Summer babies do less well academically in part due to streaming.

[TwistTee]

www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-21699054

I read this article with great interest and much concern. My 4 yr old daughter, born at the end of August already shows some signs of a lack of confidence and poor concentration when compared to the older kids in her class. Not surprising as some of them are almost a whole year older.
It worries me that she could potentially always be behind and I often question if we made the right decision in starting her schooling at age 4.
I'd be interested in your thoughts and experiences of summer babies in this context. Any tips on confidence issues?

And does anyone have a view on the issue of streaming as mentioned in the article? Her school are about to sort the kids but have not yet decided how. Her teacher said they might do it by age, ability or random. I was keen on the former as it would mean she stays in a class of 20 as opposed to a class of 30.

I don't think this is necessarily the case, depends on the child. DD is 17 and born in July but she is doing really well at A level doing A2 and predicted good grades. She seems to be brighter than my ED who is born in December.

I remember though when she was in Y1 they had just re-introduced kids going to school at 4.5 so her friends from nursery with September birthdays were in reception. up to then it was rising 5 so the Summer birthday kids got no reception.

she needed full time school earlier I feel.

I have a slightly different perspective on this to a lot of the other mums in Scotland I think (maybe because I am English). I think the fact that January and february born children (youngest in the year) can defer to start school for 1 year is actually incredibly biased towards more middle class families who can afford this option. It means that the oldest in a class is usually MORE than 1 year older than the youngest. What I would like to see in scotland would be something like EYFS as children here go much more into formal learning in P1.

pozzled I understand what you're saying but its only ever looking at averages / classes of people - a child born (in a particular month) to parents with certain level of intelligence, with a certain income level or whatever, going to an average schoo, compared to a child born in a different month born to similar parents etc. It can never take account of variations and individual characteristics which is why I think its not persuasive "evidence".

I'd also be worried about a school streaming 4yr old children by ability. I'd be concerned that labelling a child as average or low achieving so early on could have lasting effects on academic achievements, whether because it affects the child's confidence, or whether it's because the teachers don't expect them to achieve as much.

DS is an August baby and was 6 weeks premature, and I'm concerned that this sort of thing will affect him when he reaches school age.

I'm well aware that there are plenty of high achieving August babies, but the research all indicates that birth month is a factor in how well a child does at school. I don't think it's sensible to dismiss the research just because some August babies do well. As far as I'm concerned, the research is suggesting to me that we're going to need to take extra care to make sure that DS is well supported when he does start school, because it's easier for August babies to fall behind at school than it is for the children born earlier in the year group.

Mandy21 Sat 09-Mar-13 20:56:53 - not sure I understand your point here. If comparing an August born child and a September born child born to parents with similar levels of intelligence, with similar income levels, and both children going to an similar schools, isn't persuasive, then what would be?

DD1 was born August 29th,so started school the day after her 4th birthday.Luckily it is a little village school with only 10 in the Reception class and she didn't appear to be disadvantaged.The only concern that her teacher had was that she struggled to grip a pencil,which wasn't surprising as she was never keen on drawing and I wasn't going to make a 3 year old practise writing before she'd even set foot in a classroom.Anyway,we practised holding a pencil and within a few weeks she was fine.She is tiny and slight,and her Year 4 teacher said that in games she was worried about the older bigger children knocking her over,but apart from that she doesn't seem to be suffering because of her birth date.I'm sure being in a small village school with small classes has helped,it has 100 or so pupils now and can't take any more.

What will happen when she goes to secondary school,I don't know.Our catchment school is huge and has always had a bad reputation and the only other nearby school streams the top SATS achievers into separate classes,with everyone else lumped in together.Anecdotally,the 'average' children in those classes get ignored as the teachers are too busy fire fighting the rest.

Purple, yes I agree about the damage of labelling so young.

Bright children will do well no matter what month they are born. Average children summer born are at a distinct disadvantage when it comes to streaming.

Bright children will do well no matter what month they are born, sorry this is too sweeping a generalisation. Bright children in the same situation as average children will not face the same issues.

I think it depends very much on the personaility/ability of the individual child. A confident, clever child will always easily hold their own against the rest of the class, regardless of when their birthday is.

