Summer born children will be behind all through their school life

[BleughCowWonders]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-15527145

:( really?

I'd assumed my dd (very end August) would catch up by about yr 2 or so - but not according to the BBC report. So she'll also be far more likely be behind in reading, writing and maths, and 20% less likely to go to (a good) university.

Ah, scary, just think what he could have achieved if he were born in September.

But the US has a different cut off :)

I wonder if there are specified qualities of a perfect mum

3 summer babies here - me, DH & DD.

DH - went to a fantastic primary who recognised him as very bright early on & supported him. He passed the 11+, went to grammar then Oxbridge & has a good job.

me - went to an ok primary, spent a year or in a mixed year class with the year below, failed the 11+ by 2 marks, went to a sink school, poor univiersity, have an ok job.

DD - very bright but was never in top groups in KS1 & got bored & disruptive. Passed entrance test for a very good prep for year 3 & has since been in top groups for everything doing very well.

None of us are very sporty or sociable though. DD really struggles with hockey as the young unco-ordinated one which is made worse by being left-handed. She is however, very good at gym. We are all also very musical.

I don't believe there are many teachers that are able to differentiate by ablity and age anymore. The national curriculum doesn't let them .

"I don't believe there are many teachers that are able to differentiate by ablity and age anymore. The national curriculum doesn't let them"

That's interesting Pugsandseals. Why do you say that?

This article in today's Observer is worth a read. It refers to the actual report (the article in the OP was based on the press release).

m.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2011/nov/06/august-babies-schools-family?cat=lifeandstyle&type=article

".. the IFS released this report now rather than when they had enough data for clear educational policy implications because parents and teachers should be made aware, so that they can help younger children as much as they can."

• not sure what I think about that.

The article also provides a link through to the IFS report.

Because pupils will always be measured against the Foundation Stage Profile at the end of reception year. 4 year olds will always be marked conservatively as they won't want them racing ahead & then stagnating - Ofsted are much harsher on a school which cannot show 'value add'.

Foundation stage profile currently plots progress throughout the education system which it is rare for pupils to deviate from. I hope this system changes soon, but currently teachers hands are tied by the system.

Pugs - I'm sorry, I'm not quite getting this. [thick emoticon]

I undestand the general pressure on a reception teacher to mark pupils conservatively - but why does this effect summer-borns specifically.

Thanks for your patience

I was a late summer baby, always youngest in my year and top of the class throughout. If I had been born a month later I would have been oldest in class and bored STUPID and probably have needed moving up a year.
It depends on the kid.

Well, obviously this research doesn't mean that every summer born will do badly academically. It means that 1 in 5 summer borns (20 percent) will do less well than they would have if they had been one of the oldest in their class (at least that is how i understand it, but I am an October born in a school system which divides by calendar years, so maybe my maths is a bit poor ;)

Someone asked if you see the same trend in countries were children start school later. Here in Norway we do, even though school starting age is 6 (used to be 7 when this research was done). The disadvantage of the younger children stays until secondary school and beyond, but the difference in grades is fairly small. And on an individual level there will be other factors which matters more.

Partially agree with the report and in my dd school the Septemper born children dominated the top sets especially for Mathematics. Those born in the summer tend to play together and sail normally in the middle for both reading and maths. I suppose from common sense without any report this gap is built from birth-one child 11 months ahead already. At 11 months the September born will be 22months (Perhaps talking and exploring the world already). I think those summer born that achieve to the same high level with the September will be exceptionally gifted, worked/supported extremelly hard or in a very good school

Hmmm. I was a summer baby and have 3 degrees including law and one from LSE. Guess it really hurt me.

Can I just ask, how is the Scottish system any better? Don't the Feb-born children just end up taking the place of the August-borns? Same with splitting into two 6-month groups. Somebody has to be the youngest, surely?

jackstarb - sorry for not getting back to you earlier.

In answer to your question it is because whatever marks are given in exams throughout a child's career use the 'baseline assessment at age 4' as a guide to where a child should be. For example, a child who gets mainly level 9's at age 4 will be expected to get mainly A's & A* at GCSE level. Therefore teachers look at the youngest 4 year olds and worry about giving them too high a mark as it will affect how their school is marked by ofsted all the way through the system.

Hope that is clearer for you

not my dd no. Aug born and is one of the highest achievers in her class for reading/maths/science/history She is very mature for her age and the teachers are very impressed with her. She is 9 and has beaten some year sixs in a science exam.

Being one of the youngest in her class has never held her back.

ds who october born has always struggled

Depends on the child imo

Pugsandseals - thanks, I've got it now .