Guest post: "Can we ever level the playing field for summer born children?"

[MumsnetGuestPosts]

My son turned four on August 30th; the following week he started school. He's not the only summer baby in our family - both my husband and I have August birthdays and were the youngest in our respective school years.

My main memory of being born in August is of never having to go to school on my birthday, and parties in the garden. I thought I was pretty lucky. I was never really aware of the implications of being younger than my peers until later in life, and so never had the chance for the dire predictions about my outcomes to become self-fulfilling prophecies.

Last week, Schools Minister Nick Gibb called for action to allow children born between April and August to start reception aged five, a change that many parents have spent years campaigning for.

The arguments for giving summer born children the option of starting school later largely centre on levelling the playing field - but would this really be the outcome? With a greater range in school-starting age, children like my four-year-old son could find themselves in a class of children who are up to 16 months older than them rather than a year. Of course, we could insist that all children between April and August start school at age five - but this would only lead to the parents of March babies taking up the campaigning mantel. There needs to be a cut-off point somewhere.

So what is the solution? Firstly I do believe a change is needed. Premature birth and the complications that often come with it should not be allowed to disadvantage a child - it is only fair that the date used to measure eligibility for schooling is the due date or the birth date, whichever is later.

We also need to examine the bigger picture, and look at other factors that affect children's first experiences of education. During my son's first week at his primary school I watched kids eight months older than him be carried home by their mothers as they were too tired to walk, whilst others tore round the playground full of energy. This tells me there is a lot more going on than simply just birth date.

Research suggests summer borns tend to fair worse, but if you look at other research too you will also see the same parallels when examining parents' marital status, [[https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/files/iser_working_papers/2009-01.pdf
child nutrition]], sleep, birth order, the choice of [[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/private-school-children-will-earn-200000-more-on-average-than-stateeducated-kids-by-42-9580114.html
private or state schooling]], health, birth weight, ethnicity, family finances, parental attitude and <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20130401151715/www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/DCSF-RR028.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">teachers.

We have to learn to accept that there will be numerous things that affect our child's educational outcome and that we can't control them all or make schooling fair for everyone.

I believe our primary role as parents is to prepare our children for the realities of the wider world. To learn not to be afraid to take risks or face difficult challenges. To understand that we all have strengths and weaknesses and that (perhaps most importantly) there are many things that matter more than academic results.

When my husband and I went through our schooling in the 1980s we weren't aware that our birth month might have an impact on how well we did and so it was never allowed to become a crutch or an excuse. Instead we rallied to meet the standards set by our older peers and pushed ourselves to excel and we finally left our schools at age 17 with a headstart of nearly 12 months on some of our friends.

My son Theo will have the same advantage we did, giving him a year in reserve which he can do with as he chooses. Personally I hope he uses it to travel, broaden his horizons and develop people skills, because those things, more than another year at home with me, are what will set him up for life.

What everyone else said more eloquently than I could.

I think the most important thing is to allow flexibility, choice and not insist on a 'one size fits all' approach, which disadvantages some. I know a range of children, some who would happily slot into the year above or below where they ended up, generally their parents and teachers would have made a better choice than an arbitrary cut-off date.

My son should have been a summer born, but was spring, I'm not sure if the current plans would cover him or not. Socially he could have done with waiting for the next year, academically he's always been ahead. Even if the option had been open to hold him back a year, I'm not sure if I would have done it.

Personally I would like to see more mixing, so it was possible to have different year groups for socialising, maths and literacy. I realise this would be very tricky for schools to provide and that we have to work with the funding available for the current system.

Simon April the first is the cut off for " summer born" children.

I have a May child and an early September child. ds got to start after Christmas which seemed like a good compromise (I don't think this is an option any more) and also in a class of younger born children as his school split the September and the January starters into two classes.

He still struggled with school for the first couple of years. dd on the other hand was more than ready. She was very sad when her friends at nursery all left her behind. On the other hand she was definitely advantaged at school (also helped by being very tall and very keen to please).