This is absolutely the most informed and insightful comment on this entire thread.

When my DS entered reception class at age 4 and 2 weeks (already able to read and write) he and another boy, born about a week before him, ended up being far and away the highest achievers in the class, and indeed right the way through primary school. This has continued on into secondary school too and they're now predicted to achieve A* and A grades at GCSE.

In fact, at the end of Yr1, my DS and his August born friend took some of the SATS papers that the Yr2 children had taken that year in order to assess where they were and they both performed well. As a result they were given extension tasks in their own class.

This goes to show that not only did these two August born boys have the ability to hold their own with their pre-Christmas born classmates, they had the ability to hold their own with children the year above them, some of whom were almost two years older than them, let alone one.

My advice to all would be, don't fall into the trap of pigeon-holing children based on when in the year their birthdays fall. Try your very best to support your own child through their education by doing as much with them as you can to augment what is being done at school and don't waste your time worrying about what their peers are doing. It's your child that matters, not everyone else's.

purplestorm I'm trying to say that there are far too many variables to make the "evidence" convincing - even if Child A and Child B are similar (on paper) in every way except the month of birth, they don't have exactly the same parents, or exactly the same teacher / nursery or the same genetics, so how can anyone say its down to the month? Lots of people have said its down to confidence, size etc. That has absolutely nothing to do with the date of birth.

Miarage I wouldn't worry too much. In my experience in secondary schools it's the brightest children who are the ones that are disadvantaged, not the average ones.

The received wisdom seems to be that bright children are more than capable of taking care of themselves so they're the forgotten ones in secondary schools, believe me. They're the ones most at risk of not fulfilling their full potential.

Targets mean that all attention is focussed on the pupils most likely to jeopardise the school's ability to achieve the highest possible percentage of pupils achieving 5 or more A* to C grades at GCSE.

Mandy21 - I'm just struggling to see what other variables could account for the consistent evidence suggesting that August born babies do less well on average than September born ones.

For instance, the mother's educational background has an impact on how well kids do, but it's hard for me to imagine that well educated mothers are far more likely to have autumn born babies than they are to have summer born babies.

And surely a child's size, at least when they start primary school, has a lot to do with the date of birth? A child who is 4 years and 1 day old is likely to be smaller than a child who is 4 years and 51 weeks old.

Purplestorm I'm sorry I don't agree - the evidence just can't take account of the variables - yes, two mothers might be more or less exactly the same on paper, but just because parents are similarly well educated (for instance) doesn't mean their approach to parenting is the same. How much time does the parent spend with their child? What do they do? How do they build their child's confidence? What other activities does the child do? What has their diet been like? Have the parents encouraged the child to spend time away from parents at nursery / with grandparents so they're more accustomed to being left? Have they encouraged the child to be in a group environment with other 4 year olds in the run up to school (family friends / cousins / mother has stayed in touch with antenatal group)?

Your point about size is exactly what I'm arguing against - you're making sweeping statements that a child who is 4yrs and 1 day is likely to be smaller than a child who is about to be 5 - no, its a generalisation. A child with tall parents might be tall, a child who was born in September but was a twin might be smaller than a singleton born later in the year. My point is it just depends on the individual child and their specific circumstances and whilst the child and those circumstances might appear similar, with their birth months being the only difference, there are a million and one variables that will have impacted on a child by the time they start school at 4 and no evidence can take account of all of them.

Perriwinkle , I don't think people on this thread are pigeon holing summer borns as being behind. I don't think anyone does.

I think this thread and the evidence linked are referring to average ability summer borns, not ones that are sitting SATS tests early etc.

It's also easy to say it doesn't matter what other people's children are doing when your school doesn't stream.

Then it does matter. A great deal.

Of course it doesn't matter if your child is super bright. But if they are borderline or average and each year could be put in a class where they are judged by parents and children to have lesser ability, then all the confidence issues etc mentioned up thread come into play.

Which at age 5 is very wrong.

mandy we aren't talking about individuals. We are talking about overall attainment of large groups. The individual characteristics of each individual are thus evened out, giving significant findings for THE GROUP.

