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

I can only speak from my experience of this, but my two eldest found the transition from nursery to school not so straightforward. I don't think it is the same: although there are learning expecations in nursery, there is none of the current testing or monitoring that occurs in school. And on the whole, nurseries are still better geared up to manage the physical care and emotional needs of young children in a way that schools, even good reception classes just aren't. If that were rectified, then maybe that would help.

The evidence is that educational outcomes are different at all levels, even at GCSE and A level. I am not sure how the current primary provision can deal with that. Perhaps proper monitoring and age-adjusted scores would go some way? What do you think would mitigate the age-effects, Deadworm?

I'm not sure what would mitigate them and agree it is a prob. I'm just worried that a change along the suggested lines would just be a combo of:

(a) shifting the arbitrary watershed so that eg if you can defer children with a May-to-August birthday, parents of children born in April would feel their child diadvantaged

(b) introducing a class/inclome differential so that the poorer children would suffer age-related effects disproportionately.

I would like policy to concentrate on improved teaching and classroom resources (plus perhaps less monitoring, which is damaging in a range of ways anyway).

(I don't see need for age-adjusted scores. That would be an awfully blunt tool. Plenty of children aren't disadvantaged by august birthday.

My son has been Statistics bear this out too. he will be going into year 5 (currently year 6) from january in the independent sector.

but how do you know a lot of summer born children aren't disadvantaged? because they do as well / if not better in the tests. but the argument for age-adjusted scores is for internal use. an august born child doing as well as a september born child is not 'not disadvantage' they are actually working almost a year ahead.
it's about expectations and setting appropriate work while still young. It would make it more explicit.

If a child has been to nursery, then the transition from school to reception is generally not too bad, even for summerborns.

This is because a reception class is mostly play and a little formal learning. The real pain starts in Y1 when the equation reverses to a little play and mostly formal learning. That is when the problems start for many summer borns, and you only need to look at mumsnet to find threads reading "My dc is in Y1 and cries every morning, yet was fine in reception, I do not understand it."

That is why schools need the ability to back year children who are struggling, and it is why it is cruel to start a child in Y1 if they have not been through reception. It is also why learning through play needs to be integrated into the whole of KS1, as it is in Wales.

And what about the social side? The older ones tend to be more successful at games (Because they are bigger and better coordinated), get picked for the speaking parts at assembly and class plays (because they can read and/or are more confident)and therefore feel succesful from the very beginning. I have one of each, September and July (plus third with special needs)and the July born DS has definitely suffered from a lack of confidence compared to his september born younger brother even accounting for differences in personality.

totally agree with that Tizzyjacko - most of the kids who pass the 11plus at DSs school are Sept- Feb and indeed most of the kids i teach are too (in selective school)

I am a bit confused as to if there is anything i can do about my summer born boy. currently 3 and due to start school in sept 2010.
he's only a june birthday i hasten to add. but he's tiny, still in 12-18 months trousers so at this rate i hope the school uniforms is available in 18-24 months size or what will i do? he's enjoying nursery but it is really clear that his self-help skills are not great, we are working really hard ot help but he is just young. also he had glue ear so to be honest, if you don't know him, you probably couldnt' understand what he says most of the time. people often misunderstand what he says and just answer a totally different question.
DH said people always thought that he was a lot younger than he was as a child, but he was a sept birthday so i guess he just fitted in. i'm worried DS is the same, but with a summer birthday. at the moment at least DS really looks like he belongs in the year below. he doesn't really interact much with other children but those he talks about are the younger ones in the pre-school next door to the nursery. he's seen the speech therapist a bit but he isn't really SEN.
we live in Bradford LA (hi otter and lingle, not in the head covering place but nearby - and would love to move there for the schools if we ever get any money!) and want to know if this deferral thing is still an option? provisionally we are interested in a school in leeds LA, which has a mixed year r/1 and Year 1/2 class and the children in year 1 are split by age. so effectively he might get an extra year in (a kind of) reception and DD sept born would get two years in the year 1/2 class and just one year in the Year R/1 class.
DSs nursery is amazing and i would love to leave him there for an extra year and start him a year late in Year R (def not straight into Year 1, what would be the point in that?) but i suspect i don't have the option?
Do I? Ed Balls is kind of hinting i might? or is this at some kind of fictional point in the future if labour win the next election? confused as to what my options are if any, and wishing all children stayed in nursery until nearly 6 as this would help this problem a lot.
sorry for long rambling and overtired post

its the social and emotional side of things i worry about as much as anything really.

