Some anecdotal evidence about summer borns

[duchesse]

My daughter (27th July) will be starting senior school in September aged just 11yr 1 month. She went for her induction day at the pretty selective school she will be attending, during which one of the activities involved the girls sorting themselves out into age order.

My daughter was the youngest of the 34, by nearly 6 weeks (the next youngest was June 15th, with one other earlier in June). The point is that there are hardly any girls born in the summer term. Anecodotal evidence that summer borns tend not to do as well academically even by the end of primary school, or mere statistical blip?

I was born on 30th July, I got ten GCSE's, 3 Alevels and a degree. I never found my age a problem academically in primary or senior school.

DD is August born and the second youngest in her class (one girl is one day younger than her). Both of them are in the top groups for everything.

Well, I know the OP asked for anecdotal evidence, but all our clever July and August born children don't change the fact that for most children, being born in the summer is a disadvantage. Neither do our own academic successes.

I don't think it's at all coincidental that the OP's daughter's class is weighted towards the first part of the year.

My DS2, like SixSpotBurnet's DS2, would have found school unbearably boring had he been born 4 hours later; we've had some problems as it is. But (stating facts, rather than aiming to brag) I suspect he is unusually bright.

For my DS1, born mid-August and with concentration issues, being born 2 weeks later would probably have been a good thing. He would have been easily near the top of everything, his writing would have been average, not poor, and he would not have been the smallest. As it is, he is near the top of everything, but it is not as easy for him as for DS2. It would have been a breeze had he been born in September. Who knows, he might even have made the football team.

On PilesMerHour's point - it's true that lots of countries with v successful education systems start children at school at six or seven BUT they tend to have much more full-on kindergarten provision than we do - children will all be full-time (5 hours a day or so) attenders at very high quality pre-school from age of 3 upwards. What we have is nowhere near that yet. And they'll be learning phonics and writing and the things that we cover in reception year. BUT they'll be doing it in a more play orientated environment, at the same time as messing around with sand and paint right through till 6 or 7, which our schools don't do enough of in reception or year 1. I think that's one of the reasons full-time school here feels wrong for 4 year olds.

A friend of mine got into a sought-after school for her 31st August boy. She opted to put him in part-time until Easter.
All went fine in reception, but when they got to the first parents' evening in Year 1, the teacher just said "he struggles in every area, probably because of his age".

It was pretty devasting. My friend is a teacher and knew how to complain effectively and get him extra help. He's thriving again now. But it was all so unnecessary. It would have been so much better for everyone (him, the school, and the taxpayer funding the extra help) if he'd started later.

I am a Y3 teacher. I can honestly say that i can't tell which of my children are summer borns! There is no difference at all by the time they get into the juniors.
Also worth noting two of my very cleverest friends (5 As at A level) were June and August birthdays.
The thing that has the biggest bearing on a child's success in primary school is parental support.

Well, all my DSs' teachers have commented on their age, even up to Y5 - usually along the lines of "He's doing really well; we've got to remember he's not even - insert age of most of cohort here - yet." DS2's report today specifically said that his achievements were especially pleasing as he is very young in the year group.

When DD1 (April birthday) was in Y6 she was pulled up by the teacher, along with the rest of her table, and told they needn't be so cocky because they were, after all, much older than everybody else in the class (all the others were Sept/Oct birthdays)

These discussions do amuse me- they come up frequently on MN- with the number of posters who trumpet "I was born in late Aug and have 15 1sts from Oxford and DH was born on Aug 31st and has a brain the size of a planet so yar boo to the idea that being summer born TENDS to disadvantage a person academically"- I ponder that if they're so incredibly intelligent, why don't they understand basic statistics? And why the defensive stance?

Study after study has shown that early born DCs TEND to do better academically that later borns. End of story. We have to accept that we MNetters are a self-selected, non representative group. WE are 'the statistical blip', if you like!

FWIW, anecdotally, I'm Dec born BUT was put a year ahead for secondary thus was the second youngest in my year. Did OK at O level, but boy, did all 4 of us 'year aheads' fluff A levels! All the 'my DC is SO clever being Aug born isn't at problem at all' MAY find the trouble lies, socially, aged 15. Thankfully with all its failings our ed. system now encourages 'having another go' at a later, more mature date. It's just you have to pay second time around!

Statistical blip probably for you dd Duchesse, my dss are all at a selective academic school, and in my ds4's class, out of 21 boys only 3 have birthdays between september and december, whereas one could argue there should be 7. so this selective class (of boys) is actually younger than would be expected.
My only summer child is on the G and T register academically and good at sport ( i did used to feel sorry for at U8's level doing cross country against boys 10 months older but he more than held his own), and my own birthday is dec, but i was moved up a year so was more than 15 months younger than the oldest few girls in my class. I got near identical A level results to the oldest, again at an academically selective school.
It clearly does have more influence on the very little ones particulalry in their abilities to get dressed, use knife/fork etc on starting school, but I think by 11 few differences will be seen.
Telasfirl the op is all about anecdotal evidence, hence most peoples posts

Teslagirl - pay second time round? We're paying first time round, so heaven help us if there's a second time...