My DD is late August born and now in Year 1, so I find these articles, and subsequent discussions, interesting. As I am not a teacher, I can only comment anecdotally. My DD is achieving highly for her age; she was streamed at the end of reception into the Yr 2/3 class. She is currently working at NC level 2 in all subjects and predicted to achieve level 3 (possibly level 4!) by the end of Year 2. This isn't a stealth boast; I am trying to explain that some children do buck the trend...

That said, there has been years of research on this, and the evidence does suggest that on average summer born children are at an academic disadvantage.

It really frustrates me; all this research is pointless and futile, unless it is used to instigate changes. It simply isn't good enough to say that summer born children are at a disadvantage, unless there are think tanks/policy groups looking to redress this disparity.

I have a winter born dc1, a spring born dc2 and a summer born (July) dc3.

My dc's school is a 2-form entry which is split entirely based on age (Sept-Feb/March, March/April-August) and then grouped for Maths and English.

Some children from the older class come into the younger class for these lessons, and some children from the younger class go into the older class. The rest of the lessons are taught in their own classes.

My eldest is winter born and had to go into the younger class for Maths and English throughout primary. The affect this had on confidence is still prevalent now (Y8!). Dc1 is average ability, with strengths in some areas and weaknesses in others, like most children I expect. She has pretty average SAT results, with some as high as 7c and some as low as 5c. She's doing well imho. If you ask her, she'll tell you that she's thick ...and if you ask her why she thinks that, she'll tell you that her primary teachers thought she was
I tell her that she has many strengths and many talents. She struggles to believe me.

I don't know the answer to that.

Conversley, my summer born dc has gone into the older class since Reception. She's fine academically, well actually that's a little unfair, she's very good academically, but has taken a good few terms to hold her own socially.
Lots of her friends stay in the same class for both and according to the parents whom I chat with, they're very happy and doing well.

My spring born is also in the top half of the class, but has been pretty much oblivious to it all until she entered Y5 and all the SAT's pushiness.

My experience of streaming early on (or is that classed as setting?) is that for those who stay in their own class, it's not a problem. For those who go 'down' for Maths and English - the effects can be devastating and long-lasting.

So, Mandy, how do you explain the results showing that August born babies statistically do less well academically than autumn born babies?

Yes, the level and type of parental involvement will make a huge difference - but if what the parents do is the only factor, why do August born babies do less well academically on average? I believe that the average parents of August born babies are just as likely to encourage their child's development as the average parents of autumn born babies.

And yes, I am making a sweeping generalisation about a child of 4 years and 1 day being smaller than a child of 5 years. This sweeping generalisation of mine is backed up by the height charts in DS's red book. According to that, a 4 year old on the 50th centile is 103cm tall. A 5 year old on the 50th centile is 110cm tall. A 4 year old on the 99th centile will indeed be taller than a 5 year old on the 2nd centile, but this doesn't change the fact that the average 5 year old is taller than the average 4 year old.

As Fallenangle says, "we aren't talking about individuals. We are talking about overall attainment of large groups."

Taffeta you said it's also easy to say it doesn't matter what other people's children are doing when your school doesn't stream. Then it does matter. A great deal.

I'm sorry but I still can't see why it matters what other children are doing. I never bothered what the others were doing. Their progress or abilities didn't concern me in the slightest . I wasn't one of those mothers who, with faux altruism, went into my child's class to listen to reading simply in order to nose in on what the others were doing to make comparisons like so many do. If comparisons are necessary, then your child's teacher will make you aware of it at the appropriate time.

If you become aware, or it is brought to your attention, that your child is struggling at school then as a parent is is your duty and obligation to do all you can to help bring them on. If it requires you speaking to the teacher to make a plan to support them at home then you do it, no question about it.

If after all of that they are able to move onto the "higher table" or put into the "higher group" or whatever it may be called at your child's school then great. If not, and they are still struggling, then that may very well just be a fact of your child's life. At least you will be secure in the knowledge that as a parent you have done all you can to raise their level of achievement and address any shortfall that may be occuring in the classroom.

If you aren't prepared to do whatever it takes to help them and simply blame the school or the time of year that they were born then you're doing your child a grave disservice.