TBH i expect that age adjusted scores will be a reality for GCSEs or their successor by the time DS takes his in 12 years time. The research is resoundingly clear that the line on the graph for your GCSE scores slopes gradually downwards from sept to aug.

I think this whole issue is in danger of 'sliping through the cracks' in the run up to the election.

Gordon Brown didn't really address it in his Webchat. His comment 'our reports suggest that its better to start [school?] earlier than six' showed that he had been poorly briefed both on the Rose (and IFS) report and the Cambridge Primary report. Also, quite worryingly, he appears to believe the issue has been resolved (by Rose) and doesn't need any further attention.

David Cameron ignored the issue totally (maybe it got lost in his laptop).

We should have a campaign to make sure the 'relative age effect' inequality in our schools is pushed higher up the education agenda.

What specifically we want done is a harder question. The most talked about options are:

1. To allow flexibiltiy in reception starting age for summerborns (to allow a delay in starting reception to the September after a child turns 5).

1. To push back the age at which all children start 'formal education' (as recommended by The Cambridge Primary Review).

1. My own preference is to teach primary children in narrower age cohorts. e.g in a 3 class year - have an autumn born, winter born and summer born class.

Can we campaign on the high level issue - that our education system is (mainly) unfair to summerborns or do we need to be more specific?

My D1 is the youngest in her year and this has never affected her, academically she is one of the brightest in her year. If your child is ready for school depends on their character not birthday.

Clara,

Your dd is indeed lucky. Unfortunatley all (just google 'relative age effect') the evidence suggests that the youngest children in any school year will, on average, have poorer outcomes in terms of education (up to age 18) and are also more likely to have a SEN, mental health issues, and even a prison record, than older children in the school year.

The most comprehensive UK report on this is the NFER. It is a few years old. However the government has recently commissioned an IFS report When you are born matters for academic outcomes: urgent policy action needed to help summer-born children. I have an issue with recommendations but the findings are pretty conclusive.

Jackstar, I have raised this on the Mumsnet campaigns thread, I don't know if you want to do it too, copying the things you posted here?

Thanks Wilf.

I've done it. Here's the link for anyone else who might want to join in. mumsnet campaigns

I'm an infant teacher. In every class there have been summer born children, both boys and girls, amongst the most able children in the class. My own daughter was born Aug 31, started school as a non-reader aged 4 and a few days, but left Reception with a reading age of 8 and a half, got level 3s in yr 2, level 4s in yr 3, level 5s in yr 5 (all in maths and English). She's now in Year 8 and working at level 7, although she is still only 12.

Whatever changes to the law are made, they must take account of the needs and abilities of each individual child. A blanket policy of delaying schooling for summer born children is potentially as damaging as one that makes formal schooling for every 4 yr old compulsory.

For those of you who don't get it yet.......

• yes, someone has to be the youngest. That person should not be the child who also has significant immaturities/delays such that all the professionals working with that child recommend an extra year in nursery for that child before starting school

• the Scottish system - in fact practically every system in the civilised world except ours - has flexibility built in and you rarely, if ever,hear anyone from there complaining of it. England is the anomaly.

I've put a post on the campaigns page.

I consider the plight of immature/delayed summer-borns to be an altogether different issue to the problem of being a mature autumn-born girl who has to wait until 4.11 or 5.0 to start school. The latter problem is a childcare/quality of nursery issue. It's not the sort of thing you end up sat in front of a consultant paediatrician about.

I just think we could do it better!

The gov have had lots of advice and choose to ignore it. Our counterparts who send their children to school later do much better both in the short and long term.

see
petitions.number10.gov.uk/Startat6/

I think it is too general to say that all parents of children with a summer birthday can defer school entry, someone will be the youngest and therefore be disadvantaged. There has got to be a better way round this, for example sending children to school later as many posters have suggested.

The evidence - from the two reports mentioned higher up in this thread - is that sending summer borns (or any child later) adds to the developmental disadvantage they have.

Nobody is suggesting a blanket delay for all summer borns; just more debate about other options.

My November born daughter was youngest in the french system which she attended full time from age of 2 and as a result mixed with older children and when she took the 7+exam [in english] she had no problems either passing the tests or settling into the new school.
My son ,born prem in July , was a nightmare from the beginning , had one year of state nursery and now in year 1 is markedly less advancd than his peers. ;[

Bumping this: see the sticky on Jim Rose doing a webchat next week...

bump for the Jim Rose webchat

Thanks Wilf - hadn't spotted the Jim Rose webchat. Shld be interesting!