When we emigrated to Canada their birthdays worked the other way around, now ds is older in year and dd is younger (cut off is 31st December here). dd's early advantage seems to have carried over, and ds really benefited from an extra year in primary. Although dd sees it as a real disadvantage that her birthday is after the summer as her friends got jobs and she wasn't old enough.

I live in Scotland. We have a deferral system which I have used for my January born daughter. Now nearly 16, she is now in exam year. All round she is intelligent, but also socially and emotionally mature, has coped with changes and a lot of health issues flung her way. The benefits are showing now that she is older. Having 2 parents with December birthdays, it would our experiences which made up our minds to send our child to school a year later. Her dad switched off at high school having been placed in a class where he knew no one. His coping mechanicism because he was socially and emotionally immature. Me struggling all the way through school as one of the youngest. ????I am happy we made this decision for our child and hope that other parents do get that chance which we did.

M

We are not campaigning so that every child must start at 5 in reception, we are merely asking for some flexibility for parents, who ultimately know their children best, to be able to access a full education. If the school starting age is legally 5 then children who turn 5 in the summer term, and therefore don't need to be in school until the September, must be allowed to start in reception. It's a no-brainier, it's not rocket science and it must be up to the parents to decide.

MY DS is born in June, and I have to admit this used to be a big concern of mine, some of other children in his class, were so much bigger than him! Luckily, he's always been a hard little worker and is now 14 and towering above everyone (including his father!)

I don't think that being a summer baby has had that much of an impact on his learning, he's always been in the top sets of his class. There will always be older ones and younger ones in the class, and the gap closes pretty quickly

To me the simplest system seems to be the Scottish one where parents can choose what to do with children born between certain months - they can defer or not as suits the child. Much more sensible and child centred!

I've been thinking lots about this, and think the time is right for one big bold change that sorts out summerborn, holiday peak hassles, exam cram stress and boosts performance - A shift to a 3 semester system. Below is a link to a change.org petition. You don't need to sign it but I'd be really interested in your views. If you share mine would you be up for working together to try to make a big change happen?

www.change.org/p/secretary-of-state-for-education-lets-sort-out-the-uk-education-system-together?recruiter=180122391&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink

Sorry to nit pick but mantle, not mantel. And fare, not fair.

How do private schools deal with summer born children? Are they allowed to start later?

in some countries cc begin school on the actual bday when they reach the age that school begins. So staggered entrance- way easier for the teacher and better for the cc.

My ds is an end of March baby. He was NOT ready physically or emotionally to start school. He is in year 5 now, and I feel this has coloured his education so far. Damn right I would be complaining if a child a couple of days younger could have delayed that start for a year. I think it should be an option for every child to start the year after they're five, if the parent feels they are not yet ready for school.

So staggered entrance- way easier for the teacher and better for the cc.

Is it? It means that September babies get a year in reception, initially in a very small class, while June babies get very little time in reception, in a much larger class. That's essentially the 1970s' "rising five" policy, in which children started school in the term they turned five, which is now acknowledged to be an unmitigated disaster for spring and summer babies.

Not rtft. But. I got asked if I would delay my youngest starring school. He was born on the 1st of august. He's only 6 weeks and already people are presuming he won't be ready or will be behind in class. It's ridiculous. I didnt think things needed to change. I was august born and top of my class. And quite frankly it's our job as parents to prepare our children for school whenever they start. Some children may not be ready (emotionally, academically) even with the delayed start, others will be more than ready before they start. Birth date has naff all to do with it. Each child is different.I started school at just turned 4 and I did more than OK.

And I think it could cause more problems for those born in summer. Delaying school entry is a great way to tell a kid you don't think they are clever enough to start school. Brilliant confidence boost
So no, I won't be delaying entry for my youngest.

As others have pointed out, the data on birth date affecting performance is pretty comprehensive. I welcome this change, because my DS is not the OPs DS, nor is he anyone else's - so their anecdata doesn't disprove overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

yakketyyak Wait so Claire is allowed to post an article with her opinion in it but when other people disagree with her we're somehow preventing her freedom of speech?

The only reason we're so obsessed in the UK about who is the oldest in the class is because many kids are starting school too young. In other countries there is no advantage to being the oldest. Parents choose to start their child when they're ready and there is no correlation between birth month and academic success.

