To defer a bright child

[Clairebear231]

My son has always been bright, potty trained early, good speech from a young age etc I have never had any concerns. He is due to start school this September at 4 years and 2 months. All professionals say he is capable and ready....but I've recently found out I can defer him starting until next year when he will 5 years and 2 months giving him a big advantage throughout his school career.
My DH is very against this and feels he will be fine in school but I don't want him to be just fine I'd like him to excel, I'm also worried he will struggle being one of the youngest both academically and socially.
What are your thoughts on this? Has anyone not deferred a bright child and then regretted it or vice versa?

You don't know how he will develop over the next few years.

If he becomes an immature 10 year old, then deferring will have done him a favour.

But if he outgrows the primary school when he still has a year to go, he will not thank you for your decision.

So you take a gamble really. I would just keep him in year.

I really wouldn't defer him. He is bright with engaged parents. He already has advantages to excel. My kids have spring birthdays. They are finding school easy and often bored. DH and I are Autumn birthdays and I thought I wanted that for my kids, but now I think they would have just been even more bored at the start of school if they were 6m older. He sounds more than ready for school, don't hold him back!

If he's not struggling then send him to school.

DS birthday is end of July so he is one of the youngest in the year. I didn't consider deferring as he was bright and able and already getting bored at nursery.

Making him do another year at nursery would have been detrimental to him in so many ways.

He's now in year 7 and in top sets for everything.

I would keep him in the correct year. He can complete post 16 over three years if he needs extra time at the end of his education.

I have an academically bright, summer birthday child.

They missed the first two terms of Reception, then joined their cohort - due to us relocating it wasn’t worth starting somewhere else and moving.

Personally I think missing the beginning of Reception was beneficial as it allowed them to mature a bit socially.

My friend didn’t start her DC until the middle of Y1, also pleased with her decision.

I wouldn’t have considered deferring - my dc is excelling academically, was definitely ready for high school at the correct time, etc.

I do think in England we start school early, and it can seem too early for some. But holding them back isn’t necessarily the right decision either. There is so much development in that 5th year.

Missing Reception was perfect for my child, being held back and then starting just absolutely would not have been.

I would keep him with his peers.

If he is ready for school and can cope socially as well as being bright then I wouldn’t defer. If he was very young for his age then I would. I am a summer born, I was bored at times in Primary, would have hated being deferred. The most academic, sporty confident child in DS’s year at Primary was the youngest, nearly a whole year younger than the oldest in the class. If you hadn’t known you would have assumed the oldest was one of the youngest

I wouldn’t in the circumstances.

As I have learnt (via my 4 year old who is in reception) over the last few months, they miss absolutely nothing. I wouldn't want my child to constantly be asked why they are older than everyone else, nor would I want my child to be bullied for being held back as they go further through school. Yes there are times when it is necessary but I would not be doing it for no valid reason

He'll actually be at an advantage being younger, if he's smart if anything he'll pick things up quickly. Both my DH were the youngest both skipped two years). I think life is much easier when you're younger than older ie finishing school at 16, rather than 17

If he is bright and you hold him back for a year, then he's quite possibly going to be bored all the way through Primary. Being bored doesn't make for the best learning potential, children can switch off, become disengaged and don't have the chance to find things hard.

Finding some stuff hard is beneficial for learning resilience. Especially later on in their academic life at university, when if they've chosen a challenging course, they will find things difficult.

Do you want a child who cruises through life, but then may find stumbling blocks difficult to overcome because they've not had that challenge, or do you want a child who has grown up having to think and be resilient when academic challenges are thrown at them?

I have an August born and I did consider deferring her given what I’d heard about summer babies being disadvantaged. But it was precisely because she’s bright it made my mind up. She’s thriving in school and is exceeding expectations. Reception was a bit of a struggle as she didn’t have the same fine motor skills so found handwriting hard but she’s doing grand now. By contrast I have an October born just about to start reception and she can already write well and has started reading. But it evens out. And a lot depends on their personality, my eldest is big and outgoing, you wouldn’t think she was the second youngest in the class. DC2 is much more reserved and I think will benefit from starting school that bit older.

I presume you are in somewhere like Liverpool where they have brought in regulation for deferral. Would you lose government funding for the nursery place?

I have a summer born boy (mid August) and read as much of the academic literature as possible to decide. Yes, summer born boys do on average worse, but class is rarely adjusted for. As you can see on the thread plenty of people ‘made it’ in life being summer born. If you had decided to defer earlier in the year I think it would be different. But he has been prepared for school by nursery, he won’t be able to stay in his current setting. So he will end up having to make new friends, new routines and basically covering the same thing again for a year. I can not for the life of me see how this will benefit your child.

