Following Ed Balls webchat, thread for parents of summer born babies

[GeraldineMumsnet]

We said we'd start this thread, as so many of you expressed an opinion on the Ed Balls webchat thread about summer-born babies and starting school.

BTW, this is a recent thread in media requests on a linked topic.

Will nip over to webchat thread and link to this.

MNHQ

No Builde, I have to disagree with you on the birthday parties. It is a total nightmare to organise a children's birthday party in August. For a start lots of people go away, so inevitably dc's best friend cannot come. Also, you need to give out invitations when schools break up in mid July for a birthday party at the end of August. So many people forget to come even if they have not gone away and actually would have liked to have come. People are generally rubbish as RSVPing so you often have no way of contacting class mates to confirm.

Actually I have now given up and do it in September which meant that dd1 had to suffer the indignity of having a 9th birthday party in the September of year 5 (the same month as some children in her class turned 10). We now tend to only ask children who dd1 knows well, so it is easier, but it was a real problem in the infants. I did feel very guilty this year when dd1 could not go to her best friend's party because we were away, knowing how sensitive August children feel about this.

Rant over

Madsometimes, we have exactly the same problem, and DS2's birthday parties (end of August) always clash with the beginning-of-September-year-older parties.

Hi all,
It doesn't always end up badly. My DD was due at the beginning of Sept 04 and was born a month early. She was late developing and couldn't sit unaided until 9 months.
Me and her dad worried about her starting school and if I had the option I would have wanted to hold her back a year. But this would have been a terrible mistake and she would have been so bored. She is now doing really well, both academically and socially. She is already on stage 6 of the ORT reading scheme and is brilliant at maths.
Obviously I know that this isn't the case for all children but for us it has worked out well.
The only issue I really have with the system is the ages they receive free nursery places from. Surely this should be the same as the school intakes?

I have a slightly premature august-born son, and I could argue that if all had gone according to plan he would have been a bit younger and entitled to start school a year later. As it happens, I think he'll be fine anyway. But what concerns me, is that if everyone with a summer-born baby camapigns successfully to have their children put back a year so as to make them the oldest in their year group, doesn't that just make the spring-born children into the disadvantaged group?

it could be a never ending cycle! Perhaps if parents could choose when in a school year (by half term) they send their child that would work well for all.

A normal four year old should not be "bored" merely because he/she is not at school. Maybe the quality of nursery provision is the issue here.

Buda - totally agree with you . We are transfering our son (very late in the day) from year 6 in state sector (a supposedly outstanding school according to OFSTED)(he is very late August born and youngest in year) to an independent school in January to go into year 5. It is the correct year group for him to be in. All the teachers we have spoken to (my husband and I are also teachers) agree with what we are doing and think it is the best for him. DS understands its where he should be and is fine with it all - frankly he is sick of being bottom of the year group for everything all the time...to hear that he may be average would be lovely for his confidence.The only person who has raised doubts over it has been his current headteacher but even he said that he understood our decision.

good for you stillenacht.

Mumsnet HQ - have you located Sir Jim Rose yet?

Thought I'd add my August born DD's story (age 7)!
Joined pre-school at 2 1/2 as normal,
Kicked out of pre-school at age 3 to join combined nursery/reception class,
Couldn't cope with whole days,
Joined private nursery instead & stayed until summer term of reception (they were fantastic & her confidence was repaired),
Joined different primary from summer term of reception & stayed until the end of year 2- always had problems emotionally & socially at this school because of her age although very bright academically. Felt we had to move her as her confidence had been crushed again.
Joined prep in September (year 3) and they are doing fantastic work for her confidence (although still the odd problem), although she does struggle still with handwriting and lack of rest from the homework!

I am in two minds about when she should have started school and with hindsight would never have sent her to her first primary at age 2 1/2! Tiredness, lack of concentration and fine motor skills will always be her biggest battles but we are now lucky enough to have a school which helps us deal with them. If we had kept her back a year she would have been bored academically but there is little doubt in my mind that it would have been much better for her character & confidence!

P.S We hate the whole birthday party in the holidays thing too! DD's last party was age 4.

I am interested in what you say about her being bored academically. Don't mean to sound like it's an attack - not meant that way.

My son is 4, teaching himself to read, playing the piano in harmonies (self-taught again - observes brothers' lessons), has a concentration span of one solid hour (other children drift off as they cannot maintain the attention) etc, etc, but my paed. said (and this is one of the few helpful things she's said) not to concentrate on those things because "those things will be there for him later" whereas what he needs right now is to develop self-confidence and play skills with his peers (as he is doing in his nursery right now).

I really don't understand what it could mean for a just-4 year old to be "bored" at home or in a high-quality pre-school setting. My son seems very academic to me but this is the age where they should be developing their play-skills, not learning phonics, surely?

Sorry,
I don't have any answers! Was just saying that we seem to have eventually found the best of what is on offer.
I don't think children necessarily need to be grouped according to age other than for the fact that it is some way of trying to make life a little easier for the teachers.
I don't however, think that rules should be set in stone. This is where teachers traditionally would have had enough authority to agree to move a child if the parent thought it in their best interests! However, this is yet another power that the government have taken away!