If you'd prefer to sit back and say, "all the other children make my child feel thick" or "oh, they're bound to be behind because they have a late summer birthday and are much younger than all the others", that's just a cop out in my view. Frankly, I think it beggars belief that some people are still using this as an excuse into secondary school too.

I'm sorry but I still fail to see that worrying about what other children in the class are doing has any bearing on your own child's progress. Education does not begin and end in the classroom. Sadly though, far too many parents seem to think that it does and find it an easier route to blame everyone and everything (including bonkers surveys) apart from themselves for their children's lack of progress.

Your child's individual achievements and abilities, or lack thereof, will be noticed by any teacher worth their salt, who will tailor their learning accordingly. Anyone who tells you otherwise is doing decent teachers a great disservice.

Surveys will always manipulate data in order to prove a hypothesis. This survey is no different.

Children are all individuals and having a birthday fall at a certain time of year is certainly no measure of intelligence, or marker for how well they will perform at school or benchmark for what they will ultimatley achieve.

If parents of late summer born children send their children off to school on the first day expecting very little of them, or expecting that they will be disadvantaged in the classroom due to the time of year they were born however, I'm afraid this will prove to be a self fulfilling prophecy.

So what if you "do your duty" as a parent, help them as much at home , as do all the other parents in class, and then they are still in the lower year?

Accept that your child should be labelled and judged by all? Accept that other pupils in the school will say they are in the class for the ones that are a bit dim? Accept that other parents will make comments like "I was surprised your DS/DD is in that class. I thought they were clever." ( I know someone to whom this was said about their Y1 5 yo last year ) Accept that your child will have lower expectations made of them, perhaps just because they are not an early developer?

It is very naive to assume that people of current average ability summer born children assume they will always be average ability and/or have low expectations for them. I, for example, am aware that my DD learns at her own pace, and has always reached milestones when she is ready, rather than way ahead of the curve at an early age, like my DS. I think she will be a late developer and blossom further up the school.

But this becomes less likely if she is put in a lower class, as her confidence will be dented by the lower expectation of the school and the comments of other parents and children in the school. No matter how I build her up at home, I can't control comments and attitudes to her at school ( by other children especially )

I stress I am not talking about setting. I am talking about streaming a whole class, where all can see who for a given year ( and there is little movement year on year ) is in the lower stream and the higher stream, from age 5.

Please don't minimise the impact this has when you have no experience of it, Perriwinkle.

The most interesting bit about that article linked below is that many very bright children are being labelled with special needs diagnoses by schools who simply can't really cope with them. This rather accords with my experiences with young for his year DS who was "diagnosed" in Year R with Aspergers, in Year 1 with some kind of defiance problem and in Y2 with being a bit dim and/or lazy. Now 19yo and doing very well in 2nd year engineering. But his school days were fraught from beginning to end, having started badly at age 4.

Two of the local schools here have an intake of 45. They composite classes from Y1 and do so by age. Their own explanation for this shows that they use age as a proxy for ability.

I refused to put either school down when I applied for DS2's school place, even though they are our closest two schools. He's August born and I want him to be judged on his ability not his age. It's completely fine for him to be in the bottom groups, so long as the judgemeng was based on what he's capable of and the support he needs. I don't want him immediately put with the younger children so as to 'reduce the differentiation needed in each class'. It strikes me as a really obvious way to create a self fulfilling prophecy.

I'd feel the same if he were September born. I'd want him judged on his actual ability, and not to have any additional pressure to succeed academically based on being older. Using age as a proxy for ability is just lazy school management and teaching.

I now live in America and the idea of summer-born children struggling is such a wide-held belief that such children are often "red-shirted" and held back a year. Originally such an approach was to benefit school sports teams by providing them with bigger kids, but parents have become so antsy about children in general struggling. It is now outlawed in some states and a hugely controversial subject.

I'm in NYC and the private schools here will not, no way, no how, accept summer boys for their K intake. The official cut-off date for intake is August 31st, but they don't even consider children born beyond May. Interestingly the public schools here (local state schools) take children born Jan-Dec, so my son, a late August boy, will not be the youngest in class. If we'd decided to do private school, he'd only be eligible to start at 6.