This is a bonkers idea. Of course he should be at school in the right year group. I've heard of bright children being moved up a year but never held back. Stop trying to find competitive advantage at such a young age and let him start school with his peers.

You're beong a bit ridiculous to be honest. If he was turbing 4 a day before the cut off or shown signs of being behind for his age, you may have a point. But he hasn't.

If anything you'll be probably putting him qd a disadvantage. My experience of school is for the first year teachers basically spend efforts getting children to a fairly equal footing. So if he is a little behind his peers due to his age he'll soon catch up. A few years into school i doubt you'll even notice the difference between him and his peers. Holding him back through some need to give him opportunities sounds like a bit of a fantasy in your head. You could do that and he's bored, does no work, has no friends and is miserable so learns nothing and ends up failing anyway.

You don’t care what people think but want to know if it will help or hinder?

I think it will hinder.

@Clairebear231 you know your child better than anyone commenting on this thread.
If you feel, deferring him, would ensure a more confident, happy child, I'd definitely go for that.

We seem to have an obsession with getting kids into school as soon as possible in this country. When compared to countries where children don't start until they're 7, are we doing better? Probably not.

I really cannot imagine primary school kids obsessing about ages and which one is the oldest vs youngest.

Sometimes it's difficult to break away from 'social norms' - but lots of us do because every single child is different; one shoe size doesn't fit all.
Hopefully you'll find what works for you all.

If he is already doing all the transition things now then I'd say it's too late to change your mind for no real reason other than because you can.
However, in general I think there shouldn't be any rush to get 4 year old into formal education. Look at the Scandinavian systems for example or countries like The Netherlands where kids all start school at 4 but there is no stigma to them repeating a year if needed so it's normal for each class to contain kids of different ages.
In Scotland they have just changed the deferal rules so now any child who is 4 when school starts has the option to wait until they are 5,without needing special referrals or anything. I think in the future this will be more and more common. Academics is just one part it it. Emotional and social maturity are also very important. At 4, some kids are ready and some kids aren't. Both are ok.

Agree with pp it would not be beneficial to your DC to defer them.
Also,"bright" at this age does not always mean bright all the way through. Your description of how he is bright is questionable. I had 3 very early talkers ( very noticeably early - strangers always commenting on it)
Also had 3 potty trained early (between 17 months and 25 months. 2 of them dry at night by 30 months)
I do not consider any of this a marker of being an academic genius.
They are teens now and have/are achieving varying academic levels.
Send your child to school, YABU

Surprised by these comments, Deferring is incredibly common in Scotland and any teacher I've spoken to about it is all for it. DD is Feb born and could be going to school this August at 4.5, but you can defer and get another funded year of nursery care so they start school at 5.5 instead. Everyone in our antenatal group is deferring, including us. If a 4yo is bored at nursery, that's a failure of the early years setting.

i have an end of august baby and wish i had done this. she really struggled and still struggles now in year 8. she had literally just turned 4 when she started

I really wouldn't. 4 of my dc are summer born and we had the option to defer the youngest 2. We didn't and have no regrets. 2nd child went part time until Easter as recommended by the school. All the others did the normal settling in time of 3-4 weeks part time and then full time. Eldest struggled a bit with tiredness in reception but was fine from then on and now doing really well in college.

If you feel, deferring him, would ensure a more confident, happy child, I'd definitely go for that

But the OP doesn't want a more confident and happy child, she want her child to excel.

I was a year younger than everyone in my class. It actually made me thrive more and work harder. I loved being the youngest and already at 'their level'. It felt like I was a year ahead of everyone.

I don't think a situation where all his peers would also be deferring and they wouldn't have done school readiness prep or started to talk about moving to big school is at all comparable to a child thinking they are going to school, being excited for it and ready for it socially and academically and then being left behind with a bunch of 3 year olds.

I wouldn’t defer. I was in exactly the same position and agreed with the school for her to start part time (mornings) and then work her way up.

At the end of the year, she is reading everything, maths is good, writing and spelling coming along. It would have been a massive disservice to her to defer, she has come on an extraordinarily amount over this year.

Do not underestimate how much a child develops in reception she’s still not 5 yet but would be bored to tears if I had deferred her. I see it with her friends who were September/October babies and won’t start until this autumn they are chomping at the bit to get out of nursery.