I haven't read the whole thread so sorry if I am repeating points that others have made. DS was 4 in August and started school this September.
He did half days for the first half term and is now doing full days. Coping fine-bit tired but he was doing 2 full days at pre-school as well as 3 days
He is getting reading books and starting to take an interest in letter formation (on his own) but has no formal homework and not much interest in sitting and reading.
I have absolutely no idea how this 'compares' to others or whether he is bottom or top or middle of his year. It is Reception and therefore play based so all I ever hear from him is how he built sandcastles or played with cars or did Lego.
I have no idea if it is 'right' for him or not but he loves it and to me it doesn't seem as if what he is doing is very different from preschool anyway?
Perhaps the differences will become more marked later on but I am a bit wary of 'labelling' it as a problem and thereby making it so IYSWIM. He loves school-am happy with that for now.

I haven't read the whole thread so I don't know if this has been brought up before.

Where we live we have a January intake for children whose birthday is between March - August.

I can't decide whether this is better for the children or not. It means that the summer birthday children are nearer to their 5th birthday when starting school so that bit more mature, but also means that they only have 2 terms in reception rather than 3.

DS is now in Y4, and even now I find that the children with September/October birthdays seem so much older than my DS.

i have a 17 year old summer born and summer born baby

17 year old no problems academically and i believe being summer born has HELPED him instill a great work ethic

i also have two october born (lazy)

and two spring born

i choose summer born

"I don't however, think that rules should be set in stone. This is where teachers traditionally would have had enough authority to agree to move a child if the parent thought it in their best interests! However, this is yet another power that the government have taken away!"

Yes, strongly agree, I am not a natural conservative voter but can see that what you say above chimes a bit more with the Conservative ethos and it may be up to them to change it.

i dont see mumsnet to be a representative sample in the issue

having a child in his final year of education this is imE a 'non issue' for a lot of parents - especially after i guess around year 2

i do have differing issues with age in the yeargroup so i do empathise with the problems birthdate can cause per se

interestingly - when reading the list of boys birthdates who got into my sons' very competitive selective grammar school - i was stunned to notice a disproportionate number of summer borns. the test was 'weighted' but this was only to a maximum of +2 ( out of 130 ish)

again only my experience - but it is not all doom and gloom

having had 6 children i actively made my number six summer born

this was only one year with the boys school and could of course be an odd unrepresentative year

Interestingly, as a comparison, the school my August-born DS1 now goes to (selective prep, so age 7 -13, with selection by exam and interview at 7, 8 10 and 11) publishes a list of all children in the school plus birth date. So being slightly obsessed (and keen to prove a point) I did the math, as they say. 40% of the children are born September-December, 35% January - April and 25% May - August. Now I guess all that really shows is that children who are older in the year group do better in exams...

I am bumping this thread - partly so we can try and get it on the list on MN campaigns - what do you think? We talked about the Power of MN to try and address this issue: a good lobbying campaign that affects many of us, no?

And I might post a question for Dave (and any further party leaders who might be sniffing around now we are officially a Bellweather site )

Haven't followed the thread, so I have what is probably an idiot question. If parents can opt to have their summer-born children enter a year later, without having to join the cohort that has already been at school a year, won't that mean that, in theory, there will be an age differential of potentially almost two years in the cohhort they chose to join?

I. e. as things stand my summer-born child would face schooling with children up to 364 days older than him. But if parents of a summer-born child of the previous year defer, he might have children 365+ days older than him. That will increase the pressure on him and also cause spring-born and winter-born children to face the same sort of differential that current summer-borns face??

Also, some families will be able to afford to defer (to pay childcare fees or have a parent at home, etc) and some won't. So won't children already disadvantaged by relative poverty face schooling alongside deferred children from advantaged background, who will therefore have a double advantage -- potentially a 365+ day age advantage plus the learning benefits associated with educationally aspirational middle-class families?

I agree that the real obstacle is a class/income one, and probably why Balls won't entertain the idea - because the only way for it to be equitable would be to fully fund nursery places for summer-borns. But the proposals already seem to be suggesting the Labour Party would support funding additional fulltime nursery places for some of the year so that summer borns could attend school part time.

But I still think the principle needs to be asked: why should children have to start school at an arbitrary point rather than when they are ready, given that we know it has an impact on outcomes in later life? Given that children from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds are going to face educational penalties in other ways, you could further argue that they will be doubly disadvantaged by having to start at just-4.

Hmm. I still tend to think that the best solution is to have the right classroom resources and good teaching to enable teachers to adapt well to the indvividual ages and attainment of all pupils.

It isn't an arbitrary startpoint for when your child starts school (you have authority over that until age 5). It is a startpoint for when your child starts school if h/she is consuming the mass-educational state service, which can't be limitlessly flexible. And quite possibly the current system is the least worst.

The only way for funded nursery places to overcome the class/income thing would be if they had the same attendance hours as school -- otherwise useless for childcare whilst working. So they would be in a classroom all day, loosing one of the advantages of defferal. The learning environment there would prob be similar to Reception in respect of having to cope with differential attainments etc. In nursery school or reception, it comes down to the professiobalism and flexibility of the teaching.

spelling