I’m pretty sure my £1’600 a month take-home pay isn’t considered a wealthy salary anyway…

The option to defer is available to anyone regardless of their income or social status, so it’s got nothing to do with being rich either.

It does for people struggling to afford child care make it less likely they'll choose to defer, so that is an argument that has some truth to it.

@MargaretThursday
The childcare funding continues so my summer-born DC received 30 free hours at pre school last year.
However I do think there is something to be said for the fact that it is currently only middle class parents deferring. I don't think this is anything to do with finances but the fact that most people don't seem to know it's an option, or as this thread has shown know absolutely nothing about the research that has been done on the topic.
I found no studies which showed that summerborn children are weren't at an disadvantage. Any argument to the contrary on this thread is purely anecdotal.
ALL the evidence shows that it is best to start school at an older age. I cannot understand why people are against the idea.

Once the child is five, Universal Credit claimants are expected to work significantly in excess of the standard preschool/nursery timetable. They won't get away with saying 'I can't work 25 hours, I've decided to defer DD's school by a year'.

So it isn't available to the poorest families.

@NeverDropYourMooncup

I didn't know that. That's a fair point then. Although for a summer born child it would only couple of months or even weeks that they were 5.

I maintain that it's a lack of knowledge about it as an option and the evidence behind it which is the main barrier.