I think the only legitimate problem this brings up is that some low income families might struggle to afford another years worth of childcare (beyond the 15 hours) even though a delay might be in the best interest of their child. However I don't think school should be used by the government as a childcare option.

The evidence clearly shows just turned four is simply too young for many kids. For these children however much time you spend on phonics, or fine motor skills with play dough at home they're simply not at a developmental stage where they should be learning to read or write or be in a formal teaching environment. Even those that cope in reception often have massive issues on the transition to yr1.

FattyNinjaOwl

I think putting a child in school before they're ready, making them sit assessments they can't do and forcing them to progress beyond their developmental level is a great way to tell a child they're not smart. Saying you'll go to school next year the same as your friend born three weeks later isn't going to raise an eye brow with a four year old.

Just as a side note to the people saying I was August born and was in top sets? So? My gran smoked 30 a day and lived till 85 but I don't smoke and won't encourage my children to smoke either. I assume the classes you were top of didn't include statistics 101!

As an American with a German husband living in the UK it's amused us that so many people are up in arms about the proposed change foreseeing all these problems (children feeling stupid for being held back, big age gap).

I thought every country allowed the youngest children to stay back if they're not quite ready yet. It's not a big deal and makes much more sense than having kids in school that aren't ready for it taking up all the teacher's time. The age gap never made much of a difference because the ones that went early tended to be the more advanced kids that could keep up and the later developers were held back and ended up being the eldest.

Me and my brother have exactly the same birthday (two years apart) I went to school early he was "held back" a year. It was definitely the right decision for both of us, we both ended up doing well but he was a slow starter and would have been put off by going early where as I was totally ready and couldn't wait. It seems very bizarre to most foreigners that you have a system with no wiggle room at all, seems to make a lot of sense to allow some flexibility. That said my baby's still in utero so I'm not overly concerned at this stage :)

I have an August born DD. Had we been dependent on her 15 hours free nursery funding she would have only received 3 terms of pre-school experiences, significantly less than a child turning 3 just a week later. For some children those two extra terms could be crucial in terms of maturity, learning the listening skills needed for a great start to reception, familiarity of carpet time and many many more skills our children learn through a good pre-school environment. So it could be argued that a late summer born is disadvantaged far before their first day in reception.

And the thought that my DD started with kids who were possibly walking and starting to talk when she was born, it's hard to argue against the idea that some summer borns are already a step behind.

I have two mid August born girls, two days between birthdays and four years apart in age. My eldest is currently applying for university and has excelled in her AS results. All good, she worked hard and has been rewarded. My youngest, she struggles. She struggled asserting herself through primary, academically she lacked confidence which has followed her through into secondary school. But she still works very hard, unfortunately I don't think she will have the same results as her sister. But she is kind and funny and has empathy in buckets. She would make a fabulous nurse. I worry her route there will be too hard for her. Would I have held her back? Maybe? Or it may be that that is the child she is no matter what month she entered school.

No two children are the same.

But going down that path leads to having an eight year old with learning difficulties in a class with 5 year olds he towers over and getting even more isolated because he is so much bigger. Meanwhile the rest of the eight year old aren't learning to appreciate that there is a wide range of abilities and everyone has something to contribute even if they are never going to be great academically because that child isn't allowed to learn with his contemporaries. I don't think that's what we actually want is it?

FishWithABicycle I don't think anyone's proposing that a child is held back indefinitely but if a child is close to the cut off between year groups they move into the year group which is most appropriate for their personal level of development.

You need to distinguish between children that struggle academically and children that are just too young for school. There is clear evidence to show that summer born children are being misdiagnosed with SEN when in fact they are just too young.

There is always going to be a range of ability, going into a more appropriate year group will give you a better start at school but it won't change your ability. The point is that some children just aren't at a developmental stage where formal learning is appropriate. For these children there are clear advantages to waiting a year and then getting a better start.

Not everyone has the potential to be a brain surgeon or even to get a good set of GCSE's but by allowing children to enter school when ready you allow them to realise their potential - whatever that might be.