And as Loshad says, the op did ask for anecdotes, not statistics.

I am convinced that if children started school at a sensible age, any gap that might be statistically proven to exist between children would be much less evident. I think the problem is that some children are starting full-time school when they're only just four - and I am convinced this is too much for many of them. I think it's especially hard on boys, to whom sitting still and listening often does not come naturally at any age - and particularly not when they're barely out of toddlerhood.

My sister is December born and went right through school a year ahead and did extremely well (different academic system but got a place at Cambridge). The biggest issue she encountered was having to take a gap year but being too young to live independently.

Actually, re-reading the OP, she says she is giving anecdotal evidence, not asking for it.

In any case, I agree with Teslagirl. As I said earlier.

Teslagirl, you said it, so I didn't have to. Thanks.

Presumably, those who just say "my child is fine" are not really trying to dismiss concerns, but just trying not to worry others and perhaps reassure themselves.

Presumably, also, the minority who say "I'm born in August and have a PhD so all the evidence is flawed and there's no problem" have that PhD in some subject other than statistics?

My July-born husband will be going for his professorship in a philosophy department next year. "Ah" I hear someone cry, "well that just shows there isn't a problem". But he started school in the USA, so went when his mother thought he was ready (5 1/2).

Lingle - as an August-born PhD person, I feel your comment is rather mean!

That aside, I couldn't agree more with you re. your DH - no child should start school until they're ready! That's the problem with our system, not where children's birthdays fall within the academic year...

Sorry Dottoressa, didn't mean to be mean, and completely agree with all your comments.
I get so upset about this (feel it's a bizarre piece of officialdom that bears no relation to either statute law or what teachers think is best) that I must come across badly.

By the way, I don't think Moogmum is right about European countries doing the equivalent of receiption year at kindergarten. I can only speak for the Czech Republic but my friend's daughter is 7 and has not been taught any phonics/letters yet, and this is considered normal there.

Is it me, or is our reception year pretty ambitious, anyway? Certainly, our head says she likes us to "hit the ground running" (which makes my problem worse still).

within my group of close friends four of us had babies in and around the same time, boy in august first, then dd in feb, another girl in march and then a boy in may.

i found it hard to get my head around the fact that the august born boy who was born on the 28th started school at 4 and a couple of weeks old and a whole year ahead of the other three. When comparing the four of them developmentally they were all the same.

personally i would probably have put him in part time until the last term. i do know that he is not struggling as such but is finding it hard and is lagging in certain areas. the teachers have told my friend it is directly due to his age but it will even out.

dd is doing well in school and had a lovely report but she is very competitive. there is another girl who is "cleverer" than her and she tells me this at every opportunity when I complement her on doing well. now this girl was born in the first week of september and is naturally bright anyway. i have tried to explain this to dd and it goes in one ear and out the other. it is parents evening tomorrow and i going to mention this competitiveness as it does bother me.

anyway i have meandered off topic. by the way my close friend throughout secondary school was born on the 31st august an started school in the january after she was 4. she is now a newspaper editor so has not done badly at all for her summer birth.

Lingle - no worries! It is a topic that gets people quite het up...

Back to the OP...

Duchesse - At my son's selective prep school the youngest boy in year 3 is May born!!

Yes, I forgot to say that in my friend's DD's selective prep school class there is one June birthday, one May birthday and then 22 girls born in February or earlier.

bump

I was panicking about dd1 but for the other way round, she is 7th sept tehrefore when she starts school next year she'll be turning 5 in the 1st week (girl round the corner has her birthday the 6th so they'll be starting school/birthdays together) I wass worried that she'll be so bored by next September she wont settle in school, and school I am applying for has 2 intakes so I did ring to see if they'd take her in January intake next year (answer was no as shes is born after 1st sept)

Preschool say she is doing fine and she'll stay there till next summer and increase her sessions from 3 mornings to 4 mornings and see how she goes

My ds is a late August baby and I'm not worried in the slightest.
If a child wants to learn and progress they will do so in due course.
Most important thing to me is my ds is happy, healthy and sociable (which he is luckily)

eandh my dd was also born on 7th Sept. I too thought she was ready for school (and she probably was) but she did survive waiting and has done incredibly well - always gets glowing reports, loves school etc. She is coming up eight now.

Nooka thanks for that - hopefully dd1 will be like that (although she'll be 4 this year she is truly testing my parenting skills lately!)